[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3013-H3033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H3013]]

House of Representatives

  2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND 
           RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES

                              (Continued)

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before we broke for the last vote, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in his wonderful humor put up a chart claiming 
that the amendment that I have put into the bill to protect men and 
women in uniform allows us to invade the Netherlands. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has a wonderful sense of humor and I greatly 
appreciate that. But this is pretty serious business because an 
International Criminal Court has been created, a court that the United 
States has chosen not to participate in. We felt it very necessary to 
pass a bill that is included in this bill, to make sure that not just 
our men and women in uniform can be arrested anywhere before the world 
and brought before this court. But there are certain assurances that 
will happen or authorities that we give the President.
  The thing missing from the gentleman's chart is the picture in the 
middle of the chart of a soldier or a sailor behind bars, being 
arrested by a court that is totally unaccountable for. This provision 
that is the core of the bill, by the way, simply gives the President 
the authority to do whatever is necessary to free our people who get 
snatched by this rogue court, arrested anywhere in the world, can be 
tried anywhere in the world, but could be taken to the Hague to appear 
before the International Criminal Court. That authority could even 
include an array of options including providing legal assistance.
  Now, at the same time it could make clear that should a country 
arrest and detain an American, we all should expect that the President 
would absolutely use the powers at his disposal to free those 
Americans. Now, if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
suggesting that the Netherlands, which is our ally, would actually 
arrest and detain an American, because we continually hear from the ICC 
supporters that this bill is unnecessary, because there are plenty of 
protections to ensure Americans will not be held, we would certainly 
hope that our allies do not intend to arrest our military personnel and 
try them before the International Criminal Court.
  The fact that the ICC is centered at the Hague is irrelevant. Trials 
could take place in any country that is party to the treaty. But more 
importantly, this is aimed at countries arresting and transporting 
Americans. Let us just say, for instance, that Iran, who is a party to 
the court, or even the al Qaeda, could capture an American soldier and 
could hold them insisting that they were going to turn them over to the 
ICC. Now, our language says very clearly and I quote, ``bring about the 
release of any person being detained, imprisoned by or on behalf of or 
at the request of the ICC.''
  Is there anyone here who would honestly say we should not do 
everything in our power to free that soldier? This provision also 
serves to make it very clear to any rogue nation who might want to 
arrest an American for political purposes, we will not tolerate it and 
we will take action to stop it.
  Mr. Chairman, that person that is behind bars on that chart could be 
the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) own constituent. What are you 
going to do then? What are you going to do for the men and women in 
uniform? What are you going to do for Members of Congress that could be 
arrested and brought before the court? What are you going to do for any 
person that is in the bill, any covered United States person, any 
covered allied persons or any individuals detained or imprisoned for 
official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States 
citizen or a covered allied person?
  This is a very serious provision in the bill. It is serious because 
it is timely. In one month all of this can proceed. In one month while 
our soldiers are in Afghanistan, they can be captured and brought 
before the ICC. In one month any of our soldiers in Bosnia could be 
captured and brought before the ICC. This is very serious stuff. It is 
not funny. Let us protect our men and women in uniform and support the 
provision.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I should say at the outset that the provision provided 
in this legislation by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I will 
admit is more thoughtful than the propositions which we usually get 
from him; but nonetheless, I would like to again correct the record, 
and I would urge the gentleman to read his own amendment.
  I indicated in my remarks that I thought the gentleman may have 
raised a legitimate concern insofar as U.S. citizens are concerned. But 
I would point out that his language goes far beyond just protecting 
U.S. citizens. It says, ``The President may use all means necessary to 
bring about the release of any person,'' of any person, and it says, 
``the persons authorized to be freed are not only United States 
citizens but covered allied persons.'' And then the legislation goes on 
to describe who those allied persons are: ``Elected or appointed 
officials or other persons employed by or working on behalf of the 
government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally, including 
Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of 
Korea, New Zealand or Taiwan.''
  Clap, if you please. The gentleman says this does not only apply to 
the geographical region of the Hague, it applies to any other region of 
the world

[[Page H3014]]

where one of those allied personnel could be held. I submit to you the 
large amount of applause from that side of the aisle indicates just how 
reckless apparently a good many people in this Congress are.
  I would suggest, as I did in my earlier remarks, that if you want to 
deal with this issue in a serious way, you will not, on the basis of a 
20-minute debate that took place in the Committee on Appropriations, 
adopt a multi-page bill which serves as a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution not 
just to protect our own citizens, but anyone else in the world. It just 
seems to me that that does indeed make the United States the laughing 
stock. And I do not think the United States deserves that.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has a perfect right to 
offer it, and anyone who wants to support it has a perfect right to 
support it. I personally think that it is a good concern which in its 
draftsmanship is ill conceived and over-reaches. And if it is indeed to 
become law, then it needs substantial repair in order to protect the 
dignity of the United States, and reflect the common sense which 
usually is supposed to come from this body.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter. I am really concerned, I 
know that my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has used 
that picture, chart, diagram, whatever he referred to it as, to make an 
interesting observation about this issue. But can you imagine what we 
would look like if that particular chart showed up on the front page of 
our friendly newspapers in Europe with our allies or potential allies? 
I am afraid that it would make us look really bad if a distinguished 
Member of this Congress was suggesting that another Member was 
advocating an invasion of an ally. That is what that chart makes it 
look like. So this is a serious matter, and it deserves serious 
discussion.
  Just a few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to visit with some of our 
troops in Bosnia. Yes, we are still in Bosnia, and we are still doing 
things there. And just 2 days before I was with those troops, they had 
arrested one of the indicted war criminals in Bosnia. They had to use 
some unusual sources of information. They had to use some very unusual 
and extreme methods for apprehending this indicted war criminal. They 
did so.
  Now, it was a rather delicate operation. Had they been out there 
having to worry about doing something that would violate the 
International Criminal Court or being arrested for something they did, 
I just wonder how effective their mission might have been. As it was, 
their mission was very effective.
  I will tell another story. We all know about Operation Anaconda in 
Afghanistan. As part of Operation Anaconda, there were several 
helicopters with troops. One of the soldiers on board was a Navy SEAL. 
He was knocked out of the helicopter as it rose from the ground, and he 
fell to the ground. The troops in the other helicopter went to the 
ground and began a fire fight that lasted for nearly 8 hours trying to 
rescue this Navy SEAL who had been knocked out of the helicopter. They 
did not know if he was alive or dead at the time, but they were either 
going to bring him back healthy or they were going to bring back his 
body. One way or another they were going to bring him back.
  They were engaged in a tremendous fire fight with the al Qaeda 
military unit. One of those Rangers on that helicopter that went in was 
a Ranger named Mark Anderson. I am glad Mark Anderson did not have to 
worry about something that might get him arrested by the International 
Criminal Court.
  I am really glad this is not one of the things he had to think about 
at the time when he was trying to rescue his comrades and save his 
life. But unfortunately, just several weeks ago my wife and I attended 
the funeral of Ranger Mark Anderson who lost his life in that incident. 
I am very happy that Mark did not have to worry about being arrested 
and being taken to the International Criminal Court while he was 
performing a mission trying to save a fellow trooper. So I think that 
this is a serious issue, and I think that we need to be concerned about 
it. But I do not think we should be giving friend or foe around the 
world an opportunity to reprint a poster like we just saw here that 
would indicate that Members of this Congress think that we are going to 
invade an ally.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the support of our women and men in uniform 
is indeed a serious matter. I take a back seat to no one in my support 
of a strong defense and intelligence budget for fighting and winning 
the wars of the 21st century.

                              {time}  2045

  Throughout my tenure in Congress I have voted to ensure that the 
women and men defending our Nation have the tools and resources 
necessary to fight and win the next war, not the last one.
  During that same time, I have also voted for the tough choices that 
led to a balanced budget, beginning with the 1993 budget, then Penny-
Kasich, and continuing through the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. I voted to 
put us on a path that led to the first balanced budget in a generation, 
and I voted with huge bipartisan majorities of this body to create a 
lockbox and protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  That is why it is so disappointing that we are considering a 
supplemental appropriations bill that only continues multibillion 
dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Those deficits break our 
repeated promises to protect Social Security and Medicare and they hurt 
our fragile economy.
  Mr. Chairman, we can do better. Sitting down together to hammer out a 
plan that returns us to a budget surplus is far better than increasing 
our debt limit by $750 billion. I am profoundly disappointed that this 
body is unwilling to make the hard choices necessary to balance the 
budget and protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. 
Instead, we are choosing imbalance.
  What we need, Mr. Chairman, is a wartime budget that fully funds all 
that is necessary to win the war on terrorism and puts all other 
spending and tax issues back on the table to be reprioritized in a 
balanced budget framework. I support tax cuts that we can afford.
  Fiscal responsibility is as much a part of our homeland defense as 
spending on the war on terrorism. Without economic security, we will 
never truly have national security. The pending bill fails to reflect 
this reality. Sadly, it only ensures that future generations will be 
forced to pick up the pieces left by our unwillingness to make tough 
but balanced budget decisions. We should do better.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address the issue of Israel money or some 
aid to Israel that is in this bill, about $200 million, and talk about 
the need for it.
  Earlier a speaker said that the economy in Israel is strong, and I 
would take exception to that. If my colleagues go down to Ben Yehuda 
marketplace, entertainment area, it is empty. A person cannot go to 
Bethlehem because the terrorists have it. A person cannot go to the old 
city of Jerusalem. One can hardly go to the Western Wall without going 
through more security than it requires to go to the airport.
  The hotels are empty or half full. The shopping areas are as well. If 
one goes to a mall in Israel right now, it is like driving up to the 
U.S. Capitol; you have to have your car searched; you have to have it 
turned off; you have to have bomb dogs sniff it; and then when you park 
in the parking lot at the mall, you go into the mall and there again 
you have to go through a metal detector. That is life in Israel.
  Also life in Israel is a story of a woman at a shoe store who was an 
employee there and was asked, when a woman walked in one day with what 
appeared to be a bottle of water, to bend down and pick up a pair of 
shoes because the customer was interested in it. When the woman bent 
down, the customer pulled out this water, which was not water after 
all, but acid, and poured it on her, burning 50 percent of the surface 
of her body.
  It also means, as the case with three teenagers who went to Sbarro's 
Pizza to get a snack after studying one day, and they went in there and 
there was a

[[Page H3015]]

third young man with him, and he remembered he forgot his wallet and 
ran out, and when he walked out to get his money, somebody walked in 
with a guitar case full of explosives and blew up the pizza parlor, 
killing 16 people, including the two young ladies.
  This is a story of a 19-year-old soldier who lived at home, who 
walked out of her house one day and three minutes later was stabbed 
just about in her own front yard, stabbed to death, and the terrorist 
killed three other Israelis in their neighborhood complex before he was 
captured.
  The stories go on and on, and the reason why I mention them is 
because these statistics are real, and we often look at the statistics, 
and we hear about Israel and the suicide bombers, but we do not realize 
there is a lot of other statistics in terrorism that goes on, and these 
are the numbers just until Tuesday, May 22, that have happened of 
terrorist attacks in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
  We hear about Israel's aggression in the town of Jenin. We hear about 
their aggression against private citizens. Well, here are some of the 
weapons which myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch) inspected three weeks ago when we were in Israel. 
These are the weapons that were taken in the town of Jenin from so-
called citizens.
  Here is the rocket-propelled grenades that were confiscated by the 
Israeli Army from these so-called private citizens, and notice the 
Reynolds Wrap around them where they buried them to hide them from 
inspectors.
  The photos go on and on of munitions after munitions, and this is not 
to mention the 50 tons of ammunition that was on the Carine A, that was 
a ship, that was confiscated.
  Indeed, Israel is our ally. It is the only democracy in the Middle 
East, and it is surrounded by very hostile neighbors. Arafat is a 
terrorist. Arafat is not interested in peace. Arafat could end the 
violence, but he is incapable of bringing the peace on, and should we 
have an independent Palestinian State, my colleagues have to ask 
themselves, are we not creating another Iraq or another Iran? Will the 
axis of evil become four sets of tires on the road of destruction in 
the world?
  It is in America's interest to stand with Israel. They are a great 
ally. They are a democracy, but also, in order to keep our soldiers 
from having to go from Central Asia to the Middle East, leaving 
Afghanistan and going to fight in the Middle East, we need to stand 
solidly with Israel. We need to give them financial and economic 
support and military support at this time. I think it is very much 
appropriate that it is in this bill, and I hope that others will 
support it.
  I also want to say on a sad note, a personal note, many of my 
colleagues may have already known this, but the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Deutsch) is not with us tonight. He is a strong supporter of 
Israel, but his father passed away. So during the course of the next 
couple of hours if my colleagues find some time and feel compelled, 
keep the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) in your prayers.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, there are two issues before us today, and 
on one of them I do not think we will find a hint of dissent. We are at 
war and we stand united in our support for the President, the war on 
terrorism and the men and women of our Armed Forces who are fighting 
valiantly to preserve freedom and democracy.
  As a proud member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I have 
been a passionate advocate for providing whatever support our military 
needs to win this war and the funding in this bill is critical to 
meeting that goal. We should have an up-or-down vote on this important 
issue and we will, but there is another important issue at hand today, 
Mr. Chairman, and that is the Republicans' attempt to raise the debt 
limit.
  It is this issue that makes today a defining moment for this Congress 
and this country. Decades from now history will judge us by how we 
handled the fiscal situation that confronts us right now, and my heart 
is heavy because I have seen the response of the majority, and this is 
a travesty.
  We should have an up-or-down vote on this important issue of raising 
the debt limit, but we will not. A year ago the administration claimed 
there would be no need to increase the statutory ceiling on the public 
debt until 2008 if the Congress adopted the Republican budget. Last 
week, Treasury Secretary O'Neill wrote to Congress supporting the very 
same administration's recent request to raise the debt limit by three 
quarters of a trillion dollars in order to avoid default on interest 
payments due by July. These startling developments clearly highlight 
how responsible the fiscal policy of the administration and the 
leadership of this House has been.
  Last year I joined my Democratic colleagues in cautioning that the 
administration's budget simply did not add up. Sadly, our warnings were 
ignored and we were instead continually reassured that we could afford 
an enormous tax cut, ensure the solvency of Social Security and 
Medicare, pay down the national debt, fund our domestic priorities and 
still have a large reserve fund for unanticipated emergencies.
  As is now clear to us all, that budget was based on unrealistic 
surplus projections that never materialized and a misguided tax cut 
that lavished the vast majority of benefits on the wealthiest 
Americans.
  Not surprisingly, we now face deficits and an ever increasing 
national debt that stretch far beyond the temporary economic downturn 
or the costs of the war on terrorism.
  Each of us was elected by a majority of the people in our districts 
to come to our Nation's capital to vote and speak the will of the 
people. Yet the Republican leadership, in an attack that is becoming 
all too familiar in this Chamber, has denied an up-or-down vote on an 
issue that is critical to every one of our constituents.
  Let me be perfectly clear on one very important point. Any funds that 
become available from a debt limit increase come directly from the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds. There is simply no other 
money available, and as we pull out the national credit card and say 
charge it one more time, we are saddling future generations with 
massive debt and endangering the future fiscal stability of this 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, when the American people are already paying $1 billion 
in interest-only payments on the debt every day, we have a problem. 
When a debt ceiling of $5.95 trillion is no longer high enough, we have 
a problem. When the interest payments on our debt are on a fast track 
to become our single largest annual expenditure, we have a problem. And 
when the leadership of this body responds by raising the debt limit by 
a back door parliamentary maneuver instead of an honest up-or-down 
vote, we have a problem. That problem is a fiscal policy that does not 
work and a Republican majority that is willing to dip into the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds to make up for a shortfall created by 
a $1.8 trillion tax cut pushed through the House last year.
  This country will not survive economically if we do not get our 
fiscal house in order. The crisis is upon us now and the time to 
respond is now. Are we going to continue to mortgage our children's 
future or are we going to face this challenge with courage and 
integrity and put America back on the right track?
  It is time to leave behind these secretive, shameful, partisan ploys 
and honor our commitments. We could do this by working together to 
craft a bipartisan plan that will responsibly address the debt limit 
issue while protecting the Social Security and Medicare and ensuring 
the burdens of today's fiscal policies are not placed on the shoulders 
of our children and grandchildren.
  We need light in this Chamber. As President Woodrow Wilson once said, 
``Wherever any business affecting the public is conducted, wherever any 
plans affecting the public are laid, over that place a voice must speak 
with the divine prerogative of the people's will the words `let there 
be light.' ''.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no light in our work today.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H3016]]

  Mr. Chairman, we heard some more about spending all the Social 
Security surplus. I think it is probably prudent that we find out 
exactly why we are in the situation we are today.
  We have a problem with the Democrat leadership in that there has been 
no budget offered, only criticism. Now there is a body that presides on 
the north side of the Capitol and one on the south side of the Capitol. 
The body on the north side of the Capitol is also what some people 
would call AWOL, absent without leadership.
  This rule that we have here is a situation where we have added to the 
bill section 1403 that provides statutory assurance that the United 
States Government will take all steps necessary to guarantee the full 
faith and credit of the Federal Government.

                              {time}  2100

  This has been interpreted by the Members on the other side of the 
aisle that we are going to borrow $750 billion from the Social Security 
trust fund. Now, there is nothing in the legislation that says $750 
billion. It is an assumption made from a statement, just like a rumor 
on a rumor on a rumor. What the rule does do is it creates a mechanism 
to allow the conference committee to act on the statutory debt.
  We have been repaying the publicly held debt over the last 4 years. 
In fact, we have paid off nearly $.5 trillion of the nearly $4 trillion 
of this debt we have inherited from the Democrats who controlled 
Congress for the previous 40 years prior to 1995. The Republicans have 
reduced the public debt. The only growth in government debt was from 
inner-government debt. This is reflected by the bonds that are held in 
the Social Security trust fund.
  Now, the Republicans have set out on a course for the Federal 
Government to repay all the debt available for redemption over the next 
decade. There have been charges that the tax cuts are going to drive us 
into bankruptcy, but that is not true. There are some long-term bonds 
that will not mature for several decades, and we cannot get to those 
and pay them off without paying a premium to redeem them early. But we 
are still on track to meet this goal even after accounting for the 
President's tax cut.
  Now, the tax cut for fiscal year 2002 is $38 billion. That is how 
much money went back to the American public. What they did with that 
money was one of three things. You have a few options when you have a 
little extra money in your pocket. One, they could invest it, which is 
good for the economy, because it allows corporations to expand and 
create jobs. They can save it, which is good for the economy, because 
that creates capital for mortgages and people can go out and buy new 
homes. Or they can spend it, buying goods, which again creates a demand 
for jobs. All three things are good for the economy. So what we have 
done this year in tax relief is provide $38 billion into the economy, 
which is helping us come out of the recession.
  Now, on September 11, our whole system went into shock, our economy 
into shock. We started a war against terrorism that is worldwide. We 
have already provided $43 billion to address the needs and respond to 
the crisis that occurred from September 11. Some of it went to New York 
to help clean up and rebuild the city; some of it has gone to support 
our young men and women who are now fighting the war on terrorism 
across the globe, whether it be in Afghanistan or in the Philippines. 
So this allegation that this bill has $750 billion worth of debt coming 
out of the Social Security trust fund is not true. It is a 
misconception.
  Again, let me just refer to section 1403, which is now part of this 
bill. It says we are going to guarantee the full faith and credit of 
the government. Now, no one on the other side has really stopped to 
answer the question what would happen if we do not provide for the full 
faith and credit of the government. What crisis would then become 
apparent in our economy? What about those in our districts across the 
Nation that hold financial instruments from the government, like 
savings bonds or Treasury bills? What if one of my colleagues' best 
friends or a relative wanted to cash in a savings bond, and they went 
to the bank and the bank said, Well, the government does not have full 
faith and credit, therefore we are not going to honor your financial 
instrument?
  This is a very necessary part of conducting the business of the 
United States Government. So let us not continue with this facade about 
spending $750 billion out of the trust fund for Social Security. This 
is merely an instrument to make us assure the full faith and credit of 
the United States Government.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair again reminds all Members not to make 
improper references to the Senate.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if things had gone as planned, we might have passed 
this bill yesterday, passed it overwhelmingly, because we were united 
in doing what is right for this country. As a member of the Committee 
on Appropriations, I was proud of the way we worked together. Members 
on both sides of the aisle crafted a responsible bill addressing the 
very real emergency needs of this Nation as we fight a war on 
terrorism. It includes critical funding for the Pentagon, for airline 
security, for the economic recovery of New York. It funds our war on 
terrorism.
  Unfortunately, the bipartisan accomplishment was shattered by the 
Republican leadership's insistence on a back-door increase in the 
amount of the debt our Nation can run up. And my colleague who just 
spoke from the other side of the aisle said it does not say $750 
billion in there. That is because they do not want to say it, $750 
billion. They do not want to talk about it. My colleagues do not want 
to talk about what they are doing. They are doing it as something to 
hide from the American people.
  Because of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and those are the 
pockets that that tax cut went into, not into the pockets of middle-
class families in this country, the massive tax cuts for the wealthy 
that the Republicans passed last spring, we are operating again on 
borrowed money. Increasing our spending limit effectively pays for 
those tax cuts by raiding the Social Security trust fund. That is where 
the borrowed money comes from. Further, this gives Republicans a 
license to continue to do this for years to come.
  Put simply, it is like raising the limit on our national credit card 
and paying for it out of Social Security. Make no mistake, this 
maneuver has nothing to do with financing our war on terrorism, 
protecting our Nation, or economic downturn. Only $800 billion of the 
$2.7 trillion increase in our national debt projected by the 
administration itself is related to any of those needs.
  Where does the $2 trillion of debt come from? That is right, it comes 
from the Republican tax cut, pure and simple. That is why the 
administration had been seeking this increase well before September 11, 
and that is why Republicans refuse to allow a simple up-or-down vote on 
the issue. They do not want to face the consequences of their tax cut.
  This is a raid, pure and simple, on the Social Security trust fund to 
pay for a fiscally irresponsible plan. Increasing the Nation's spending 
limit raises interest rates; it amounts to a tax increase on all 
Americans. It will place the burden on our children for years to come.
  You know, this bill is supposed to be about supporting the war 
effort. It should be about giving our country the tools it needs to 
defeat terrorism in every corner of the globe. And it is appropriate 
that we consider this bill on the eve of the holiday during which we 
honor those who have fought for our country.
  We have heard a lot about patriotism on the floor of the House today 
and impugning people on this side of the aisle and their patriotism. 
Let me remind the prior speaker and the majority leader and the whip of 
the Republican Party that on rollcall vote number 103, April 28, 1999, 
at 8:18 p.m., we had a vote on the floor of this House authorizing the 
President of the United States to conduct military air operations and 
missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That was 
Serbia and Montenegro. Our planes were in the air, my colleagues, and 
the people who voted against those troops that night included the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), 
and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.

[[Page H3017]]

Tiahrt). 193 Democrats voted to protect our troops and 192 Republicans 
voted not to protect our troops. Let us talk about patriotism and put 
patriotism where it belongs.
  Everyone in this Chamber knows that without the extras loaded into 
this bill, virtually all of us would have supported this bill to help 
us to win the war on terrorism. I urge the Republican leadership to 
bring before this House a bill that does not tamper with Social 
Security. It is a sacred trust between generations.
  I have an 89-year-old mother, I have kids who I hope will be working 
for my Social Security the way I worked for my mother's Social 
Security. That is what it is about. It is about our values as 
Americans. It supports our belief that a lifetime of work should 
guarantee a safe, a secure, and a healthy and dignified retirement. It 
has nothing to do with this legislation which is about supporting our 
troops and winning the war on terrorism.
  It is time for House Republicans to be straightforward with the 
American people. The American people are going to hold my Republican 
colleagues accountable; and it is they, the American people, who will 
have the final say.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say I rise in very strong support 
of the DeLay amendment. It is a very serious and necessary amendment 
that makes clear that the United States will not sit idly by as 
prosecutors and judges, whose country of origin will be rogue states, 
bring politically motivated charges against United States servicemen 
and women around the globe.
  I truly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the depiction used by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) of this very serious amendment 
trivializes not only the amendment but the compelling risk to U.S. 
peacekeepers abroad, U.S. peacekeepers who are likely to be accused by 
rogue nations, prosecutors who work for countries like the Sudan, 
Libya, or other countries where human rights are trashed and cruelty is 
the order of the day. Our people could be held accountable for doing 
their duty for either peacekeeping or peacemaking. And that, frankly, 
is absolutely unacceptable.
  Let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that I was and I am a very 
strong supporter of the regional criminal actions that have been taken 
against those who commit crimes against humanity in Rwanda as well as 
in the former Yugoslavia. I believe we ought to do it on a regional 
basis, and not allow this ongoing freestanding court with judges and 
prosecutors, again, who are from rogue states who will sit in judgment 
of U.S. peacekeepers and peacemakers.
  Let me just also say on those regional courts, when the first 
tribunal was getting under way, I offered the amendments to 
significantly increase the amount of the U.S. contribution because of 
the terrible crimes that were being committed against the Croatians and 
then the Bosnians. So I take a back seat to no one about my concern in 
holding accountable the Milosevics of this world. But having said that, 
this tribunal is rife with mischief and is likely to kill peacekeeping 
as we know it.
  Why would we send our men and women out to be held accountable by a 
Libyan judge and by a Libyan prosecutor who would bring our people to 
trial? And I would just note parenthetically that the Clinton 
administration was against this until the last few weeks of the 
administration when they signed it, but argued against it in Rome as 
the Rome Statute, or the ICC, was being considered. At one of our 
hearings I asked the U.S. State Department to go back to all of our 
wars, World War II, World War I, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and look 
at any battle that we were engaged in, and asked the question, Could a 
prosecutor take the Dresden bombing or the bombing of Japan or 
Hiroshima or Nagasaki and bring an action against President Truman, or 
General Marshall, or President Eisenhower, or any of our other 
generals, or those who flew the Enola Gay? Or take Vietnam or any other 
conflict, most recently the Persian Gulf, or any conflict we have 
engaged in.
  This is rife, rife with mischief that rogue nations would bring about 
against us. And let us not forget as well, although it was rejected, 
there was an attempt to bring action against General Wesley Clark, who 
led our efforts in the Serbian conflict. And had we had somebody from 
one of those rogue nations sitting as a prosecutor, he might have been 
brought to the Hague or there may have been an attempt to bring him to 
the Hague to stand in account.
  Finally, if you want a glimpse about what the ICC will look like when 
it comes into force, look just at the U.N. Human Rights Convention in 
Geneva. I have been there, year in and year out, as has the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and many of us saw countries like the Sudan 
sitting in judgement to do two things: one, they tried to run 
interference when actions are brought against them; and, secondly, they 
sit in judgment and then try to give their friends who commit human 
rights abuses a pass. They constantly do that.
  That is why this is a dangerous game. And again I think the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) owes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) an 
apology. That little game he played with the Netherlands was way off 
base. This is a serious amendment, and when our peacekeepers are held 
accountable, I hope President Bush and any successor President does all 
that is humanly possible to protect every American service personnel 
abroad as well as in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say I rise in very strong support 
of the DeLay amendment. It is a very serious and necessary amendment 
that makes clear that the United States will not sit idly by as 
prosecutors and judges, whose country of origin will at times be rogue 
states, bring politically motivated charges against United States 
servicemen and women around the globe.
  I truly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the depiction used by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) of this very serious amendment 
trivializes not only the amendment but the compelling risk to U.S. 
peacekeepers abroad, U.S. peacekeepers who are likely to be accused by 
rogue nations, prosecutors who work for countries like the Sudan, 
Libya, or other countries where human rights are trashed and cruelty is 
the order of the day. Our people could be subjected to kangaroo trials 
for doing their peacekeeping or peacemaking duty. And that, frankly, is 
absolutely unacceptable.
  Let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that I was and I am a very 
strong supporter of the regional criminal tribunals that have been used 
to prosecute those who have committed crimes against humanity in Rwanda 
as well as in the former Yugoslavia. I believe we ought to establish 
war crimes tribunals on an ad hoc basis, and not allow this 
freestanding court with judges and prosecutors, who are accountable to 
none, to sit in judgment of U.S. military personnel.
  Let me just say with regards to ad hoc tribunals, that the first 
tribunal was getting under way, I offered amendments in committee to 
significantly increase the amount of the U.S. contribution to establish 
the tribunal. The terrible crimes that were committed against the 
Croatians and then the Bosnians and even the Serbes, demanded no less. 
So I take a back seat to no one about my concern in holding accountable 
the Milosevics of this world. But having said that, the tribunal 
established by the Rome Statute is rife with mischief and is likely to 
kill peacekeeping as we know it.
  Why would we send our men and women out to be harassed and prosecuted 
by a Libyan judge and by a Libyan prosecutor who would bring our 
soldiers to trial? And I would just note parenthetically that the 
Clinton administration was against the ICC until the last few weeks of 
the administration when they abruptly signed it, but previously had 
argued against it in Rome, as the ICC was being considered. At one of 
several hearings I chaired I asked the U.S. State Department 
representatives to go back to all of our wars: World War II. World War 
I, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and look at any battle that we were 
engaged in, and I asked the question, Could a prosecutor construe the 
Dresden bombing or the fire bombing of Tokyo or Hiroshima or Nagasaki 
and bring an action against President Truman, or General MacArthur or 
Eisenhower or Marshall, or any of our other generals, or those who 
piloted or crewed the Enola Gay? Or take Vietnam or any other conflict, 
most recently the Persian Gulf or the bombing of Serbia or any conflict 
we have engaged in. Were these actions, in whole or in part, war 
crimes? I got a big ``maybe'' from State.
  The ICC is rife with mischief that rogue nations would bring actions 
against us. And let us not forget, as well, although it was rejected by 
the prosecution arm at The Hague, there was an attempt to bring action 
against General Wesley Clark and others who led our efforts in the 
Serbian conflict. And had we had somebody from one of those rogue 
nations

[[Page H3018]]

serving as a prosecutor, he might have been brought to The Hague or 
there may have been an attempt to bring him to The Hague to stand 
trial.
  Finally, if you want a glimpse about what the ICC will look like when 
it comes into force look just at the U.N. Human Rights Convention in 
Geneva. I have been there, year in and year out, as has the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and Ms. Ros Lehtinen, and many of us saw 
countries like the Sudan sitting on the commission do two things: one, 
they tried to run interference when actions were brought against them; 
and, secondly, they sat in judgment and then tried to give their 
friends who commit human rights abuses, a pass. If given new powers to 
prosecute Americans--believe me--they will!
  That is why this is a dangerous game. I believe the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) owes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) an 
apology. That little game he played earlier with the Netherlands 
invasion scenario was way off base. This is a serious amendment, and 
when our peacekeepers are wrongfully charged, I trust President Bush 
and any successor President will do all that is humanly possible to 
protect every American soldier, sailor, or marine abroad.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would 
remind the gentleman that he voted against supporting the troops when 
they went to Kosovo.
  Today this House is sort of engaged in watching a great allegory, 
only I think the Republican leadership has forgotten one of their 
famous phrases, ``Remember the Alamo.'' Why do I say that? You ask 
yourself, why would somebody stand in the Alamo and wait and get killed 
when they knew they were going to die? Or why did the Jews jump off the 
rock in Masada? Or why did the troopers get surrounded at Little Big 
Horn and why did they fight till they died?
  The people on the other side, the leadership, are not paying 
attention to what is going on here, because there is a truth in what is 
going on in this process, and it is this: You have the power. We can 
talk and talk and talk and we know that we are going to lose. There is 
no question about that. We have no illusions that we are going to win. 
But why do people do what they did in the Alamo? Or why do people fly 
planes into buildings in New York? Or why do people wrap bombs around 
themselves? Or why do they go into the general post office in Dublin on 
Easter Sunday in 1916? You can pick a thousand places in history where 
people have done what makes no sense to people, where if you look at it 
you would say, ``They had no chance.''
  We know we have no chance here tonight, but we are frustrated, we are 
powerless, because you have taken all the power. Wonderful allegory. 
You come out here, you smash us, you will beat us on every single 
amendment, and we will not be able to save Social Security, we will not 
be able to save Medicare. We cannot stop you from spending like you had 
no tomorrow. We have no ability to do that. We can tell the American 
people we stand against that kind of stuff and we will be beaten 
tonight.
  But the problem with that is, we are coming to the last act in the 
allegory. I got this little thing that came from the GOP to their 
members:
  ``Please note that it is mandatory that all Members stay in town and 
be available for votes tonight and the early morning hours as we plan 
to finish the supplemental in the early morning hours. It's possible 
for your boss to catch a late-morning flight home on Friday.''
  We know martial law is coming. They knew it in the Warsaw ghetto. 
They knew it everywhere. Did people give up? No. But this really is not 
the Alamo. It is not really the end. This is more like Dunkirk. The 
Nazis pushed the Brits all the way up against the beach and they 
thought, boy, we are going to be in England in about a month. And at 
Dunkirk they took off 338,000 people who came back to fight another 
day.
  When they surrounded the American troops at Bastogne in the Battle of 
the Bulge, they sent in an offer of unconditional surrender to General 
McAuliffe. He sent back one word written on a piece of paper: Nuts.
  What you do not understand is there is an election coming and the 
American people are going to watch what you have done to Social 
Security and what you have done with the surplus that started out at 
$5.6 trillion and you have taken it down below the line and we are down 
in the depths again, a trillion dollars below. The single biggest 
reversal in economics in the history of the world. And you guys are 
still spending. You are still spending. ``Let's raise the debt limit. 
Let's keep spending.'' It is like if you take your credit card and you 
give one to your son or daughter and they go to college. They say, 
``Dad, I've reached the limit. What should I do?'' You say, stop 
spending or get a part-time job or something. But no, not with you 
guys. You call up the company and say, ``Raise our debt limit. We got 
to have more credit to spend.''
  We cannot stop you. You are free to do it. But you are also free to 
pay the price. And do not think this is the last night. I mean, you 
will win. In about two hours and 40 minutes, you will close this joint 
down and create a new day and you will come out here and slam bam, 
thank you, ma'am, and it will be over. We understand that. But do not 
think it is all over.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will be 
brief. I just wanted to rise in support of the DeLay amendment.
  I broke with my party. I supported sending troops and being involved 
in Bosnia and in Kosovo. But I will tell those who cared about that, 
the first American soldier that is brought before the court, we would 
lose support from the American public for any involvement around the 
world. If America is not involved, it is not successful. And if we were 
not involved, the world would be a much more dangerous place.
  The DeLay amendment is really a good amendment. For that I would urge 
that we would support it.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the Democrats talk about the 
debt limit. Here are some points Members and the public should bear in 
mind when considering these arguments from the other side.
  Last week on the same floor during the debate on the Nation's welfare 
policy, the Democrats offered two proposals: One was a substitute 
welfare reform bill that called for $20 billion more in Federal welfare 
spending over the next five years and $70 billion more in welfare 
spending over the next 10 years. The second proposal was a motion to 
add more than $11 billion in new spending to the Republican bill. In 
both cases, the Democrats refused to pay for their additional spending.
  Let me repeat this, Mr. Chairman. The Democrats did not pay for their 
proposed increase in government spending. The additional costs would 
just get added to our national debt. In contrast, the Republican 
welfare bill was fully paid for within the House-passed budget. I guess 
the Democrats have a tough time understanding what that means since for 
the first time in a generation they did not have their own budget in 
the House. And the Democrat-controlled Senate cannot seem to get a 
budget done, either. All of this reflects that what is going on today 
is a charade. The Democrats can sure talk a good game about fiscal 
responsibility in general, but when it comes to specific bills that 
reflect their real priorities, like welfare reform last week, being 
responsible with taxpayers' money is the last thing on their minds.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is hard to stifle the truth. It has a way of coming 
out. But our friends on the other side of the aisle have tried all day 
to gag the United States Congress so that we cannot debate the issues 
and we cannot discuss the truth. But today the truth has leaked out, 
drip by drip.
  The truth is we all support the United States troops. There is no 
question about that. But the truth also is that we are poised to invade 
Social Security trust funds for the next 10 years to the tune of $1.5 
trillion through 2012. That is the truth. The truth is the Republican 
plan is to spend $2.25 billion in trust funds for other programs in 
2003 alone. That is the truth. The truth is our friends on the other 
side of the aisle should hang their heads in embarrassment. They have 
been caught in a procedural and political shenanigan that they employed 
to use American

[[Page H3019]]

taxpayer dollars to target and influence specific political campaigns 
in New York and Pennsylvania. That is the truth. That has nothing to do 
with our troops. That has nothing to do with national defense. They are 
funding programs in rural hospitals in New York and Pennsylvania 
located in vulnerable Republican districts. The rest of America is 
excluded. That is the truth. There are 1,300 hospitals in this country 
that will be disadvantaged by this legislation. The only way to make 
them whole, to put back the money that they are taking away so that 
they can be returned to current funding levels, is to raid Social 
Security funds. That is it. That is the truth.
  The current bill runs up America's credit card while stealing from 
America's senior citizens' Social Security. To compound the problem, 
the Republican plan will require stealing. It will require stealing 
additional Social Security funds just to keep hospital funding at 
current levels. You have to do it. You have to take it. There is no 
other way. That is the truth.
  But Republicans do not want Americans to hear this debate. That is 
what you have been about all day. They stifled the issues. Now they 
want to stifle the process. They say they want an open debate, but mark 
my words, Mr. Chairman, within the next few hours the Republicans will 
stop all debate on the issues. They will stop all debate on the 
process. They want to gag America. They do not want America to hear the 
issues. That is an arrogant use of procedural excess and they should be 
embarrassed.
  Mr. Chairman, in Texas we are known for plain speaking. I want to say 
this to my friends on the other side of the aisle. This comes straight 
from the Texas Rangers: No party in the wrong can stand up to a party 
in the right who keeps on a-coming. And, by golly, we are going to keep 
on a-coming.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as I listen to my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle, I stand before you perplexed by the banter going back and forth. 
In case you have not noticed, we are at war, folks. I do not know about 
you, but I want to make sure that the dedicated men and women in 
uniform, our brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers, 
are able to fight and win this war. In order to do that, our troops 
need the resources to win.
  On the eve of this Memorial Day weekend, I think about the beautiful 
yet harrowing tributes to the hundreds of thousands of fellow Americans 
that have fought to defend our freedom. The Korean Memorial bears a 
simple sentence: Freedom is not free. It is one of the simplest and 
most powerful statements ever made. Freedom is not free. Because war is 
not free, both in material and, sadly, in human lives.
  I have heard the talk about hard choices. There are a lot of choices 
to make. But placing the lives of our soldiers at risk over procedural 
and jurisdictional bickering should not be an option. If we do not 
supply them with the necessary resources to win, none of the arguments 
will matter.
  These funds will pay for urgent wartime expenses related to the 
military actions in Afghanistan and other U.S. operations against 
global terrorist threats. These funds will improve our homeland 
security by empowering law enforcement with the tools to track down 
terrorists and safeguard our aviation systems, nuclear assets, ports 
and borders. I do not like adding to the national debt and I certainly 
do not like seeing our Nation at war. But these two emergencies, one 
economic and one military, were forced upon us. Dealing with both of 
these emergencies in one vote is fine with me.
  American troops need the resources to win. I support this 
supplemental and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before we go on to this next debate, I do want to say, 
and I really hope that some of my friends on the other side will look 
at their rollcall vote 103 in April of 1999, to stand up here in one 
day with this President to talk about their feelings for the military. 
I remember this night clearly. My father was a B-52 tail gunner. He was 
one who fought in this country. The night of April 28, our Commander in 
Chief, at the time President Clinton, was sending people into 
Yugoslavia. And this House, with a majority of Republicans voting 
against our military, tonight come down and talk about their support of 
the uniformed men and women. I am not suggesting that they are not, but 
I would just suggest that we ought to make sure that we are consistent.
  I will tell you that I am consistent. I voted that night as I have 
continued to vote, no matter who was in the Oval Office. But tonight 
again we are considering a $29 billion supplemental appropriations 
bill. All day long we have talked about this. We all know that we are 
fighting a war on terrorism.

                              {time}  2130

  I do not think there is a Member here who does not support that war 
effort. However, fighting the war on terrorism is only one of many 
parts of the bill. There are many things that the American people feel 
that are crucial to their well-being, and we want to respond to all of 
these issues responsibly. But how are we going to pay for their 
solution if we continue to spend the money we do not have? You cannot 
pass the supplemental bill without invading the trust funds and 
breaking the promises made to the American people.
  Instead of paying down the debt, we are adding to the debt and to the 
interest payments. Before we increase the debt ceiling by another $750 
billion, we need a plan and we need new budget restraints.
  You might ask why? Well, you are going to hear from women today about 
the effects of this bill and the effect they have on women. I think 
that any family that has tried to plan to send their kids to college, 
to buy a house, or to perhaps move a loved one out of the workforce to 
help take care of them, knows they simply cannot call the credit card 
company and say, ``Can you give me an increase in my credit limit?'' 
They do the responsible thing by paying off the family's debt to make 
room for these expenses.
  Families make these decisions every day, and Congress needs to be 
responsible to the American people as these family members are to one 
another.
  Let us look at how much women, women, your wives, rely on the Social 
Security program. Let us explore how they would be affected by 
reductions in benefits due to a $750 billion increase in the debt 
limit.
  Almost two-thirds of all women 65 years and older get at least half 
of their income from Social Security. For one-third of these women, 
Social Security makes up 90 percent or more of their income.
  Women take time out of the workforce to care for children and elderly 
parents. As a result, they rely more heavily on their husband's Social 
Security benefits. Over 60 percent of women on Social Security receive 
spousal benefits, while only 1 percent of men receive such payments. 
Women tend to outlive their husbands by an average of seven years. 
These seven years can be the most vulnerable times of their lives.
  Social Security as we know it today continues to pay benefits as long 
as the beneficiary is alive. Reductions in Social Security payments due 
to lack of funds would leave women stranded, so one can see that 
dipping into Social Security by raising the debt limit can cause great 
harm, especially to women.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here today will have an effect on 
future generations of families. At this moment Congress is sitting down 
at the kitchen table figuring things out like so many families do every 
day. Let us be like those families that pay off their credit card debt 
to make room for future expenses. Adding $750 billion in new debt to 
America's credit card is the wrong way.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I passionately believe that neither party has an 
exclusive on integrity or ideas or patriotism, but I have to say 
tonight that the excessive campaign rhetoric of the last 24 hours 
demeans this process and really falls short of the character of this 
House.
  I want to talk about some of the substantive items in this bill. The 
International Criminal Court is absolutely a bad idea that Members from 
both parties should reject every opportunity we get, and the 
distinguished majority whip should be commended for bringing this 
amendment forward and trying to

[[Page H3020]]

stifle the advancement of the International Criminal Court. It is a 
great threat to innocent Americans and is a terrible precedent for the 
future, particularly at this dangerous moment in American history.
  Relative to Israel, I do not know what the magic number is. I wish 
there was a better way of assessing how much they need, and, following 
the request from Israel, our ally, for what they really need, not using 
an arbitrary number to establish how much we are sending them. I 
understand that Secretary Powell and the administration have a delicate 
balance on trying to negotiate some positive step towards peace, but I 
do not like funding the PLO or any related organization there at all. I 
think we need to stand by our ally, Israel, for a host of reasons, most 
of them Biblical, in my heart, and in no way ever turn away from our 
ally, Israel, because we will pay the price if we do.
  But tonight what we have, after all of the rhetoric is out of the 
way, is an emergency defense supplemental that is absolutely necessary 
to get the equipment and the funding in the hands of those men and 
women who are standing between the threat and our civilian population 
and the advancement of freedom around the world at a time of terror 
still and a critical time in world history.
  We must move this defense supplemental forward. It is not about tax 
cuts or Social Security. Those obviously are campaign issues that are 
coming in the months ahead. Let us push them off to the campaign and 
let us come together in a bipartisan way and do what is right for the 
men and women in uniform. That is the bottom line.
  We are going into Memorial Day. Last Memorial Day the debate on the 
House floor was a lot different than this campaign year Memorial Day 
rhetoric, I promise you that.
  When I think of Memorial Day, I think of the greatest generation, the 
World War II veterans. Every time I honor them, which is every chance I 
get, they say the real heroes are the ones that did not come back. They 
are the ones we honor this weekend.
  I will tell you how encouraged I have been since September 11, 
because the greatest generation, we stand on their shoulders and honor 
them, and they are the greatest. But I wonder about my generation, the 
generation that has been called the ``me generation,'' the one that was 
so selfish and so absorbed with our own world that we might not be the 
``giving generation'' or the ``great generation'' of those that came 
before us.
  But following September 11, the events following September 11, when 
we saw first responders put their lives on the line and die for others, 
following that Biblical mantra of the greatest show of love is to give 
your life for your fellow man, for your friend, in this case people you 
did not even know, we, too, have answered this call to courage in our 
generation.
  The greatest generation veterans are smiling with amazement at what 
this generation is actually made of. We indeed are becoming a great 
generation ourselves. That is why we owe it to the men and women who 
are willing to serve our country to give them what they need and to 
work through these details we are debating today to make sure that we 
do not delay moving these billions of dollars into defense and homeland 
security and intelligence capabilities to protect our country and to 
honor those that are willing to fight and die for us.

  Freedom is not free, and as we head into the Memorial Day weekend, 
let us come together tonight and put aside our differences. Let us meet 
at the water's edge as Members of the great U.S. House of 
Representatives and do what is right for America and send the money to 
those in the field.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us, Democrats and Republicans, support our 
troops in the field and our fight against terrorism. Since September 
11, in fact, all Americans are united to protect our Nation from 
terrorism. There is a great unity on this issue.
  Those who have fought and given their lives for freedom and our 
country should not be desecrated by action on this floor in an effort 
to slip in or by dishonest procedure to raise the national debt ceiling 
without a debate or an up-and-down vote.
  This action affects all citizens, especially our seniors, and 
especially the widows of our veterans, working families, children and 
grandchildren. Memorial Day should honor those who have fought to 
protect our freedom, rather than to cover up other devious action that 
affects millions of seniors.
  Our bipartisan support for the war against terrorism here at home and 
abroad should not be smeared or compromised by an attack of 
unpatriotism when we question the adding of unrelated special interest 
items or controversial items to a much-needed supplemental 
appropriation to support the war against terrorism.
  We desecrate our fallen heroes, and especially their families and 
their widows, especially women of color. More than 80 percent of the 
non-married elderly African Americans and Latino women rely solely on 
Social Security for their retirement income and their daily 
necessities.
  Further, for more than half of the elderly Latino and African 
American women, it provides 90 percent of their total income. We 
desecrate our current military men and women when we burden a clean 
supplemental appropriation to support our military forces with an 
undemocratic, unprecedented and unfair rule.
  This rule was unworthy of our consideration. We can and we should do 
better. This vague, unclear, deceptive rule prevents an honest debate, 
discussion, explanation or a vote on expanding our national debt. 
However, in the back rooms, not the appropriation rooms, in the back 
rooms and only by reference in this bill, we will actually send the 
national debt ceiling up by more than $750 billion, which will come 
from, can only come from, Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  Mr. Chairman, the question is not should we raise the national debt. 
We have no choice but to raise the debt. The question is how we raise 
the debt. The only way we should respond to this is how we can 
responsibly and accountably do this and govern our country. The 
question, therefore, is how we respond appropriately without raiding 
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, which will affect the 
widows and the veterans who are so dependent on their daily resources 
through the payment of Social Security payments.
  The uncontrolled, unlimited expansion of our national debt will 
affect working families by increasing their interest rate for their 
home payment, automobile payment, student loans and other financial 
needs.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we add a great burden to our children and our 
grandchildren to pay for our recklessness and our fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  The big tax cut given last year has caused the greatest need for 
raising the national debt, more than our need to fight the war against 
terrorists. Yes, we should be honest. We should be honest with the 
American people in this debate to tell them that our effort to fight 
this war on terrorism is costly and will continue to cost. But it is a 
mistake, in fact an untruth, to suggest that the majority of the reason 
we have to raise the debt ceiling is for those reasons. It is because 
we gave such a large tax cut to a few Americans and big corporations 
that we indeed will have a lack of resources in order to respond to the 
future needs of millions of older Americans to meet their critical 
needs.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to support the supplemental appropriation for 
our military men and women. We should do no less. But the way we are 
doing it does discredit to us, and it certainly does not honor our 
veterans.
  Let us vote on the bill that the Committee on Appropriations sent out 
and recommended to this floor. In a separate vote we need to debate and 
vote on the national debt. This is what we should do.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I see that a great many Members are not in the Chamber 
tonight. I do not know where they are but they ought to be here 
listening to this debate. But just in case any Members do have a 
sufficient interest in these issues we are debating tonight want to try 
to contact someone and tell them to come back, we are giving to talk 
about some very important amendments.

[[Page H3021]]

  I have already been here tonight talking about my amendment to reduce 
the foreign aid section of our bill for Israel and Chairman Arafat, and 
I have already told you that I will have charts ready for you at the 
appropriate time to make my point.

                              {time}  2145

  And being in lockstep with my leadership for the last 18 years in the 
House, I know full well when we bring that rule back in a little while, 
they are going to honor all of my requests and all of the amendments 
that I have filed are probably going to be in that rule.
  In anticipation of that, there is one that some of my colleagues have 
approached me on because they have taken the effort to read what is 
going on here. There is one that simply says, ``making a lump sum 
payment to individuals born between 1917 and 1921 or their dependents 
who are currently receiving Social Security retirement benefits.''
  Now, I know that many of us have town hall meetings we go to, and I 
have been having town hall meetings for 18 years. And nearly 99 percent 
of the time, someone asks me the question, when are you going to fix 
the notch baby problem? I have always told those people when they came 
to my town hall meetings, when the opportunity came, I would offer the 
amendment to make certain they would get their rightful due, their just 
payment, which they have been denied for all of these years, to stop 
them from having to be called notch babies.
  This does not totally correct it, but it gives recognition to the 
notch baby problem and does tokenize them with a one-time payment. So I 
know that all of my colleagues have been to their town hall meetings, 
and I know, because people tell me, that all of the Members of Congress 
say they are for correcting the notch baby problem, but nobody ever 
does anything about it.
  Well, when this rule comes back tonight, because of my lockstep 
allegiance to my leadership, I know full well they are going to make my 
amendment in order, and when they do make it in order, there is going 
to be limited debate. So I wanted to let my colleagues know tonight, 
since I will have a limited amount of time to explain my amendment as 
it should be explained, that I will only have a few minutes to tell my 
colleagues what we are doing with this amendment.
  So anticipating that this amendment is coming and knowing full well 
that probably 99 percent of this House has told notch babies in their 
district that they are going to do something when the opportunity came, 
I am going to give my colleagues that opportunity tonight so my 
colleagues can go back home during this Memorial Day recess, have your 
town hall meetings and tell your notch baby constituents that help is 
coming because you voted for the Callahan amendment to give them that 
recognition and to give them that one-time payment that they so richly 
deserve.
  I know this amendment is going to be in order, or actually I am 
optimistic that it is going to be in order, because of my lockstep 
allegiance to my leadership. I have followed them faithfully for 18 
years, and surely after all of this period of time, in the last year of 
my membership in this House of Representatives, they are going to allow 
me the opportunity to at least introduce the five amendments that I 
have here. But we are going to have a limited time to debate it, and I 
wanted all of my colleagues to call their colleagues and tell them to 
get back over here, that these things are coming up shortly and they 
better be here to help us correct this problem.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am so glad that the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama made himself clear, and I look forward to the notch babies 
amendment in a bipartisan spirit, because we do have a number of those 
impacted negatively by that formula, and we do want to be helpful with 
respect to those seniors. I am glad that there is a positive light on 
this floor.
  But I rise today to be able to confront and to debate issues that, 
unfortunately, have been under cover. By the way, let me also say to 
the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, I would hope to be able to 
support his notch babies amendment. Unfortunately, I think that if we 
are going to have peace in the Mideast, we cannot and absolutely should 
not eliminate the funding to Israel and to the Palestinians, and we 
must have the kind of aid that says that we are engaged and that we 
support the peace process. It would be a disaster for the elimination 
of any funds to the Mideast, Israel or the Palestinians. Certainly, we 
would not want to undermine humanitarian aid.
  I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) for 
being the leader on the issue of Social Security and laying the 
groundwork, while women are now here on the floor of the House, 
debating this bill in the late night hours, because we realize that 
those who will be most hurt by the passage of this legislation are 
clearly going to be the women who are most dependent on Social 
Security. I used this picture just a few hours ago, it seems like a day 
ago, because a picture is worth a thousand words or more. I wish it was 
worth thousands upon thousands of dollars. I wish we could hand out 
pictures and all of a sudden we get money. But it is important to note 
that just a year ago we had a $5.6 trillion surplus and we had not 
invaded the Social Security trust fund. Today, we stand here with $400 
billion, just a drop in the budget, because our Republican friends have 
imploded the surplus.
  Today I spoke to Randy Rhodes, a talk show host in the great State of 
Florida. She wanted me to mention that people across the Nation are 
watching, and they remember in 1993 when not one single Republican 
stood up and was counted in order to ensure that we have a budget that 
we could pay our way and begin to build a surplus. Not one single 
Republican voted. It was the Democrats who sacrificed their majority in 
order to provide the quality of life for Americans.
  Here we go again. In a situation where we thought we had an open 
rule, where we had the opportunity to debate an issue such as raising 
the debt ceiling, adding $750 billion more to our Social Security 
credit card, as they now claim it to be; and yet we find that, one, we 
do not have an open rule, and, two, we are going to hide the fact that 
you are imploding and raising the debt ceiling. You are going to hide 
the fact that you are raising it to $750 billion.
  What does that do to the women who are impacted by Social Security? 
First of all, we well know that women of low income, no matter what 
racial background they come from, depend most on Social Security. We 
know now that there are grandmothers who are raising children whose 
sole support is Social Security. At age 65, African American women have 
a life expectancy of 17 more years, one year longer than white men, 
while Latina women on the average live to 87, which is longer than 
either white women or men. In that instance, as it relates to minority 
women, African American and Latina, Social Security is their main 
support system, because they usually have had in the past low-wage 
service and manufacturing jobs. They have had to rely on Social 
Security.
  Go to any one of our districts to our senior citizens homes and find 
women and ask the question, Do you have enough to live on? Most will 
say that I have my Social Security. And if I did not have that, I could 
not pay rent, I could not pay the prescription drugs which I am 
stretching for anyhow, I could not buy food.
  So tonight what we are doing, and I understand we are going to get a 
midnight rule that is going to shut all of us down, what we are going 
to do is sneak out of here in the early morning, raise the debt ceiling 
$750 billion, and tell those dependent women who depend on Social 
Security, hey, take a flight, good night, and good-bye; we are using 
your money tonight.
  I would just add another picture. The reason why we do not have any 
money is because the Republicans have decided to spend 42 percent of 
any money that we would get on continuing to pay tax cuts to the rich. 
In fact, we are looking to pay this money up until 2011.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a shame and a sham that we are here 
tonight doing this disservice to women

[[Page H3022]]

who are dependent upon Social Security. Let us vote for the women of 
America and save Social Security.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we prepare to celebrate Memorial Day and to honor 
those who fought our Nation's past wars, as well as those who are, as 
we speak, fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and around the 
world, we should be thanking these men and women for their courageous 
service on behalf of our Nation by acting on their behalf; and the best 
way to thank them is to pass this supplemental appropriations bill.
  There are many reasons why we should pass this bill and send it to 
the President for his signature quickly. First and foremost, we should 
support this bill because it provides $7.8 billion for the Department 
of Defense to pay for the costs of the war, including the salaries of 
those who are serving, as well as the ongoing cost to train, equip, and 
prepare them for battle, and to protect the 270,000 soldiers who are 
serving abroad on this Memorial Day weekend as we debate this bill.
  We should support this bill because it also provides $4.3 billion to 
pay for the call-up of National Guard and Reserve personnel, the men 
and women who have put their lives on hold to answer our Nation's call 
to serve; and there are 85,000 of those on reserve that are now on 
active duty.
  We should also support this bill because it provides $500 million to 
purchase high-priority munitions to replace those already used in this 
war; to buy unmanned aerial vehicles, which have proved their value, 
and to purchase equipment for our Special Forces on the ground in 
Afghanistan and elsewhere. We should also support this bill because it 
provides $93 million to replace Special Operations helicopters 
destroyed during Operation Enduring Freedom. We should also support 
this bill because it provides $1.5 billion for homeland defense and to 
strengthen our Nation's intelligence-gathering efforts.
  As someone who represents a district in a State that was directly 
impacted by the tragic events of September 11, we should support this 
bill because of the additional funding it provides to help rebuild New 
York City. Members of Congress from New York and New Jersey have worked 
together to provide our State governments with the necessary resources 
to rebuild critical transportation and other infrastructure that was 
destroyed in these attacks. As previous congressional actions have 
tried to help, and they have, many families have lost loved ones.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be standing on this floor tonight united in 
support of our men and women in uniform, united in support of the war 
on terrorism, united in our gratitude for those who have served our 
Nation bravely in the past. Instead, we fight one another.
  Let us remember why we are here. Let us pass this bill, let us give 
each and every one of our men and women in uniform the tools they need 
to fight and win our Nation's war.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight, it is almost 10 o'clock, and tonight we are 
reminding our entire country that women in our country really do need 
to know that by raising the debt ceiling, though sounding very 
technical, that the debt limit provision in this emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill will harm Social Security. By putting Social 
Security at risk, we put women at risk.
  This bill will have a devastating impact on women. There are already 
enormous disparities in income between men and women. These disparities 
will be much greater if we endanger Social Security. Women rely on 
Social Security more heavily for a whole variety of economic and social 
reasons. Poverty among women over 65 is twice as severe as among men in 
the same age group. Women earn less than men and tend to live longer. 
Women also lose an average of 14 years of earnings due to time out of 
the workforce to raise children or to care for an ailing parent. Women 
are also generally employed more part-time and have less opportunity to 
save for retirement.

                              {time}  2200

  Let me just briefly give some numbers to show how important Social 
Security is for women.
  For unmarried women over 65, including widows, Social Security 
comprises 51 percent of their total income, a far higher proportion 
than is true for married couples or men. Seventy-four percent of 
unmarried elderly women depend on Social Security for at least one-half 
of their income. Twenty-six percent of unmarried elderly women depend 
on it as their only source of income.
  As stark as these figures are for all women, they are even more 
pronounced for African American women and Latinas, who are even more 
dependent on Social Security because they face even greater economic 
disadvantages throughout their lives.
  Clearly, Social Security is the vital safety net for women. This 
important program lifted 13 million seniors out of poverty last year, 
and yet, the Republicans in Congress are depleting the Social Security 
trust fund to pay for the increase in the debt that they are now 
incurring. They spent the budget surplus by being irresponsible, and 
now, after using up all of the funds in the Treasury, are really 
stealing from Social Security and Medicare to pay for their reckless 
spending. This is just downright wrong.
  This is the same Republican leadership that really rammed through, 
and I remember this very clearly last year, a very punitive bankruptcy 
bill that will penalize hardworking people who fall into debt through 
the loss of a job or an injury. That is an unexpected hardship. This 
bill is not the result of unexpected hardship, it is the result of a $2 
trillion tax cut for the rich.
  We should not raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for a blank 
check. It will bounce, with the notation ``insufficient funds.'' Women 
have no way to scramble and make this check good, so they will suffer 
even more in their golden years, after a lifetime of discrimination and 
injustice. So our wives, mothers, sisters, grandmothers, daughters, and 
granddaughters certainly will pay and will pay dearly if we pass this 
bill tonight.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a growing number of seniors who are raising 
grandchildren with their Social Security income. That is a group that 
we do not often talk about.
  Just a couple of weeks ago in this House when we dealt with TANF and 
welfare reform, these grandmothers and grandfathers raising their 
grandchildren were left out of the process. There were no additional 
dollars set forth to assist them in that effort.
  That is why it is so difficult as we stand here to talk about this 
piece of legislation that is before the House this evening, that we 
would not consider that significant group of people who not only are 
raising grandchildren, they are required to pay for prescription drugs. 
Then, in addition to that, they may have to worry about where their 
next check comes from.
  A second group that is often not discussed when we talk about Social 
Security are those who are beneficiaries of the Supplemental Security 
Income, those who are disabled for one reason or another, who are often 
left out of that process. I guarantee Members there are many women 
involved.
  Lastly, I would say that tonight, if we want to raise the debt 
ceiling limit, let us step up and vote specifically for it and not 
cloud it in this legislation.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, normally I do not get up and say much about this, but I 
sit here tonight and I hear all this about Social Security and how we 
are raiding the trust fund. We are not doing that. We are trying to 
scare our seniors. The seniors' Social Security money is going to be 
there. We are not doing anything to take their money away from them.
  This bill is about a war that is going on. This bill is about helping 
our military men and women who are out there on the front lines right 
now, and we are sitting here doing scare tactics, demagoguing. I am not 
sure what we are doing on this floor tonight. I sit here and listen to 
all of this, and I do not quite understand it.

[[Page H3023]]

  We are not raiding the Social Security trust fund, we are just trying 
to help our men and women who are out there fighting for us. I just do 
not understand why we are sitting here arguing like this about 
something that is not happening. This is about giving the President and 
giving our men and women in the military the dollars that they need to 
fight our war on terrorism.
  We are not taking dollars away from our seniors, and I think it is 
shameful, absolutely shameful, that Members are trying to scare them.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       In section 1404, strike subsection (b) and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Reclassification of Certain New York Counties.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, effective for discharges occurring on or after October 
     1, 2002, and before October 1, 2005, for purposes of making 
     payments under subsection (d) of section 1886 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) to hospitals in Orange, 
     Dutchess, and Ulster Counties, New York, such counties are 
     deemed to be located in the large urban area of New York, New 
     York.
       (2) Rules.--The reclassifications made under paragraph (1) 
     shall be treated as a decision of the Medicare Geographic 
     Classification Review Board under paragraph (1) of such 
     section 1886(d).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment. It seeks to amend language previously agreed to. I ask for a 
ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I wish to be heard on the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's question is, does any Member wish to be 
heard on the point of order.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is recognized 
to speak directly on the point of order.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering has to 
do with section 1404, and it strikes subsection (b). Subsection (b) of 
the legislation, the bill that is before us, deals with the counties of 
Orange and Dutchess in New York.
  This amendment deems that these two counties are eligible for 
reimbursement under Medicare as if they were located in the 
metropolitan area of New York City. The effect of the language in the 
present bill would be to provide more funds to the hospitals in those 
two counties, Orange and Dutchess, but it would do so at the expense of 
hospitals in Putnam, in Westchester, in Rockland, and in the five 
boroughs of New York City itself.
  That would be a disservice to those counties adversely affected, so 
the amendment that I am offering would provide that the hospitals 
located in Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster counties would be deemed 
eligible for Medicare reimbursements as if they were located in the 
metropolitan area of New York City, but it will do so in a way that 
does not adversely affect the reimbursement rates for the hospitals of 
Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, or the five counties of the city of New 
York.
  So the amendment that I am offering is much fairer, much more 
equitable, and does not disadvantage those counties that I have 
mentioned.
  Why do we need to do this? We need to have amendments like this 
because of the fact that hospitals all across this country are 
adversely affected by the budget that was passed by this Congress 
earlier this year, and particularly by the tax cut which was put into 
effect by this Congress early last year.
  The effect of that $1.3 trillion tax cut not only has jeopardized our 
Social Security system, but is making it clear that as we move forward 
over the course of the next seven, eight, or nine years, more and more 
money will be taken out of the Social Security trust fund as a result 
of the tax cut which was forced through this House of Representatives 
early last year by the majority party.
  Not only will that happen, but also as a result of that tax cut, less 
money is available for Medicare reimbursement. So not only have we 
placed in jeopardy the Social Security of our senior citizens, but we 
have also placed in jeopardy the health care of our senior citizens by 
that tax cut, as well.
  So we see clearly the adverse effects of the $1.3 trillion tax cut, 
the majority of the benefits of which went to a tiny fraction of the 
wealthiest people in the country. In order to provide that benefit for 
the wealthiest people of this country, we are taking money out of the 
Social Security trust fund and we are also taking money out of the 
Medicare trust fund, so that our hospitals are disadvantaged in 
providing health care, not only for senior citizens, but essentially 
for everyone else who has recourse to use those hospitals.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the problem that has 
befallen hospitals across this country, and particularly those that are 
mentioned in the amendment, the adverse effect that has been visited 
upon these hospitals as a result of the $1.3 trillion Republican tax 
cut, the majority benefits of which went to the wealthiest people in 
the country.
  This amendment does so, helps those hospitals in those counties, 
without taking money from the hospitals in the adjacent counties of 
Putnam, Westchester, and Rockland and the five boroughs of New York 
City, as is done by the language in the bill that is before us. That is 
why this amendment is a great improvement over the language that exists 
in the instant bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard on the point of 
order, the Chair is ready to rule.
  As indicated in the ruling on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) earlier today, the amendment proposes to 
change text previously inserted by amendment adopted pursuant to H. 
Res. 428, so the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) was sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee?
  The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order: the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); another amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and amendment No. 2 offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 213, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     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)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley

[[Page H3024]]


     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     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)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     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
     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)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     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
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bonior
     Burton
     Combest
     Condit
     Crowley
     Deutsch
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Langevin
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lynch
     McIntyre
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roukema
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Wexler

                              {time}  2239

  Mr. BRADY of Texas and Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GREEN of Texas and Mr. MENENDEZ changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 216, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 201]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     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
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     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)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     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
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     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)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     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

[[Page H3025]]


     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bonior
     Burton
     Combest
     Condit
     Crowley
     Deutsch
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Langevin
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lynch
     McIntyre
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Roukema
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Wexler

                              {time}  2248

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


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McGovern

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 225, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--225

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bonior
     Burton
     Combest
     Condit
     Crowley
     Deutsch
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Linder
     Lipinski
     McIntyre
     Radanovich
     Roukema
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Wexler

                              {time}  2301

  Messrs. BERMAN, REYES and SAWYER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Mr. LaTourette and myself that seeks to strike $175 million 
from the Office of Justice Programs--Justice Assistance and provide 
those funds to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 
Unfortunately, the Supplemental Appropriations bill provides $175 
million for the Office of Justice Programs within the Department of 
Justice and that inhibits FEMA's ability to consolidate terrorism 
preparedness programs and properly administer the First Responder Grant 
Program.
  As we all know, in the past several years in response to various 
terrorist attacks, the United States has increased its efforts to 
address preparedness. Nationwide, training programs and response teams 
were created to assist emergency responders prepare for future 
terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Although all of the efforts 
were well intentioned, by 2001, more than 40 different federal agencies 
were offering over 90 training programs and over 100 response teams 
were created, which resulted in overlap and duplication of services and 
resources.
  For the past seven years, our Committee has held numerous hearings 
that have come to the same conclusion as many independent groups, 
including GAO, the Rand and Gilmore Commission; we must consolidate our 
terrorism preparedness programs to avoid duplication and overlap to 
programs. By doing this, we will be better utilize the nation's 
financial resources. The Administration came to the same conclusion and 
proposed centralizing ``first responder'' preparedness responsibilities 
within the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Office of 
National Preparedness, and the development of a ``First Responder Grant 
Program.
  At our hearing on the First Responders program in April 2002, FEMA 
provided detailed testimony outlining the Office of National 
Preparedness. The Department of Justice even voiced their support for 
the new office and stated on the record that Justice, ``is doing 
everything possible to make this transition smooth, seamless, and 
effective.''

[[Page H3026]]

  Currently, this bill does not provide FEMA any of the 
Administration's requested $175 million for first responder grants 
necessary for effective preparedness in the event of a terrorist attack 
using a weapon of mass destruction. Not providing FEMA the money 
they've requested diminishes efforts to coordinate and properly train 
first responders. In addition, not providing FEMA the amount requested 
by the Administration in the Supplemental Appropriations bill hampers 
FEMA's ability to effectively implement the Administration's FY 2003 
budget request for first responders.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore funding for 
FEMA's First Responder Grant Program. By supporting this amendment you 
support our efforts to better coordinate federal programs that will 
help our emergency responders prepare to aid our nation in the event of 
a terrorist attack.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, as sure as swallows returning to 
Capistrano, it seems like every year Congress considers a supplemental 
spending bill to fatten all the other appropriations bills we pass 
year. This is just a way to spend more than we said we would in the 
first place.
  While I know there are many fine things the $29 billion in this bill 
could buy, I have to wonder why these programs can't wait until the 
regular appropriations process, which is just about to begin. After 
all, we are already more than halfway through this fiscal year with 
just four months left to go before Fiscal Year 2003 arrives.
  In truth, there are many provisions in this bill which are not really 
the result of an emergency and do not require ``emergency spending.'' 
What is really going on, is that, as in previous supplemental 
appropriations bills, this one will allow Congress to circumvent the 
very spending caps it has set. In a wave of the magic wand, the $29 
billion contained in this bill will not count against those spending 
limitations. And therefore it will allow certain programs and 
departments to bulk up now so that there will be less pressure this 
summer for budget-busting increases in the regular appropriations 
bills.
  Along with all the extra spending in this bill, there are unrelated 
measures that have been thrown in. This legislation will be used to 
raise the federal debt limit. With the federal debt nearing its 
ceiling, the Administration has asked Congress to raise the limit, but 
no bill has come to the House floor for consideration. We should have 
an open debate on the need to raise the debt limit, already at nearly 
$6 trillion.
  Also included in the supplemental spending bill is a rider changing 
how several counties in Pennsylvania are treated for the purpose of 
making Medicare payments to hospitals, and another that adds rural 
Orange and Dutchess counties in the urban area designation of New York 
City for the purpose of Medicare payments. The bill contains a trade 
measure requiring that knit and woven fabrics be dyed and finished in 
the U.S. in order to qualify for duty-free treatment under the African 
and Caribbean Trade Act. And this legislation allows the U.S. Postal 
Service to continue to use the bypass mail system in Alaska. Clearly, 
these are not emergencies.
  We have criticized Enron and Arthur Andersen for using budget tricks 
to cook the books. We shouldn't pull the same sleight of hand on the 
taxpayers while throwing in unrelated policy riders. I ask my 
colleagues to join me and vote against this $29 billion supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, if the GOP leadership is so sure that 
their supplementary appropriations bill promotes fiscal responsibility, 
why are they resorting to sneaky tactics such as the ones what we've 
seen in this bill?
  How many times does the majority have to be called on their false 
promises to protect Social Security?
  What kind of fools do they take the people of this country to be?
  When are they going to level with the American public?
  We're here arguing about raising the debt ceiling because at this 
time last year, the Republican leadership and the administration passed 
a $1.3 trillion tax cut.
  The irresponsible nature of that tax cut is made evident by the very 
fact that we have to raise the debt limit.
  And once again, the Republican leadership is pushing for measures 
that jeopardize the future of the Social Security trust fund.
  We've already borrowed from the Social Security trust fund to give 
the ``Bill Gates of the world'' a couple extra tax cuts and now we're 
going to borrow from the trust fund again to finance other programs.
  Escalating public debt mortgages away our Social Security trust fund 
so why wouldn't we question the leadership's less than honest attempts 
to raise the debt ceiling.
  Preserving the Social Security trust fund is not a new idea. At one 
time we had Republicans and Democrats alike pledging to keep the trust 
fund off limits. But when it comes down to it, the GOP leadership is 
not serious about ensuring basic retirement security for American 
workers.
  The Republican's raid on Social Security has particular impact on the 
future of women. Women truly are the face of Social Security. Today, 
sixty percent of all Social Security recipients are women. Of 
recipients over age 85, nearly three-quarters are women.
  Most of these women rely on Social Security for nearly 90% of their 
income. While they tend to live longer than men, women have fewer 
alternatives, fewer assets. Without Social Security's guaranteed, 
lifetime, inflation-protected benefits, over half of all elderly women 
would be poor.
  After a lifetime of work, women often find themselves in dire 
economic straits during what is supposed to be their golden years.
  The year is 2002, but women are still earning less than their male 
counterparts and are the ones expected to leave the workforce so that 
their children, and elder family members, are taken care of. This being 
the case, their Social Security benefits are extremely valuable to the 
quality of their retirement.
  Fortunately, the current progressive system does not penalize women 
for these patterns of work wages and family obligations.
  Social Security is structured to help those women with lower lifetime 
earnings and/or those who have taken time off to care for children.
  In order for our daughters and our granddaughters to count on the 
Social Security benefits as we have come to know them to be, we must 
back up our pledges to save Social Security with legislative action 
that does not spend the trust fund.
  With the large ``Baby Boom generation'' getting closer to retirement 
and their children right behind, it's imperative that we reverse this 
downward spiral of deficit spending and exercise smart fiscal policy 
today.
  It's time to have an honest debate about where our economy stands and 
how best to shore up the future of important domestic programs like 
Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, how this Congress spends our Federal funds says a lot 
about who we are as a nation--who we are as a people.
  Make no mistake, we support the funding necessary to protect our 
country, but it take more than a strong military to keep this country 
secure--our people must be strong too. That means we must invest in our 
children's future; preserve retirement benefits for our seniors and 
help working families.
  Yet, the Republican leadership is asking us to support a supplemental 
appropriations bill that threatens all of these vital needs--now and 
far into the future. Talk about Teddy--the Republican plan will raise 
our Nation's debt ceiling and increase our children's debt. It means 
the Social Security trust fund will be raided, and domestic spending 
will be cut to make up the difference. That's just plain wrong!
  It's time that my colleagues across the aisle look at the whole 
picture. National security isn't only about fighting the war on 
terrorism. It's also about fighting for our children's future. And, 
leaving them more debt is no way to make them strong.
  Yet, with one narrow phrase in the supplemental bill, Republicans are 
laying the groundwork to endanger our children's future by raising the 
debt ceiling.
  Even worse, we don't know by how much the GOP leadership plans to 
raise the ceiling.
  The debt ceiling now stands at $5.95 trillion. With a U.S. population 
of 281 million, the debt works out to an average of $21,200 for every 
man, woman and child. The question is: After they're finished, how much 
will that amount increase?
  Reports indicate Secretary O'Neill wants to increase it by $750 
billion, making the debt ceiling more than $6.7 billion. This increases 
each person's portion to $24,000.
  But as far as we know, the House Republicans may be scheming for a 
debt ceiling that would make it $30,000, $40,000, who knows! All so 
that they can cover the cost of enacting last spring's fiscally 
irresponsible tax cut for the Nation's top 2%.
  Isn't increasing the debt limit raising taxes but this time on our 
children and our grandchildren?
  It's time for Congress to stop dancing around this issue, and bring 
the decision to increase the debt limit--for a defined amount into the 
light--to an open vote. Then we'd know who wants to take care of our 
children.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, today we spent much of the day talking 
about raising the debt limit. I think for most Americans, much of this 
debate, was difficult to follow because it focused on House procedure. 
What I would like to do is try to explain why this debate will have a 
negative effect on Social Security.
  Currently, the Federal government does not have enough money to run 
its day to day operations. There are many reasons for this, including: 
a decline in the economy, a reduced tax revenue, the burst of the stock 
market bubble, and the President's $1.7 trillion tax cut from last 
year.
  In order to meet its obligations, the government borrows money. Much 
of the borrowing

[[Page H3027]]

comes from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, since it 
currently takes in more money than it pays out in benefits. So the 
government writes an ``IOU'' for the trust fund and uses the money to 
pay for its operations.
  Currently, this is not a big deal. However, beginning in 2017, Social 
Security will pay out more than it takes in. In 2041, the trust funds' 
reserves are exhausted--in other words there is no more money to pay 
full benefits. The money the Federal government takes in will only pay 
for 73 percent of benefits.
  Now here is where the debt ceiling comes in to play. The Federal 
government will need to borrow money so that it can continue paying for 
the Nation's defense, improvements to the roads, improved schools and 
teachers and many other things. It will also have to borrow to allow 
the government to continue paying full benefits for Social Security 
recipients.
  The debt ceiling limits the amount of money the Federal government 
can borrow. If we raise the ceiling today, we will have to pay off a 
larger debt, we will have to pay more in interest, we will have to use 
more of the trust fund to finance the day-to-day operations of the 
government.
  This makes it nearly impossible to address the needs of Social 
Security that millions of people depend on.
  If we do not address Social Security, women will be particularly 
affected.
  Sixty percent of all Social Security recipients are women. And 
without Social Security, over half of all elderly women would be poor.
  Nearly two-thirds of all women 65 and older get half or more of their 
income from Social Security. Nearly one-third of those receive 90 
percent or more of their income from Social Security.
  On average, women spend about 14 fewer years in the workforce than 
men because of pregnancies and raising children. Therefore, our 
pensions tend to be smaller. But Social Security's spousal benefits 
protect us, ensuring that we have enough to get through retirement.
  Social Security's progressive benefit formula provides women, and 
others, with benefits that are a higher percentage of their earnings. 
So despite a lifetime of lower earnings--on average, women earn 73 
cents for every dollar that men earn--we will have adequate income for 
retirement and will live at a comfortable level.
  And, since women generally live 6 to 8 years longer than men, we need 
to receive benefits for a longer period of time.
  Under the Social Security's benefit formula, women will receive 
benefits for as long as they live. We do not need to worry about out-
living our personal savings, which is a huge comfort for many us.
  In short, Social Security is a vitally important program. It allows 
millions to retire in dignity and comfort.
  Raising the debt ceiling makes it harder for the Federal government 
to meet its obligations.
  We are, in effect, asking that our children and grandchildren 
increase their taxes, cut benefits and raise the retirement age for 
millions of potential beneficiaries so that we can avoid taking 
responsibility.
  It is just plain unfair.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today on 
behalf of the hospitals throughout Central and Southern Illinois. 
Section 1404 of this bill would fix the Medicare funding problem for a 
few rural hospitals in Pennsylvania and New York, while the rest of the 
rural hospitals across America will continue to struggle including 
those in my district and all of downstate Illinois. It is unfortunate 
this area of concern is somewhat technical and complicated.
  The area wage index is a scale used to adjust Medicare inpatient and 
outpatient payments to account for varying wage rates paid by hospitals 
for workers in different market areas across the country. Hospitals in 
areas with a higher wage index value receive higher Medicare 
prospective payments than hospitals in areas with a lower wage index 
value. An area wage index value is calculated for each metropolitan 
statistical area and rural area in each state. The rule that I opposed 
today places my hospitals at risk.
  Many hospitals, especially those in rural areas, feel that their MSA 
does not coincide with their actual labor market area. Hospitals in 
metropolitan areas can afford to offer higher wages directly competing 
with rural hospitals for health care workers. Hospitals with a low wage 
index often times cannot afford to pay for the necessary labor in order 
to ensure quality care for their patients. However, Medicare law does 
allow hospitals to be reclassified from one MSA to another.
  I support Mr. Baldacci's amendment to strike Section 1404 of this 
bill, however, since that is not an option I feel that it is only fair 
for counties in rural Central and Southern Illinois to receive the same 
reclassification opportunity as those counties in New York and 
Pennsylvania. It is absolutely unacceptable to give preferential 
treatment to a few hospitals without considering the needs of all rural 
hospitals across America.
  I do not have a problem with hospitals receiving a higher base 
payment rate. However, I do have a problem with this issue being stuck 
in this appropriations bill in this unfair manner. We need to look out 
for all of our citizens best interests, not just the interests of a 
select few.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is going to be ruled out of order. I am 
very disappointed in the outlandish process today. It reminds me of the 
Executive Sessions back door Open Meeting Act.
  My father of 81 years of age is just recovering from a heart attack. 
If it were not for a small hospital in my home town, he possibly would 
not still be with us tonight. We need help just like any other place in 
the nation--urban or otherwise.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, remember when Republicans told us we had 
so much money in the treasury that we would run out of debt to redeem? 
When their majority leader was worried about a surplus of the surplus? 
And when our President told us there was plenty of money--enough to 
protect our country, leave Social Security untouched and still give a 
huge tax break to top income earners?
  It wasn't very long ago that we heard such things, but that isn't 
what we face now.
  We have a war, we have a recession and we have a tax cut. We need to 
pay for the war, work our way through the recession and take another 
look at the tax cut. It's just crazy to continue along as if nothing 
has happened with the budgeted tax cuts for top income earners that 
were adopted on the premise that we would have surpluses. We need to 
get together and take another stab at that plan-now that we know the 
surpluses are gone--to see whether we can manage all three: war, 
recession and tax cut. One thing we know is that we have to pay for the 
war efforts.
  Where I come from we have a saying: When you find yourself in a hole, 
the first thing to do is stop digging.
  I think this bill may be an attempt to use the war as cover: to pass 
a provision to allow the federal government to borrow billions of 
dollars from the Social Security trust fund. This is necessary not 
because of the war, but because of the earlier tax cuts. Where I come 
from most people tell me that they don't think it makes sense to borrow 
money from Social Security to fund that tax cut.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has conducted an analysis. 
What they found is this: the period for measuring solvency in the 
Social Security system is 75 years. Over that period the projected 
revenue loss for the tax cut will be $5 trillion larger than the entire 
Social Security short-fall.
  That, in the end, is why the debt ceiling needs to be raised and why, 
I believe, Republicans who said so recently ``not to worry'' don't want 
to have a recorded vote to borrow money.
  America must be militarily strong to face the military challenge. Yet 
we must also acknowledge we cannot be militarily strong if we allow 
ourselves to become economically weak.
  The people who send us here expect us to be honest with them, in 
times of war and peace but especially in war. My Democratic colleagues 
and I are insisting that we level with the American people and we'll 
continue to oppose this effort to drive America back into deficit 
spending and diverting the Social Security trust fund.
  I've heard some of the older members in the Republican party defend 
their raid by saying that Democrats did it when they were in charge. 
Well, I have served in this House since 1995 and have only served in 
the minority. I served for 14 years in local government where our 
budgets had to balance each year. When I got here, we agreed--both 
Democrats and Republicans--that we would balance the budget and create 
a Social Security ``lock box''. That's been approved many times by 
nearly unanimous votes. It is pathetic to hear now that Republicans 
want to reject that pact we made with each other for the benefit of our 
country.
  Yes, we are in a hole. We will need to raise the debt ceiling until 
we figure out how to stop digging, perhaps by freezing taxes. I think 
we should raise the ceiling for 60 days. That would give us time to 
meet--and get a plan to stop digging the hole. Let's vote the money for 
the war effort that both Democrats and Republicans supported in the 
Appropriations Committee, take out the riders that deal with things 
that have nothing to do with the war and have a separate vote to raise 
the debt ceiling 60 days. Let's take those 60 days, have a budget 
summit and get our fiscal act together.
  Fighting the war and supporting our troops is something we all agree 
on. I would hope that we could also agreed that it doesn't make a whole 
lot of sense to borrow money from Social Security to fund a tax break 
for the most affluent--a reverse Robin Hood move that takes from the 
least wealthy to give to the most wealthy.
  We need to fund the war, but we don't need to wipe out Social 
Security to do it. And let's

[[Page H3028]]

remember that our soldiers and sailors have parents and grandparents 
too--people who need to count on Social Security being there in their 
old age.
  Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, last night the Rules Committee amended 
Section 1404 of this bill to reclassify the location of hospitals for 
purposes of Medicare Reimbursements. But the Republican Leadership has 
crafted a rule that allows only certain counties in Pennsylvania and 
New York to receive adequate reimbursement in this amendment.
  Unfortunately the current system for determining the wage index for 
medicare reimbursement rates for hospitals places some hospitals at a 
disadvantage. These hospitals may have similar labor costs to nearby 
hospitals. But because of the geographic classification and the nature 
of the reclassification system, certain hospitals have an advantage 
because they receive a higher level of reimbursement for wages and 
salaries.
  There is no question that the hospitals located in the counties 
mentioned in this bill deserve to be reclassified so that they can 
receive a fair rate of reimbursement. The inadequate reimbursement rate 
is one reason why we constantly hear about hospitals going broke.
  However, hospitals in my district deserve the same consideration. For 
this reason I offer this amendment with my colleague from Connecticut, 
Congressman Shays, that would reclassify hospitals in New Haven and 
Fairfield Counties so that they could qualify for the wage index that 
is used for nearby New York Metropolitan Statistical Area.
  I know there are hospitals in the Chairman's District and also in my 
colleague across the aisle's district that would like this same 
consideration. Congressman Visclosky spoke earlier this evening on how 
hospitals in his district were not included in these selective 
reclassification provisions even though he had contacted the Ways and 
Means Committee about this very problem. In fact, there is a list of 
members who have hospitals that should be eligible for geographic 
reclassification. Every one of those members could make a valid 
argument as to why their hospital is the one that should be taken care 
of in this bill.
  This language is not budget neutral language. The amendments that the 
Rules Committee has allowed to be included will cost tens of millions 
of dollars--dollars that come at the expense of other hospitals across 
the nation.
  Accordingly to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget 
Office, the geographic reclassification of hospitals in these 
Pennsylvania counties will cost approximately $34 to $35 million.
  The New York Hospital Association predicts the change for certain New 
York hospitals could cost some where in the range of $34 to $40 
million.
  So again I ask, why are those counties getting special treatment? Why 
are certain hospitals in Pennsylvania and New York going to receive 
help in obtaining more equitable reimbursement for their services and 
not those in New Haven and Bridgeport, CT?
  Hospitals in my district--and in many of my colleagues' districts--
need and deserve the same treatment. Mr. Chairman, we should not 
selectively address the reclassification issue. We need to consider 
this issue in a fair and comprehensive bill.

                  Amendment to H.R. 4775, as Reported

                 Offered by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut

       Page 110, after line 20, insert the following:


    treatment of a certain new england county metropolitan area for 
          purposes of reimbursement under the medicare program

       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     effective for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 
     2002, for purposes of making payments under section 1886(d) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)) to hospitals 
     located in the New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-
     Danbury, Connecticut New England County Metropolitan Area, 
     such hospitals are deemed to be located in the New York, New 
     York, Metropolitan Statistical Area.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I want to state once again what the 
controversy engaging us is about. From this member's perspective--it is 
not whether or not we should pass the Emergency Supplemental bill to 
help fund the war on terrorism. There is no debate about that; we all 
agree that we need to get this emergency money to the President to 
support our troops and beef up homeland security.
  Each Member of this House wants to ensure that our men and women in 
uniform have all the tools and resources they need to win the war 
against global terrorism. If the debate were simply about whether to 
provide those resources, we would pass the bill rather quickly.
  What is at issue here are the little--and the not so little--
provisions attached to this bill.
  First and foremost is the majority party's attempt to slip a $750 
billion increase in the National Debt through the House with no debate, 
no vote. I just can't go along with that.
  Earlier today my colleague from Utah, Jim Matheson, made a speech on 
the floor that particularly struck me. He said that a major problem 
with this clandestine move to rise the National Debt was the lack of 
``a plan'' on how to regain some fiscal responsibility around this 
place. I couldn't agree more.
  We have to get our fiscal house in order here in Washington. We have 
to have a plan. But the only plan I see is ``Let's keep borrowing 
against our children's future.''
  We all come here representing different areas of the country. Often 
that leads us to having different priorities. But our job here is to 
find common ground to best represent the country as a whole. That 
requires that we work together--in a bipartisan way--to craft a 
fiscally disciplined budget for our country, just as a responsible 
family, or business does. It means making choices and prioritizing. It 
means being straight with the American people about what we can afford 
and what we can't.
  I stand here as a Democrat who votes for the tax cut last year. I 
supported the effort to put more money back into people's pockets, to 
end the burden of the estate tax. But by making this choice, I knew 
that this would mean making other tough choices. Because you can't have 
everything.
  So, for example, even though I represent a rural district, I voted 
against the $200 billion Farm Bill. Among other problems, I believed it 
cost too much. Now, some of my colleagues may disagree with both votes. 
They may have wanted more farm spending or less tax reduction. But the 
issue for the House as a whole is whether or not we have a plan for 
balancing these competing priorities. Do we have a schedule to bring 
back some fiscal sanity? Or are we just going to return to the old ways 
of endless borrowing against our children's future? Judging by what the 
majority wants to do with this debt ceiling increase--no plan, just 
keep borrowing--I would guess it is the latter. Mr. Chairman, that's 
just wrong.
  If we are going to put the American people in debt by up to $750 
billion let's be straight about it. Let's tell them what we are doing 
and why. Let's have a vote on it. Let's be held responsible for the 
choices we make. Let's not hide behind legislative trickery to cover 
our tracks.
  I am also concerned by another provision slipped into the rule. It 
will provide a band-aid to a few hospitals in Pennsylvania and upstate 
New York--without any sort of hearings or Committee consideration. And 
how are we doing this? We are cutting funds to hospitals across the 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, seniors in my district in California are clamoring for 
help. They are seeing their health care system dissolve before their 
eyes. And this Congress is using band aids to stop hemorrhaging in a 
couple of districts for political reasons. You don't have to be a nurse 
to see that that won't work.
  In my district there is a health care crisis partly caused by 
Medicare. Many doctors in communities are refusing to see new patients 
and choosing early retirement because their Medicare rates have been 
cut. Medicare HMOs are cutting benefits, increasing cost sharing for 
seniors, and pulling out altogether because the Medicare Choice rates 
are still stagnant. Long Term Care facilities are already struggling to 
make ends meet and to provide quality care to our parents, 
grandparents, and great grandparents. And now they are facing a 17% cut 
in their funds from Medicare.
  Clinics and other Medicaid providers are facing terrible cuts because 
many States can no longer afford to support them. And hospitals in my 
district are flirting with bankruptcy and disaster because Medicare is 
scheduled to cut their funds, they cannot find doctors, and the 
Medicare HMOs cannot, or will not, pay them enough.
  Just today, the largest clinic in Santa Maria, California--Sansum 
Clinic--announced it would be closing its doors this summer. This 
closure will affect thousands of Santa Marians and have a devastating 
effect on health care delivery in the area. And to top this all off 
seniors still do not have prescription drug coverage.
  This Congress needs to address the crisis in health care--and not 
just in the two counties that the House leadership wants to favor.
  I would urge the House leadership to pull this bill and bring down 
the emergency supplemental that the Committee reported. Let's support 
our troops and leave the legislative maneuvering for another day.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson once said: ``The whole art 
of government consists of being honest.'' I've come here to speak today 
about transparency in government.
  The Republican leadership is attempting to increase the amount the 
Federal Government can borrow--not through a direct, democratic vote--
but by quietly slipping it into the Supplemental Appropriations bill. 
They're not specifying how much they want, they're not telling

[[Page H3029]]

us how they plan to spend it, and most importantly, they're not telling 
us how they plan to pay it back.
  Why is telling the truth such a terrible thing to the Republicans? 
Why is the Republican majority afraid of being open and honest with the 
American people? I hope it's not about getting elections because this 
is about being fiscally responsible.
  Every Member in this body knows that an increase in the debt limit 
has a monumental impact on our economy. However, under this Republican 
procedure, there is no chance to debate or to offer alternatives to one 
of the most important decisions made by this Congress.
  The state of the economy affects the lives of all American families 
and businesses, not just today, but especially in the future as Baby 
Boomers begin to retire. We are in danger of placing an unnecessary 
burden on present and future generations.
  The Federal Government is in a deficit, and under a Republican 
leadership, a $4 trillion surplus has disappeared in one year--the 
largest fiscal reversal in our Nation's history.
  Before approving a substantial increase in our borrowing authority we 
must review our long-term budget policies.
  As elected officials charged with the public trust we must not act 
without a comprehensive plan. Just as we are clear with the goals of 
the supplemental appropriations bill, we should also be clear with the 
specific and transparent action on raising the debt limit. It should be 
a separate and distinct action.
  I've listened to a majority of this debate and all the Republicans 
continue to say is ``Where's your budget?'' I sit on the budget 
committee. I participated in those discussions. And I'm here asking, 
Where is ``your'' budget? Where is your plan to restore us to balanced 
spending? Where is your plan to protect social security and Medicare? 
And where is your plan to protect the welfare of our children and 
grandchildren?
  In light of the dramatic reversal in our Nation's fiscal condition, 
spurred in no small part by a reckless Republican tax cut, we should 
not, as the Republicans are proposing today, blindly pile debt onto 
future generations.
  There is no doubt that this bill contains what we need to fight 
terrorism. We all agree that some of this spending is necessary. But 
let's pay for this war on terrorism without attaching extraneous 
provisions. Never forget that undue patriotism is the last refuge of a 
scoundrel. Waving the flag for the war on terrorism should not be an 
excuse to cover mortgaging our future.
  Supplemental appropriations bills are designed to be targeted 
spending in emergencies, not wish lists for proposals that would 
otherwise never stand the rigors of an open process.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand on the floor today in full support of our 
troops fighting terrorism here and abroad. However, we can be strong 
militarily without becoming weak economically. We must take care of our 
people at home. Social Security must be protected, and Medicare for our 
seniors must be preserved.
  It's simple math: The GOP tax cut + increase of the debt limit 
without a plan = The 1-2 punch to bring us back to an era of 
Reaganomics and deficit spending.
  I heard that we are using the argument on Social Security and 
prescription drugs to scare seniors. I say we are not scaring seniors. 
I say that what the Republican want to do with our budget is scary. 
We're just telling the American people they should be scared straight 
by the tactics of the Republican leadership.
  In Summary: It's time for the House Republicans to be straightforward 
with the American people. I support an emergency supplemental bill, but 
we should not use it to bury provisions that would otherwise not see 
the light of day.
  We need transparency within government and an honest and open 
process.
  We need to practice fiscal responsibility.
  We must ensure our national security, but we cannot forget our 
domestic responsibility.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to 
decry Republican efforts to use parliamentary gimmickry to sneak 
through a way to raise our Nation's debt ceiling.
  We all know that the only reason that we are even discussing this 
increase to the Nation's debt is that the Republican economic plan has 
failed us. So now, the Republicans are refusing to face the music about 
the consequences of their trillion-dollar tax cut for the wealthy.
  The Majority doesn't seem to want to be held accountable--so they are 
trying to bury this debt increase in our Nation's military supplemental 
spending bill.
  In other words, the Majority wants to run up this Nation's debt to 
even greater heights without an open debate, and without an up-and-down 
vote on this issue. Mr. Chairman, this is an outrage!
  Now I can't say that I blame my Republican colleagues for wanting to 
avoid this issue. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office was 
projecting that our Nation's debt ceiling of $5.95 trillion would last 
for the next six years or more.
  Unfortunately, the Republican's economic plan--and its tax cut for 
the wealthy--put us right back in an era of deficits. So here we are, 
forced to borrow money to make our Nation's ends meet, and forced to 
raise the Nation's debt limit again.
  However, since my colleagues in the Republican party are trying to 
avoid discussing what increasing the debt limit will actually mean for 
America, I'm here to point out the consequences that this vote will 
have on our Nation's Social Security program.
  We have already squandered all of our surpluses, which means that all 
of the funds from this debt limit increase will come directly from the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  The future of our Nation's most successful social program is in the 
balance, and we must let the American people know that the Republican 
leadership has put forth plans that could jeopardize the very system 
that so many Americans rely on.
  We all know that Social Security is a critical safety net for our 
Nation's seniors. In my home state of Texas, one out of every ten 
residents depends on Social Security to provide vital income for 
themselves and their families. Nationwide, two-thirds of our seniors--
women and men--count Social Security benefits as the majority of their 
income.
  We all know that it is women who have the greatest benefit from 
Social Security. We generally live longer, make less, and have smaller 
pensions than men do. These benefits are particularly important to 
women in Texas. Without these vital retirement benefits, 564,000 women 
in the Lone Star State would fall below the poverty line.
  For African American and Hispanic women especially, this program is 
more than just retirement insurance. Women of color disproportionately 
rely on this system for its disability and widow benefits. Social 
Security is also a critical safety net that protects African American 
children.
  For all these reasons, I want to make sure that everyone knows just 
how much is at stake for our community when we talk about keeping 
Social Security strong.
  Right now, there are proposals before the Congress to alter the 
structure of Social Security. Yet, no one in the Republican leadership 
seems to be willing to talk about these plans. Sound familiar? No one 
on the other side of the aisle wants to talk about raising our Nation's 
debt, either.
  Well, we Democrats are not going to let Republicans keep our Nation 
in the dark about this. We know that we must protect and strengthen 
Social Security. We know that America can be strong militarily without 
becoming weak economically. And we know that the American public 
deserves open debate on the financial future of our Nation.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add Schuylkill and 
Northumberland Counties to the list of six Pennsylvania counties in 
section 1404 that were arbitrarily moved to Newberg, NY-PA MSA 
according to a self-enacting provision in the rule passed yesterday.
  Section 1404 of this bill directs the Medicare Geographic 
Classification Review Board to deem certain counties in Northeastern 
Pennsylvania to be located in a more advantageous Metropolitan 
Statistical Area for the purposes of computing reimbursement under the 
Medicare program.
  The two counties in my district are adjacent to the six counties 
listed in Section 1404 and find themselves in similar economic 
circumstances. My amendment would simply move the counties in my 
Congressional District to a new MSA along with the six counties already 
in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, if my amendment has the opportunity to be voted on, I 
am confident it will pass, based on the success of the amendment 
adopted earlier today in the rule.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my opposition to Section 
1404 of this bill. While I had considered offering an amendment to 
strike this provision, I recognize that such an amendment would be out 
of order. Instead, I want to take this opportunity to state my deep 
concern over the effects that this measure will have, with the hope 
that this situation can be improved in the remainder of the legislative 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision would assist a mere handful of hospitals 
in a few geographic areas, at the expense of every other hospital in 
the country. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to drain funding from any of 
our nation's hospitals, especially as we debate a bill that is meant to 
strengthen our ability to respond to medical emergencies that could 
strike anywhere across the nation.
  Mr. Chairman, hospitals in my State of Maine cannot afford any 
further reimbursement cuts, no matter how small. My state already has 
the 5th-lowest Medicare reimbursement rate in the country. Our 
hospitals are operating on razor-thin margins. In a state as

[[Page H3030]]

geographically large as Maine, we already struggle with access to 
medical services. Further cuts will only exacerbate the problem.
  This provision is a clear case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In fact, 
it's even worse because there are just a few select Pauls, and a 
national full of Peters. Why should the vast majority of Members tell 
their seniors that their access to care may be jeopardized by a gift to 
a few select hospitals somewhere else? How can we effectively fight 
AIDS and infectious diseases through increased spending in this bill, 
when at the same time we weaken our hospitals? What sense does it make 
to give money to speed our first response to attacks, while at the same 
time taking funds from the hospitals who would be on the front line?
  Mr. Chairman, I know all too well that the geographic adjustment 
system for Medicare payment rates needs reform. My State of Maine is 
among the most egregiously affected by the current system, and I would 
be happy to work with any of my colleagues who wish to seek reform to 
make reimbursement rates more equitable. I strongly support improved 
reimbursement for all our nation's hospitals. However, this provision 
in this bill only benefits a select few facilities, and will detract 
from the ability of all others to meet their obligations to Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  Section 1404 is unfair, it's unjust, and it's just plain bad policy. 
It certainly does not belong in an Emergency Supplemental. Since we 
cannot remove this provision today, I am hopeful that we can fix the 
problem in conference. This bill funds vital areas like defense, 
security and health, and the final bill should not be marred by this 
destructive measure.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I do not in any way question the 
patriotism of my Republican colleagues. Nor should they question mine. 
And I most certainly have the greatest respect for Chairman Young who 
worked with the minority and reported out of committee a bipartisan 
bill that provides needed funding to support our military and our 
Nation's fight against terrorism.
  It is for this reason that I am absolutely baffled that my Republican 
colleagues are allowing their leadership to muddy up this bill so 
critical to the safety of our troops and our Nation's security.
  It is unconscionable that the Republican leadership has made it 
necessary to delay passage of this bill because of their addition of 
ill-conceived and irresponsible provisions that have nothing to do with 
supporting our troops or defending our country's security.
  I therefore implore my Republican colleagues to insist that the 
national interests of this country are put before the political 
interests of their leadership.
  Help us strip the bill of this underhanded attempt to burden 
America's taxpayers and increase the national debt limit by 750 billion 
dollars . . . which in effect is a 750 billion dollar overdraft of our 
Nation's checking account.
  What makes the actions of the Republican leadership even worse is 
that we are already in deficit due to the earlier irresponsible 
economic policies of the majority.
  As a result, what the Republican leadership is doing tonight, under 
the guise of national security, will come at the unnecessary expense of 
our children's future and the destabilization of the social security 
and medicare trust funds.
  Many of my Republican colleagues have come to the floor and 
challenged our patriotism for questioning and debating the extraneous 
additions to this bill.
  Such criticism is misplaced and quite offensive.
  In fact, it is the Republican leadership that is turning their backs 
on our military by making a sham of the very democracies and freedoms 
our troops are fighting for and sacrificing their lives to protect.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday my respected colleague, Chairman Young, stated 
that this war-time supplemental is a must-pass bill for the security of 
our troops and our Nation.
  I could not agree more.
  Therefore I urge my Republican colleagues to put a stop to this ill-
conceived and divisive strategy to raise the debt limit and to do the 
right thing by allowing us to pass a national security bill that 
Democrats, Republicans, the President and the American people can 
proudly support.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, the 
Intelligence Committee, and the Veterans' Affairs Committee, as a 
veteran, as a Democrat, as a citizen of this nation, I strongly support 
the funding in this bill for fighting the war against terrorism and for 
rebuilding New York. I strongly support the funding in this bill to 
secure our borders. We all support these provisions. I applaud the 
Appropriations Committee for putting together a bill that we can all 
vote for and send to the President.
  The Republican leadership decided to take a good bill and play 
politics. The Republican leadership decided to take a bill that is 
designed to fight a war, to keep our soldiers safe, to secure our 
ports-of-entry, and decided to add provisions that they didn't want to 
deal with and debate on their own merits.
  The Republican leadership doesn't want the American people to know 
that they are seeking to raise the debt limit, to add $750 billion to 
our nation's credit card, without having a single member of this body 
vote on raising the debt limit. They don't want the American people to 
know that they need to raise this debt limit in part because of their 
fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that mainly benefitted the wealthiest 
in the country and ignored the needs of the working class.
  If we are going to raise the debt limit by $750 billion, we owe it to 
our constituents to let them know what we are doing and to have an 
honest and full debate on this floor. Let's stand here and debate the 
reasons we need to raise the debt limit. If we need to raise this debt 
limit because we are at war, as the Republicans say, let's talk about 
it and get all the facts out. I would welcome the opportunity to talk 
about the fiscal policy of the Republican party that has put us in this 
situation. Let's confront this issue instead of trying to sneak it into 
a bipartisan emergency supplemental appropriations bill that we all 
support.
  Last night, the Speaker of the House said that if we voted against 
this bill, we would be ``voting against our military'' and we would be 
``voting against those people in New York.'' I say to the Speaker and 
to my friends on the other side of the aisle that you are the ones who 
made this ``war-time'' supplemental political. You are the ones 
politicizing this issue. You should be ashamed of your actions to try 
and fool the American people.
  I am about to depart on a CODEL with a number of my colleagues to 
visit our troops in Korea and Uzbekistan. I have visited troops in 
Bosnia, in Germany, in Turkey, and in Afghanistan. I participate in 
these CODELs so that I will never lose sight of what I am doing in 
Congress and what those brave young men and women are doing for us each 
day. This debate, these actions by the Republican leadership, make it 
clear that too many people in this body have lost sight of what we are 
supposed to do here. This bill should be about homeland defense, about 
national security, about taking care of our troops who are spilling 
their blood for us. Instead, this bill has become a political mess 
because of the action of the Republican leadership. They should be 
ashamed.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I'm a proud 
American. We stand together in defense of our nation. I come to the 
floor today in full support of our troops fighting terrorism here and 
abroad. House Democrats are fully committed to winning the war on 
terrorism and once again making America safe from harm.
  Unfortunately, House Republicans are using the war to pass a 
dangerous and cynical provision that allows the Federal Government to 
break its own spending limit and take hundreds of billions of dollars 
from the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The war is not what we are arguing about today. What we object to is 
the effort to use this supplemental spending bill to increase the 
national debt and hide that increase with gimmicks and deception.
  In short, Republicans spent all their money before they paid their 
bills. Would you write a check before you put money in the bank. The 
Republican budget used up 100 percent of the projected surplus. It left 
no margin for error, and put us on a course to run up our debt.
  Now the Republicans are trying to increase the debt without any 
debate or vote. Most importantly, the increased debt would be paid for 
from Social Security trust fund. Every dollar in additional debt 
incurred is another dollar taken away from Social Security and 
Medicare.
  How is this increase in debt going to affect seniors, children, and 
other Americans who depend on us to protect them. This is like taking 
your families hard earned money to a gambling facility and hoping you 
come away with enough to pay for your future.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle and the president need to 
understand that we can defeat terrorism without destroying Social 
Security. I am staunchly opposed to the Republicans' plan to raid 
social security to pay for other programs that they didn't consider 
when they passed their tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.
  Members on the other side were very willing to stand up and take 
credit when they passed the tax cut bill that put us in this mess. They 
should be willing to stand up and be counted now that it has come time 
to pay the bills by raising the debt limit.
  I would like to see four things happen: First, I want a responsible, 
honest, and bipartisan budget; second, I want to protect and strengthen 
Social Security; I want to ensure that we meet our obligations today so 
that our children are not burdened with debt, and; I want a budget 
summit called so that we can begin to fix this fiscal nightmare that we 
find ourselves in.

[[Page H3031]]

  Congress must work with the Administration to put the fiscal house 
back together again. If American families ran their finances the way 
the Republicans have run the nations, they'd be living in the dark and 
taking showers in the rain.
  America can be strong militarily without becoming weak economically. 
Let's work toward achieving that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, this supplemental 
appropriations bill contains funds urgently needed by our Armed 
Services to fight the war on terrorism. I support this bill because I 
believe that we must provide these much needed resources to our armed 
services as promptly as possible. However, I take this opportunity to 
address two important issues that should have further debate, and on 
which the House should vote separately.
  A year ago, budget projections were forecasting huge surpluses for 
many years to come. Today, the federal budget is in deficit, and now 
the majority wants to borrow more money without having a long-term plan 
to get us out of the deficit. Whether you think we should raise the 
debt limit or not, we should at the very least have a long-term budget 
plan to eradicate the deficit. Without a plan, the majority seeks to 
finance the deficit by raiding the Social Security and Medicare Trust 
Funds, which places these funds at long-term great peril, and creates a 
burden unfairly imposed upon our children and grandchildren.
  It is especially disappointing that the House did not have any 
opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on raising the debt limit. 
Instead, parliamentary tricks were used to insert the provision in this 
bill. It is my hope that the Senate will not let this type of gimmickry 
stand. Both the House and Senate should vote directly on whether or not 
to raise the debt limit.
  There is a second objectionable provision in this bill: it contains 
language that dramatically weakens the Endangered Species Act. Section 
705 exempts the Department of Defense from complying with the 
Endangered Species Act's requirements that off-base impacts of proposed 
DoD decisions be considered. This language exempts DoD actions related 
to off-base water consumption that threaten imperiled species or their 
habitats. During debate on the 2003 Department of Defense Authorization 
bill, I objected to similar environmental attacks in Committee and 
joined Congressman Rahall in offering an amendment to strike these 
exemptions for debate on the floor. A blanket environmental legislative 
exemption to the Department of Defense is not needed. The Secretary of 
Defense already has the ability to waive provisions of the Endangered 
Species Act for national security purposes under section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. Chairman, while I vigorously support our Armed Services, I 
reluctantly support this bill and hope that Senate will act quickly to 
both provide our troops necessary resources to complete their mission, 
and correct the clear deficiencies in the legislation before us today.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to voice my 
support for our war against terrorism here and abroad. However, I stand 
here today to also voice my strong concerns for our future economic 
outlook and the outlook for the Social Security Trust Fund.
  We have been talking about raising the debt limit to $750 billion 
that puts us back on track to deficit spending. Instead of debating an 
honest and clean war-time supplemental bill, we have a disingenuous 
rule that extends into far reaching areas that poses to raise our debt 
ceiling level. What is more worrisome is where this money will be 
coming from--the Social Security Trust Fund.
  In order to pay for other programs, the Republican path will force us 
to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. This presents a bleak outlook 
for the future of Social Security.
  The movement of funds out of the Social Security Trust Fund will have 
a negative impact on future beneficiaries--specifically women. Women 
depend disproportionately on Social Security for several key reasons.
  Women traditionally have been the caretakers of our families, where 
many leave their jobs to take care of their children or other family 
members. Women live longer and earn less than their male counterparts 
(73 cents to the dollar) and typically are more likely to work in 
lower-wage service-sector jobs, where retirement planning is not as 
common. For these reasons, a woman's earning over her lifetime will be 
significantly less--14 years of less earning in comparison to their 
male counterparts.
  For these reasons, women depend heavily on Social Security benefits. 
If we drain the Trust Fund of its resources, beneficiaries, and women 
in particular, will be hard hit. It is obvious that ensuring that the 
Social Security Trust Fund is strong for our future is essential, 
especially for women.
  This issue is of crucial importance for minority women for the 
reasons already mentioned, but their dependence is even greater. Women 
of color have a huge stake in seeing that Social Security is not 
burdened, as they rely even more heavily on Social Security for their 
retirement income than do whites of either gender or men of color.

  African-American women and Hispanic women tend to have even lower 
lifetime earnings than other cultural and gender groups, and also have 
long life spans on average. They tend to work in lower-wage jobs that 
don't offer retirement or pension plans.
  Moreover, they draw disproportionately on Social Security benefits 
for disabled workers and for families of workers who become disabled or 
die prematurely. About one in five African-American and Hispanic 
beneficiaries are under the age of 55, compared to only one in ten 
whites. African-American women in particularly rely greatly on these 
non-retirement benefits because they have a higher rate of disability 
than whites of either gender and they and their families often survive 
deceased husbands.
  One in five African-American married couples rely on Social Security 
for all of their income in retirement. For 80 percent of nonmarried 
elderly African-American and Hispanic women, Social Security provides 
over half of their income in retirement, and over half of older 
African-American and Hispanic widows depend on Social Security for 90 
percent of their retirement income. These statistics ring loudly.
  The security of Social Security benefits also extends to children. 23 
percent of the children who receive the survivor's benefit are African-
American children. In fact, African American children are almost four 
times more likely to be lifted out of poverty by Social Security than 
are white children. This is also a children's issue.
  Instead of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, we need to work 
together to ensure that it is strengthened and not weakened. We need to 
ensure that each and every dollar in the Social Security Trust Fund is 
spent on Social Security. We cannot smash the lockbox and raid it 
blindfolded without weighing the consequences for our future.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, following the terrorist attacks of 
September 11th, we face new challenges throughout the world. While we 
work around the clock to ensure our nation's security, we must also 
work to ensure that the fundamental principles of democracy, human 
rights and justice are upheld.
  I would like to focus for a moment on the South Caucasus. As my 
colleagues know, securing open borders and ensuring regional 
cooperation in the South Caucasus have become increasingly important 
U.S. policy goals. Achieving these goals is not only critical to the 
United States and the global war against terrorism, but also for the 
countries in the region.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, I am keenly aware of the many challenges facing these 
countries and the need for open borders, regional stability and peace. 
Given Turkey's ongoing blockade of Armenia, I welcomed President Bush's 
April 24th Armenian Genocide commemoration statement whereby he called 
on Turkey to restore economic, political, and cultural links with 
Armenia. Once this happens, U.S. legislation such as the Humanitarian 
Aid Corridor Act will no longer be necessary. As a result of the 
economic assistance provided to Turkey in this supplemental bill and 
Turkey's blockade of Armenia, Turkey will be subject to the 
requirements of the Corridor Act. As many know, the Corridor Act 
prohibits U.S. economic assistance to any country that prohibits or 
restricts the transfer or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to 
another country.
  In the South Caucasus, Turkey's blockade of Armenia restricts the 
delivery of humanitarian assistance to Armenia. Unless President Bush 
waives the requirements of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, Turkey 
will not be able to receive the economic assistance provided in this 
bill.
  Therefore, I encourage Turkey to normalize relations with Armenia and 
urge President Bush to carefully review the waiver of the Humanitarian 
Aid Corridor Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my concerns about 
the effect that the supplemental spending bill we debate here today 
will have on Social Security beneficiaries, and particularly on the 
women of this country who depend on Social Security for their 
livelihood.
  Without question, this supplemental spending bill is very important, 
and includes vital funding for the war on terrorism, homeland security 
and much-needed aid for my home state of New York. However, I am 
concerned that these priorities are being paid for with the Social 
Security benefits which are of the utmost importance to countless 
Americans. The retirement security of both men and women rests on the 
decisions that Congress must make regarding this vital program.

[[Page H3032]]

  Women are especially dependent on Social Security. Currently, over 
60% of all Social Security beneficiaries are women. Among beneficiaries 
aged 85 or older, 75% are women. And most of these women rely on Social 
Security for almost 90% of their income. Unfortunately, women often 
have less pension income and personal savings than men. Social Security 
provides women, who live longer and make less money than men, with a 
secure source of retirement income.
  Social Security has allowed generations of women to live with 
independence and dignity. No plan for increasing defense spending or 
any other important priority should simultaneously threaten the 
livelihood of women retirees who, without Social Security would have 
nowhere else to turn. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the 
spending priorities of this Congress, and to preserve Social Security 
for current beneficiaries and future generations.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the supplemental bill under consideration before the House today. My 
opposition is predicated on the fact that through this bill we are 
raiding the Social Security System.
  The path of deficit spending that this bill maps out will do 
irreparable harm to current and future retirees who rely on, or will 
rely on Social Security for retirement income.
  I am particularly concerned about the plight of women who rely on 
Social Security. Last year the President and the House majority 
leadership promised that every dollar of the Social Security and 
Medicare surpluses would be saved for Social Security and Medicare. 
Now, those commitments are being cast aside like useless counterfeit 
money. Let's examine who will suffer and how they will suffer.
  The facts of the matter are: Women constitute the majority of 
beneficiaries, approximately 60 percent of the recipients over the age 
of 65, and roughly 72 percent of the beneficiaries above the age of 85 
are women. Furthermore, women rely disproportionately on Social 
Security benefits.
  27 percent of women over the age of 65 rely on Social Security for 90 
percent of their income.
  Among Elderly widows, Social Security provides nearly 75 percent of 
their income.
  The current strategy to raid the Social Security and Medicare lock 
boxes will spend 93 percent of the Social Security surplus over the 
next five years! The casualties from this wrong-headed policy will be 
women and minorities.
  Women of this House are resolute in our collective refusal not to be 
victimized by a supplemental bill that is short sighted, and which will 
hasten the insolvency of Social Security. Clearly, Social Security is 
projected to cost more in the future largely because the number of 
Americans (especially women) over age 65 will grow faster than the 
number of workers. We must prepare for this eventuality.
  Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to stand firm and resist efforts 
to raid America's trust, our Social Security and Medicare System. We 
must staunchly defend against those who propose to loot the system and 
bankrupt it. We must preserve a sacred trust, so that widows and 
elderly women will have the retirement income they have earned and 
which has been promised to them.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I rise in 
opposition to this bill.
  There are many provisions in this bill that I support. I strongly 
believe, for example, that we must increase our investment in security 
for nuclear facilities.
  I also agree that we need funding for enhanced security at U.S. ports 
and improved airport protections. If those measures, truly emergency 
issues, were up for a separate vote, I would strongly support them.
  However, on the whole I do not believe this bill, as written, serves 
the interests of the American people.
  In its military spending, this bill continues to echo the patterns of 
the Cold War, including continued support for a weapons system the 
Secretary of Defense has very clearly stated he neither wants nor 
needs.
  It includes dangerous provisions that dramatically expand the U.S. 
role in the decades-old Colombian civil war.
  It provides millions of dollars to regimes with very dark human 
rights records with little oversight of how that money will be spent.
  It prohibits any U.S. participation in or even cooperation with the 
International Criminal Court.
  This bill is supposed to be about emergency spending, but instead it 
is loaded with favors to defense contractors, big oil companies, and 
Republican members from a few areas.
  This bill includes millions for protecting a pipeline in Colombia. 
Since when was an Occidental Petroleum pipeline in Colombia a national 
emergency?
  In contrast, there are real emergencies that this bill fails to 
address fully, including the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  While the supplemental appropriations bill does include funding for 
the global AIDS, TB and Malaria crises, I am extremely disappointed 
that the amendment offered by my colleague, Ranking Member Nita Lowey, 
which would have increased funding to $750 million for this priority, 
was defeated in the House Appropriations Committee.
  In addition to AIDS being the greatest humanitarian crisis of our 
time, HIV/AIDS has been declared a threat to our national security by 
the CIA.
  AIDS, TB and Malaria kill over 15,000 people each day. That means 5.4 
million people each year.
  Without stronger U.S. leadership, more and more people will die.
  The U.S. can and must do more. This is an emergency. And $200 million 
is not enough.
  While most of the money in this bill isn't paid for or off-set, the 
Republican leadership is continuing to look for any excuse to cut 
federal funding for another urgent situation, our housing programs. 
This bill cuts another $600 million from low-income housing programs. 
This continues an absurd trend of the GOP rescinding, cutting, or 
diverting more than $20 billion in housing money since they took over 
in 1994.
  We face a housing crisis in my district in the Bay Area and in many 
other parts of the country. And yet, these unconscionable cuts 
continue, putting the dream of home ownership further and further out 
of the reach of millions.
  So with its Cold War approach to defense spending, pork barrel 
projects, dangerous steps in Colombia and elsewhere, and shortfalls for 
real emergencies such as AIDS and housing, I cannot support this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am stunned that this leadership can 
take an overwhelmingly popular and important measure, a measure that 
passed through Committee by voice vote, and load it with so many 
controversial provisions.
  This measure employs procedural gimmicks that silence the voice of 
both Democrat and Republican alike. Whether the issue is Social 
Security, defense, budget, taxes, retirement--you name it--we're cut 
off. Amendments are blocked and debate shut down.
  Today, however, this leadership has truly outdone itself. The 
Leadership has inserted technical language into the Supplemental bill 
that will allow a huge increase in the debt limit to occur without an 
up-or-down vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. This 
stealth maneuver will provide a germane hook so that Republicans can 
later insert a debt limit increase into the conference report.
  This leadership is asking us to ignore its fiscal mismanagement of 
the budget and its inability to stick to the budget policies that 
fostered federal budget surpluses--not deficits. This rule does nothing 
to address the burgeoning public debt and mortgages the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  This leadership is simply not dealing in reality. There refusal to 
engage in any debate on raising the debt ceiling is just the latest in 
a pattern of running roughshod over the rules of the House. Just last 
month, this leadership gutted an adoption tax credit bill to ensure 
consideration of legislation making the President's tax cut permanent 
through this body--without having a real debate. This leadership 
refuses to acknowledge that making the tax cut permanent will diminish 
the government's financial standing by $4 trillion just as the Baby 
Boom retirement reaches full force, between 2013 and 2022.


                             Budget Picture

  Let's take a step back and really look at how we got here. The 
deterioration of the budget outlook over the past 12 months is truly 
stunning. President Bush came to office with an unprecedented budgetary 
bounty--eight consecutive years of budget improvement yielded four 
years of surplus and $453 billion in repayment of publicly held debt.
  No increase in the debt ceiling has been needed since 1997 and, last 
year, the Administration predicted that we would not need a debt limit 
increase until 2008, even with enactment of the President's tax cut. 
But, by August 2001, well before September 11th, Treasury was 
indicating that the debt ceiling would need to be raised next year. 
Thus, assertions that the debt problem is the result of September 11th 
or the war on terrorism simply don't wash.

  Today, the ten-year $5.6 trillion surplus seems like a pipe-dream and 
we must adjust to a new reality--long-term deficits. The interests of 
the people of my district or the nation, at large, are not served by 
moving the goal posts, with respect to debt, and not setting forth a 
plan to get the budget back on track.


                             INTEREST RATES

  I would also note that by increasing the national debt, we run the 
risk of raising interest rates and consequently enacting a massive tax 
cut on all Americans. Over the past year, time and again, the Federal 
Reserve has reduced short term rates. Nevertheless, long-term rates 
have remained high, preventing Americans from realizing savings on 
variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, or credit card payments. 
Thus, the return to deficits and a growing debt has effectively denied

[[Page H3033]]

a tax cut to millions of Americans by keeping long-term rates high.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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 
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________