[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5201-H5229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H5201]]

House of Representatives

                              {time}  1400
 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT 
  FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE 
                             UNITED STATES

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a previous order of 
the House, I call up the conference report to accompany 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Monday, July 22, 2002, the conference report is considered as 
having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 19, 2002 at page H 4935.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report accompanying H.R. 4775, and that 
I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the conference report 
on the 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. This is a war-time 
supplemental to add further to our efforts to respond to the terrorist 
attacks on September 11, to provide necessary funding to pursue the al 
Qaeda, to secure America, and to support further recovery from the 
vicious attack on September 11 of last year.
  On May 24, almost 2 months ago, the House passed this version of this 
supplemental by a vote of 280 to 138. Two weeks later, the Senate 
passed its version of the bill. Over the past month and a half, we have 
worked diligently to address the differences in the House and Senate 
bills. The agreement being presented here to the House today is a fair 
bill that provides the funding that President Bush has requested as he 
leads our Nation against terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendously important bill, and I would again 
like to state that this is a wartime supplemental appropriations bill. 
It provides money for our troops, our intelligence community, our 
safety and security, the victims of New York, and to promote U.S. 
foreign policy.
  The bill totals $28.9 billion in discretionary spending; $15 billion 
of that is for the Defense Department, including additional funds for 
the call-up of the Guard and Reserves as they were called to active 
duty to respond to September 11; $6.7 billion is for homeland security 
requirements; $2.1 billion is for foreign assistance and embassy 
security programs; and $5.5 billion is to further support recovery in 
New York.
  The bill also includes $1 billion in funds to avert the estimated 
shortfalls in the Pell Grant student aid program. It includes $417 
million for veterans' medical care, $205 million for Amtrak, $400 
million for programs and activities to improve general election 
administration in our country, and $100 million to begin to address the 
need to respond to floods and the tremendous fires that our Nation has 
experienced and is still experiencing.
  The committee has identified $3 billion in offsets to help pay for 
much of the new spending contained in the bill. These offsets are real, 
they are actual offsets; they are not smoke and mirrors.
  It is a good bill, and I hope we can get it to the President's desk 
as soon as possible so that our soldiers, our diplomats, our law 
enforcement, and our intelligence officers can have the resources they 
need to protect our country from future attacks. At this point in the 
Record I will insert a table identifying the details of the conference 
report.

[[Page H5202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.001



[[Page H5203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.002



[[Page H5204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.003



[[Page H5205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.004



[[Page H5206]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.005



[[Page H5207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.006



[[Page H5208]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.007



[[Page H5209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.008



[[Page H5210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.009



[[Page H5211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.010



[[Page H5212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.011



[[Page H5213]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.012



[[Page H5214]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.013



[[Page H5215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.014



[[Page H5216]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.015



[[Page H5217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.016



[[Page H5218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH2302.017



[[Page H5219]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a statement 
of appreciation to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has 
worked along with us through these last several months in trying to 
bring this conference report to conclusion. There were differences, as 
anyone might expect. We did finally work out those differences. I 
expect we could find some controversy here in this bill; I think we 
could find areas that I do not agree with and areas that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) does not agree with. But, nevertheless, this 
is a good work product as we dealt with the many different institutions 
and principals who were involved in bringing this bill to conclusion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of items in this bill which 
Members ought to know about. This bill, for instance, has $13 million 
in the conference report for safety of imported meat and poultry above 
the amount recommended by the President. We have $17 million above the 
amount recommended by the President for bioterrorism responsibilities 
of the Food and Drug Administration. We have $37 million above the 
President's request for the Marshals Service to safeguard U.S. Federal 
courts. We have $165 million above the President's request for the FBI 
to provide, among other things, additional analysts to increase the 
FBI's ability to process and disseminate counterterrorism information. 
We have $78 million more for the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, including $25 million for analysis to help find, arrest, and 
deport high-risk, undocumented immigrants in the United States. We 
doubled the President's request for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and we try to provide additional funds for staff and pay 
parity in information technology, improvements for that agency so that 
they can be more effective in dealing with some of the accusations of 
corporate fraud that are now flooding the country and ruining its 
markets.
  We have a number of other items in the bill as well, which I would be 
happy to comment on if any Members have individual questions about it.
  Let me simply say there is nothing in this bill that anyone is going 
to be very thrilled about, because it is the product of a long 
compromise process, but it is a reasonable package, and I think the 
most important thing we can say about it is that we simply need to get 
on with it and get this down to the President.
  This bill also includes a fix of the problem that we faced with 
respect to a dip in highway funding and support to States because of 
the anomaly in the ISTEA highway distribution formula, and we provide 
sufficient money; unlike the White House, we provide sufficient monies 
so that we do not have to, in fact, demobilize the Guard and Reserve 
forces until they can be replaced in sensitive areas by adequately 
trained personnel to deal with terrorist threats facing the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation.
  (Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains $3.85 billion 
to continue operations and activities of the Transportation Security 
Administration for the remainder of fiscal year 2002. I am pleased to 
report that this is the same level as approved by the House in its 
version of the supplemental. The Senate wanted almost $1 billion more 
for this start-up agency compared to the House level, with no limit on 
staffing, and we held the line against that proposal. Members should 
know that we have upheld the position of the House in this agreement, 
and it is adequate.
  The Department of Transportation has raised objections to specific 
security items in this bill. What are they objecting to?
  They are objecting to funds for airport modifications to ensure the 
timely installation of explosive detection systems, an additional $225 
million, for a total of $738 million. This will lessen the likelihood 
of chaos later this year when bomb detection machines are delivered and 
installed in airports.
  They are objecting to grants to improve port security, an issue of 
great vulnerability, $125 million.
  They are objecting to systems for air marshals to communicate with 
the pilots and officials on the ground, $15 million.
  They are objecting to funds to address airport terminal security, a 
critical issue, since the attack on El Al in Los Angeles a few weeks 
ago, $17 million.
  And they are objecting to funds for immediate replacement of the 
outdated metal detectors at all commercial airports, $23 million.
  With additions like these, we have improved upon the administration's 
request in modest ways, and provided the means for TSA to work smarter. 
The bill also caps TSA's full-time permanent staffing to no more than 
45,000 people. My subcommittee's review of the TSA plan points to well 
over 12,000 positions that should be reevaluated. In fact, in a recent 
hearing, the head of the agency gave me his commitment to eliminate 
many of these positions such as ``ticket checkers'' and ``customer 
service representatives.'' TSA is building a huge bureaucracy, and this 
bill helps bring that process under control.
  The Secretary of Transportation testified earlier today that TSA 
needs every penny of the amount they requested. I respectfully 
disagree. The agency is so far behind in its own hiring goals, there 
should be little doubt that fewer resources are needed to get them 
through fiscal year 2002. OMB even offered up some of this money. Maybe 
they know the agency has not been the best steward of the monies we 
have already provided for this year, several billions of dollars, 
offering law enforcement personnel salaries that are higher than 
necessary, allowing excessive overhead charges on the existing screener 
contracts, and not monitoring those charges and refusing to move out 
quickly on new technology, such as metal detectors, which would reduce 
the staffing need dramatically at the check-out points at airports. 
Just this morning, the DOT Inspector General testified that ``Controls 
over the existing security screener contracts were lacking, and that 
improvements were drastically needed.''
  Until they straighten out these problems, they do not need more 
money.
  This bill provides adequate funding for TSA to get through the next 
10 weeks. It deletes unnecessary funds and encourages them to look much 
more carefully at how they are spending our money. We will not give 
them money for salaries that are outside the norm for similar Federal 
activities. We will not give them money for wasteful overhead charges 
on Federal contracts, and we will not give them money to hire a 
standing army of almost 70,000 people to take off your shoes, check 
your briefcase three times, and perform intensive checks of white-
haired grandmothers in wheelchairs and babes in arms. If the Department 
of Transportation does not understand this by now, this bill should 
help them get that message.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and 
the ranking member for bringing us together on this supplemental. I 
support it.
  Today's bill, Mr. Speaker, includes an additional $150 million for 
the assistance to the Firefighters Grant Program. This is part of 
homeland security, defending the homeland. This brings the amount of 
money we will give to fire departments around the country up to $510 
million for fiscal year 2003.
  This is personal for me, Mr. Speaker. On May 9 of last year, Alberto 
Birado, a firefighter for the City of Passaic, died in the line of duty 
during the primary search of a building on fire. He died because his 
Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus ran out of air.
  Just last week, the Passaic Fire Department was awarded a grant to 
purchase more SCBAs and spare air cylinders. Features of these 
additional cylinders will hopefully prevent all other unnecessary 
deaths. This is what the Firefighters Grant Program is all about.

[[Page H5220]]

  The attacks on September 11 taught us many lessons. One of those is 
the importance of firefighters to the public safety equation and, 
indeed, to homeland security. We had to scrape and beg to get $100 
million last year in the emergency spending bill.
  The leadership told us they did not believe us when we said the fire 
services needed the money desperately. In one year, we have gone from 
$100 million funding to half a billion dollars. We still have a long 
way to go. There are over 20,000 applications to FEMA in the second 
year of this program with requests totaling over $2.2 billion.
  Trust me. We will be hearing from all of these fire departments in 
Members' districts around this country. The odds are that all of us 
have a few fire departments at home that will not get a grant this year 
because there was not enough money to go around.

                              {time}  1415

  I know our contribution to this worthy cause will continue to rise as 
each of us hears from our constituents.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we were joined 
by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, which is the committee of the House with 
legislative jurisdiction over the American Servicemembers' Protection 
Act. This legislation appears as title II of this conference report. I 
would like to ask the gentleman to explain the background of this 
legislation and describe how some of its provisions are intended to 
work.
  Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
and I first introduced the American Servicemembers' Protection Act as 
H.R. 4654 on June 14, 2000, and reintroduced it in the 107th Congress 
as H.R. 1794. On May 10, 2001, the House of Representatives adopted the 
text of our legislation as a floor amendment to another bill, H.R. 
1646. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) and I thereafter entered 
into negotiations with representatives of the Bush administration in an 
effort to agree on a version of the American Servicemembers' Protection 
Act that the Bush administration could support. We were joined in these 
negotiations by Senator Helms, the lead sponsor of the Senate companion 
bill.
  After many months of detailed discussions, we reached an agreement on 
language last September, and Senator Helms, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) and I each received from the administration letters dated 
September 25, 2001, promising the administration's full support for 
enactment of this agreed language. I am pleased that the conference 
report includes the language we agreed on last September with only one 
nonsubstantive addition that I will describe in a few minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I note that one provision of this 
agreed language, which appears as section 2011 of the conference 
report, is particularly complicated. And I would hope that the 
gentleman could draw on his background as the former chairman of our 
Committee on the Judiciary, as well as his current position as chairman 
of our Committee on International Relations, to explain to our 
colleagues the purpose of section 2011.
  Mr. HYDE. I thank the chairman. I would be pleased to explain the 
purpose of section 2011.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman know if all 
other Members of Congress agree with the interpretation that he has 
provided of the language negotiated with the administration?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot read the minds of all of 
our colleagues, but I do know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), Senator Helms and I were the only three members actively 
involved in negotiating the language of sections 2004, 2006 and 2011 
with the administration. I have accurately described our understanding 
of how these sections would work together, what our intention was, and 
what we understood the administration's understanding and intention to 
be. I suppose that someone else could try to project onto these 
sections a different intention, but they would be doing precisely that, 
projecting onto them a new meaning that was never intended by those of 
us who were involved in drafting and refining them.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for providing clarity to this rather complicated 
and important title of this conference report.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, my statement on the American Servicemembers' 
Protection Act is as follows:
  When Congressman DeLay, Senator Helms, and I sat down with 
representatives of the Bush Administration to discuss the American 
Servicemembers' Protection Act, it quickly emerged that the 
Administration's principal concern with the legislation was the belief 
that a few of its restrictions on United States interaction with the 
International Criminal Court could, in certain improbable 
circumstances, interfere with the exercise of authorities vested in the 
President by the Constitution. The constitutional authorities that they 
saw as possibly conflicting with the legislation were the president's 
authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United 
States under article II, section 2 of the Constitution, and the 
President's constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of 
foreign policy, in particular his authority to exchange information 
with foreign governments and international organizations. Because there 
is no specific enumeration in the Constitution of the President's 
authority to conduct foreign policy, this authority is encompassed 
textually within the executive power vested in the President by article 
II, section 1 of the Constitution.
  There are two sections of our legislation that restrict United States 
interaction with the International Criminal Court and which therefore, 
in the view of the Administration, could possibly come into conflict 
with the exercise of the President's constitutional authority as 
Commander in Chief and his authority to conduct foreign policy as chief 
executive. These sections appear as sections 2004 and 2006 of the 
conference report.
  To ensure that sections 2004 and 2006 will never operate to prohibit 
the President from taking an action that he is empowered under the 
Constitution to take and that Congress is without power to prohibit, we 
developed the ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception set 
forth in section 2011 of the conference report.
  The Committee on International Relations has approved a lot of 
legislation over the years containing presidential waiver provisions. 
The ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception contained in 
section 2011 is very different from these other waiver provisions.
  The other waiver provisions give the President, or some other 
official of the Executive branch, the authority to ``waive'' an 
otherwise applicable prohibition or restriction. Typically, the 
President or other official must first determine that a particular 
standard set forth in the waiver provision is satisfied. Common 
examples are requirements that he find that exercising the waiver is 
``in the national interest,'' ``important to the national interest,'' 
or ``vital to the national interest.'' Whatever the waiver standard, 
the idea is that the President or other official is invited to sue his 
judgment, and if he judges that the facts permit him to determine that 
the wavier standard is satisfied, he can then exercise the wavier, 
which has the effect of rendering the prohibition or restriction 
inapplicable with respect to the action that he wishes to take or 
direct.
  The ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception contained in 
section 2011 is very different. Section 2011 does not turn on factual 
judgments made by the President. Rather, it turns on the parameters of 
the President's authority under the Constitution. What it says, in 
effect, is that Congress has not prohibited anything under sections 
2004 and 2006 that Congress is without constitutional authority to 
prohibit.

  The intent of Congress in sections 2004 and 2006 could not be 
clearer. Congress wishes to prohibit any form of assistance to, or 
cooperation with, the International Criminal Court. We wish to impose 
such a prohibition to the fullest extent of our ability under the 
Constitution to do so. To the extent that certain forms of interaction 
with the International Criminal Court are subject to the shared 
responsibility of Congress and the President under the Constitution, 
Congress has the constitutional authority to forbid those forms of 
interaction, and in sections 2004 and 2006 we exercise that authority 
to forbid such interaction. However, we recognize that there may be 
forms of interaction that are the exclusive authority of the President 
under the Constitution, which Congress constitutionally is without 
authority to prohibit.

[[Page H5221]]

Accordingly, with respect to those forms of interaction, section 2011 
provides a mechanism for ensuring that sections 2004 and 2006 do not 
constrain the President in ways that, as a matter of constitutional 
law, he may not be constrained by Congress.
  To put the matter differently, it is the intention of Congress that 
the ``exercise of constitutional authorities'' exception in this 
legislation shall only be available in those instances where the 
President's lawyers could in good faith write a legal opinion 
concluding that application of the prohibitions of sections 2004 or 
2006 to a proposed action by the President would be unconstitutional. 
It is not good enough that the prohibitions of sections 2004 or 2006 
conflict with what the President judges to be in the national interest, 
or that they interfere with the foreign policy that he would like to 
conduct. The prohibitions must actually be unconstitutional if applied 
to the proposed action. This is the meaning of the term ``action . . . 
taken or directed by the President . . . in the exercise of the 
President's authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces . . . 
or in the exercise of the executive power . . .'' The action by the 
President, in contravention of the prohibitions set forth in sections 
2004 or 2006, must actually be an exercise by him of constitutional 
authority to take an action that Congress is without authority to 
prohibit.
  We understand that many, if not most, actions by the President 
involve, to some degree or another, an exercise of some constitutional 
authority. But that is not the kind of constitutional authority to 
which section 2011 refers. Section 2011 refers to an exercise of the 
kind of constitutional authority necessary to overcome a statutory 
prohibition on the taking of a particular action. That kind of 
constitutional authority exists only with respect to statutory 
prohibitions that Congress is without constitutional authority to 
impose in the first place.
  This means, as a practical matter, that most of the prohibitions in 
section 2004 are beyond the reach of the exception set forth in section 
2011. This is because most of them do not restrict the exercise of any 
authority vested exclusively in the President by the Constitution.
  A clear example is section 2004(d), which prohibits the extradition 
of any person from the United States to the International Criminal 
Court. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Valentine v. United 
States in 1936 that the President has no inherent constitutional 
authority to extradite persons to foreign jurisdictions. To the 
contrary, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the 
President to extradite persons in the absence of an extradition treaty 
or a statute authorizing extradition to the foreign jurisdiction in 
question. Because there is no treaty or statute authorizing the 
extradition of persons to the International Criminal Court, the 
President could not rely on section 2011 to extradite a person to the 
International Criminal Court in contravention of section 2004(d). This 
point is underscored by section 2011(c), which makes clear that section 
2011 grants no statutory authority to the President to take any action.

  Another category of prohibitions that cannot be overcome under 
section 2011 is those relating to the provision by the U.S. Government 
of funds, property, or services to the International Criminal Court. 
Congress has plenary authority under the Constitution with respect to 
the use of appropriated funds and the disposition of U.S. Government 
property. Subsections (e) and (f) of section 2004 represent an exercise 
of this plenary authority. The intention of Congress is to prohibit any 
direct or indirect provision by the U.S. Government to the 
International Criminal Court of appropriated funds, U.S. Government 
property, or services provided utilizing appropriated funds. There may 
be very limited circumstances in which the President may rely on 
section 2011 to direct the provision of services to the International 
Criminal Court notwithstanding the prohibitions of subsections (e) and 
(f) of section 2004, for example, services provided by the United 
States Armed Forces pursuant to an exercise of the President's 
authority as Commander in Chief. But in the absence of an exercise of a 
constitutional authority vested exclusively in the President--such as 
the Commander in Chief authority--the prohibitions of these subsections 
prohibit the provision of the kinds of support to which they apply, and 
the exception set forth in section 2011 is not available to permit an 
action by the President in contravention of these sections.
  A third category of prohibitions that cannot be overcome under 
section 2011 is those relating to the exercise of functions not vested 
in the Executive branch of the United States Government. The President 
has no inherent constitutional authority to direct or control the 
operations of state and local governments. Nor does he have any 
inherent constitutional authority to direct or control the operations 
of the judicial branch of the federal government, much less the 
judicial functions of state and local governments. Accordingly, the 
President may not rely on section 2011 to direct state and local 
governments. Accordingly, the President may not rely on section 2011 to 
direct state and local governments to take actions prohibited under 
subsections (b), (d) and (e) of section 2004, or to authorize such 
governments to take such actions notwithstanding the prohibitions of 
these subsections. Similarly, the President may not rely on section 
2011 to direct federal, state, or local courts to take actions 
prohibited under subsections (b), (d), (e) and (f) of section 2004, or 
to authorize such courts to take such actions notwithstanding the 
prohibitions of these subsections. The explanation is very simply. 
Because the exercise of functions by state and local governments and by 
federal, state, and local courts is by design beyond the inherent 
constitutional authority of the President, there is no constitutional 
authority that the President can exercise under section 2011 to 
overcome prohibitions that this legislation applies to such governments 
and courts.
  This does not mean that section 2011 is of no practical use to the 
President. In our negotiations with the Administration we discussed a 
number of circumstances where the President would be able to rely on 
section 2011 to direct actions plainly prohibited in the first instance 
by the language of sections 2004 or 2006.
  I have already mentioned one such circumstance, and that is actions 
by the United States Armed Forces directed by the President in the 
exercise of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. An 
example we discussed in our negotiations was a decision by the 
President to facilitate the transfer to the International Criminal 
Court of a foreign national wanted by that Court. Section 2004(e) 
prohibits the United States Government from facilitating the transfer 
of persons to the International Criminal Court, including by the United 
States Armed Forces. But we recognize that at a certain level this 
prohibition may come into conflict with the President's authority to 
command our Armed Forces, and in such a case, section 2011 would ensure 
that the President is not unconstitutionally constrained.
  Another circumstance where the President may be able to rely on 
section 2011 concerns the provision of information controlled by the 
President to foreign governments and to international organizations, 
including the International Criminal Court. To the degree the President 
has inherent constitutional authority to provide such information to 
foreign governments and international organizations, conflicts could 
arise between this authority and the prohibitions of section 2004(e) 
and section 2006. In the case of such a conflict, the President could 
rely on section 2011 to provide information in the exercise of his 
constitutional authority without violating the letter of the statute.
  I am not aware of other circumstances where the President could rely 
on section 2011 to take or direct actions otherwise prohibited under 
section 2004 and 2006, and we pressed the Administration very hard on 
this point in our negotiations. These were only examples they gave us 
of situations where the prohibitions of sections 2004 and 2006 could 
come into conflict with the President's constitutional prerogatives. In 
order to address this concern, we developed the mechanism contained in 
section 2011. Section 2011 is narrowly tailored to be available only in 
cases where there is such a conflict exists. In other cases where the 
prohibitions of the legislation are merely inconvenient, or in conflict 
with the President's preferred foreign policy, section 2011 is not 
available to permit the President to take or direct actions prohibited 
by section 2004 or 2006.
  Another feature of section 2011 is that, by its terms, it can be 
invoked by the President only on a ``case-by-case basis''. In using 
this term, we were mindful of the way that the existing United Nations 
war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda have gone about their 
work. those tribunals have developed separate cases against suspected 
war criminals. Usually these cases involve a single defendant, though 
sometimes a case will have multiple defendants who were involved in the 
same specific incident. we intend the term ``case'' in section 2011 to 
have the same meaning that it has in current usage at the Yugoslavia 
and Rwanda tribunals. Yugoslavia and Rwanda are not ``cases'' before 
those tribunals. Rather, the prosecutions of individual named persons 
are the ``cases'' pending before these tribunals. This can be verified 
by simply looking at the web sites of these two tribunals.

  Before closing, I wish to comment on the effect of the addition by 
the Senate to this legislation of the language appearing as section 
2015. That section was not part of language we negotiated with the 
Administration. But it does not in any way vitiate the restrictions on 
cooperation with the International Criminal Court set forth in sections 
2004 and 2006. Section 2015 simply reiterates that this legislation 
does not apply to international efforts besides the International 
Criminal Court to bring to justice foreign national accused of 
genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Regarding application 
of this section to the

[[Page H5222]]

International Criminal Court, however, ordinary cannons of statutory 
construction apply. The specific controls the general unless otherwise 
provided, and in the case of this legislation it is quite obvious that 
the legislation is very specific about what is to be allowed and what 
is to be forbidden when it comes to assisting the International 
Criminal Court. Had the Senate wanted to vitiate the restrictions of 
sections 2004 and 2006, it would have had to amend them, strike them, 
or expressly notwithstand them.
  The Senate debate during which the language of section 2015 was 
agreed to makes clear that this language was understood at the time to 
make no substantive change to the other provisions of the American 
Servicemembers' Protection Act. The full text of sections 2004, 2006 
and 2011, along with other provisions of the American Servicemembers' 
Protection Act, was adopted by the Senate as an amendment to another 
bill on December 7, 2001, by a vote of 78-21. When Senator Warner 
offered these same provisions as an amendment to this supplemental 
appropriations bill, the Senate had essentially the same debate it had 
on December 7th of last year. Neither the supporters nor the opponents 
of the language that became section 2015 suggested that this language 
made any change to the legislation that had previously passed the 
Senate, and the final vote in favor of the amendment, 75-19, was 
essentially the same as the vote last year. For these reasons, Mr. 
DeLay and I agreed with the House conferees that there was no reason 
not to accept the Senate language.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not want to insert myself in the colloquy that has 
just preceded, but I would simply say that while there may have been 
negotiations going on outside of the room with the administration, the 
negotiations that count were the negotiations between the four parties 
that produced this language. And I think that the understandings 
discussed here are not necessarily those that were reached between the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), myself, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Stevens.
  I think the language speaks for itself without being maneuvered one 
way or another by any after-the-fact colloquies that may or may not 
relate to the language involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, 
no one can forget the shock and horror of September 11 when terrorists 
attacked the United States, murdering nearly 3,000 people, destroying 
the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon and threatening sites in 
Washington, D.C.
  New Yorkers in particular relive that every time we see the gap in 
our skyline or mourn the missing in our families and neighborhoods. But 
within days of the vicious attacks, the President met with Members of 
the New York delegation and pledged to support our recovery with at 
least $20 billion in Federal funds. He has kept that promise and no 
part of our government has wavered, not the House nor the Senate nor 
the conferees.
  This bill contains an additional $5.5 billion which brings the total 
funding available for New York's recovery to more than $21 billion.
  As a member of the committee of conference, and as a New Yorker, I 
rise simply to thank President Bush, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and my colleagues in 
this Congress for all the support provided to my city so far. The 
September 11 attacks were truly attacks on America and America has 
responded with grace and generosity.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a grateful city and we thank Congress for this 
support. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I want to pay special tribute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the 
leadership that they have provided in crafting this bill and bringing 
it at long last to the floor for much-needed supplemental 
appropriations to continue the war against terrorism, the enduring 
freedom fight.
  I want to address my remarks to that part that addresses foreign 
operations that are in this conference report. First, the numbers, the 
figures themselves. The funding in this chapter includes a spending 
level of $1,818,000,000. But there are rescissions in there of $269 
million, meaning there is a net spending level in foreign operations of 
$1,549,000,000. That is $48.5 million below where we were when we 
passed this bill in the House, $3.5 million above where it was in the 
Senate. So much for the overall numbers.
  A few of the specific things that are in there. We have $200 million 
in here for the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria 
around the world, particularly in Africa and Eurasia. This has been in 
both the House and Senate bills. While this number was not in the 
initial request to the President, as I think everybody knows, the 
President has endorsed this and spoken specifically about the programs 
that he will use this money for. And I believe, as he does, that it is 
vitally important that we continue to make progress in combating the 
worldwide scourge against AIDS.
  In addition, there is another figure in there that was not in the 
President's original request and that is $200 million for antiterrorism 
assistance for the state of Israel and $50 million for humanitarian 
assistance for the Palestinian people. Not to the PLA, the Authority, 
the Palestine Authority, but rather $50 million for humanitarian 
assistance to Palestinians themselves. We believe this also is very 
important, given the fight that has been going on over there. We need 
to express our support for Israel's fight against terrorism. We need to 
say to the Palestinian people, we are there to support you when you are 
trying to rebuild your country, when you are trying to provide for the 
well-being of your people. We will not support the government that you 
have in place now.
  I think the President has made clear that we have need to see a new 
government, a new direction of that government before we can have 
serious negotiations with them. But I think this is the right approach 
to it.
  The negotiations with the Senate on the assistance for Colombia were 
very tough, but in the end the House language prevailed. It allows the 
administration to expand its assistance to the government of Colombia 
for the war against terrorism and narco-traffickers. It includes some 
of the provisions that the Senate wanted to make sure that we are not 
going to be involved in combat operations.
  Regarding Afghanistan, we have added funding to both the House and 
the Senate bills to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance 
for Afghanistan. There is up to 384 million that could be available 
under this conference report to help rebuild in Afghanistan.
  Let me end on two final points here. Regarding the United Nations' 
Population Funds, or UNPF, as it is called, the conference work does 
not address this issue. I am disappointed with the administration's 
decision that has come down since this conference report was adopted, 
and I expect that in our 2003 appropriations bill we are going to 
address this issue and try to ensure that funding for this very 
important organization is included.
  Most of the funding in the chapter is dedicated to assisting our 
allies in the war on terrorism. At this last minute the Office of 
Management and Budget proposed removal of hundreds of millions of 
dollars requested by the President for assistance to our allies. I am 
puzzled, I am disappointed that OMB made such a proposal, and I do not 
think they reflected what either the President or the Secretary of the 
State or the Secretary of Defense had in this regard. But I am pleased 
overall with the bill that we have now, I think it is a good bill and, 
Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who has been very much focused on 
several aspects of this bill.
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his hard work.

[[Page H5223]]

  Today I can support this bill with enthusiasm. I was very sorry the 
last time we discussed it I could not, and I want to thank the 
conference committee for their hard work. It kind of signals a win to 
me for a concern that I have had for my State of Iowa in the area of 
Medicare reimbursements rates.
  In May the Committee on Rules made an exception and put into this 
supplemental bill what I thought was an unfair fix for rates for a 
selected few and leave out many. I appreciate this. It has actually 
drawn attention to this ploy and helped to shed additional light on the 
discriminatory formulas and the adverse consequences for seniors, 
hospitals and health care professionals across Iowa and other similarly 
situated areas.
  Although our health care professionals are doing a great job with 
less, the fact remains, as we see here, and I will show you a chart one 
more time in a moment, that there are places in the country where 
Medicare patients are getting eyeglasses and they are getting 
prescriptions. In fact, it is a double of what we were getting in Iowa, 
the amount. It is a whole lot more than what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was getting as well. They are below the average as 
well, and I know the gentleman knows that. This is something we have 
been working on. Let us do something about this. I think that perhaps 
we are making some progress, and I hope so.
  On the Medicare reimbursement relief of last month, a few days ago 
there was attention given and an additional $120 million for Iowa over 
3 years, and that is a big help, but we have a ways to go. So I want 
you to again look at this chart, and it will show you very clearly that 
there is a great disparity across this country, and the citizens pay 
the same taxes for the same service. They pay the same.
  Look here. There are some States, mine, but others are receiving less 
than half of what the top is. Is that fair for Americans? I do not 
think so. I do not think there is one of you here that would feel this 
way. So I do support this bill today and I appreciate it for the whole 
country. I hope that our seniors are considered of equal importance, 
and I think they are. I thank the gentleman again for this time, and I 
do support the bill, and I support the fact that we have been talking 
about there now. Let us talk about it some more.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the great 
job of this conference report, and I rise in strong support.
  The bill includes $175 million to improve the ability of the FBI to 
synthesize and interpret data and intelligence collections from 
investigations. The funding will support technology upgrades and allow 
the FBI to hire additional cybercrime counterterrorism and 
counterintelligence analysts. The bill also provides $81.3 million for 
the INS, including upgrades for the border patrol agents and 
immigration inspections who are also on the frontline, and $25 million 
for an Absconder Initiative, to find and remove more aliens who have 
been ordered deported and who have not followed those orders.

                              {time}  1430

  I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his good 
efforts with this action and with regard to this issue.
  As we all saw in the tragic events of September 11, we depend on our 
State and local police, fire, EMS and HAZMAT people to respond to acts 
of terrorism. Their heroism and preparedness has saved many lives and 
will likely save many more. The bill provides $2.1 million for State 
and local first responder equipment, exercise and training, and 
including $50 million to provide communities across the country with 
interoperable emergency communications equipment.
  The SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, requires an infusion 
of resources to strengthen oversight and enforcement and preserve the 
integrity of the financial markets. This bill provides $40.2 million 
for the SEC, $20.2 million above the request, including funds for the 
immediate addition of 125 staff positions in enforcement and corporate 
oversight and key information technology upgrades. This will begin to 
provide the SEC with the resources they need to combat corporate fraud 
and to protect the savings and retirement investments of millions of 
American families.
  The conference report also includes $318.1 million for embassy 
security and public diplomacy. The diplomatic staff is hard at work 
right now under very difficult and dangerous conditions in south Asia 
and elsewhere. This bill will provide for an expedited construction of 
fully secured replacement embassy facilities in Afghanistan and 
Tajikistan.
  Recently, a lot of attention has been focused on improving our public 
diplomacy's efforts, including the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Hyde) 
legislation H.R. 3969, which passed the House yesterday. We are not 
doing an adequate job of telling America's story, and it is a great 
story to the world. To improve this effort, the bill includes $40.1 
million for information and exchange programs of the State Department, 
Radio Free Afghanistan and the Middle East Broadcasting Initiative.
  In addition, the bill includes $55 million for the enhanced security 
of the Federal judiciary in response to terrorist and other high threat 
trials, including $10 million for the Supreme Court building and $37.9 
million for the U.S. Marshals Service.
  The bill also includes authorization and funding for the closed 
circuit transmission of the Moussaoui trial to victims of the September 
11 attacks.
  Finally, the bill includes $37 million for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology to develop an information technology security 
framework for the Federal Government.
  Lastly, these additional funds for fiscal year 2002 are vital for 
carrying out our continued homeland security, international and 
corporate oversight responsibilities, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time, and I want to congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) who everybody knows I feel very highly, about one 
of the fairest chairman I have ever served under, and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), one of the most able Members I have served 
with.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and want to 
highlight funding in two critical areas. First, this supplemental 
appropriations bill gives us $400 million reasons to complete our work 
on election reform as soon as possible. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) were critically important in making 
sure this money stayed in this bill.
  Appropriators from both sides of the aisle on both sides of the 
Capitol have done their job. They recognize that we must upgrade our 
election systems. They recognize that the disenfranchisement of an 
estimated 6 million voters in November 2000 offends our democratic 
values, and they recognize that real reform costs money.
  Now we must finish the job and pass the election reform conference 
report that authorizes the expenditure of the funding. Election reform 
conferees are making progress in resolving the differences between the 
House and the Senate bills, and I hope this supplemental appropriation 
bill and the $400 million it provides for election reform adds urgency 
to our negotiations. We must not delay.
  Secondly, I want to note the $150 million that is provided for the 
Fire Grant Program through FEMA, bringing the fiscal year 2002 total to 
$510 million. I note that some $3 billion-plus had been requested by 
local fire services and emergency responders throughout the Nation, but 
this is a significant step forward. Every day we ask our firefighters 
to risk their lives to protect our homes, our businesses and our 
children. With this additional funding, Mr. Speaker, we say to them we 
recognize and appreciate their sacrifice and want to ensure they can do 
their jobs as safely and effectively as possible.

[[Page H5224]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the 
time remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Florida has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 
19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations for yielding me the time.
  This bill is critical to winning the war on terrorism, New York City 
repayment and recovery efforts, homeland security, replenishment 
munitions in which the gentleman from California's (Mr. Hunter) been 
trying to do for years, and support ongoing intelligence.
  While I support this emergency spending, a bill to fight the war on 
terrorism and aid continued recovery efforts, I must point out a 
section of this legislation that does not belong in this bill. It is 
legislation on an appropriations bill, and that is section 3002 
regarding mail service to Alaska.
  Section 3002, the Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002, was never 
subject to any congressional hearings or other fact-finding events. We 
have got two opposing sides claiming problems on either side, and yet 
the chairman, a Republican, from the other body, refuses to even have a 
hearing on this issue.
  These provisions specifically target carriers that successfully and 
profitably transported mail for the Postal Service within the State of 
Alaska for many years. The Act's stated goal is to reduce costs which 
then actually it will increase costs from the Postal Service. 
Congressional approval of this legislation, without any hearings, that 
eliminates a single competitor from business and protects incumbent 
carriers from competition is wrong. Matter of fact, in my opinion, it 
is an abuse of power from a single Senator from the other body that is 
abusing his office by legislating someone out of business.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the Members to temper 
their remarks to avoid improper references to Members of the other 
body.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to temper an event 
when someone legislates someone out of office and denies them going to 
court. To me that is unconstitutional, and the legislative business 
that we perform every day should not take up legislation like this on 
such an important bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for all the 
excellent work they have done on this bill. It is an excellent bill. It 
contains aid for New York City, contains aid for our allies, but 
perhaps troubling, it also contains aid for our enemies.
  Quietly and without any floor debate, $50 million is included in this 
bill for aid to the West Bank in Gaza. This is on top of more than $100 
million that has gone to the Palestinians since 1999. In that same time 
period, 577 Israelis and dozens of American citizens have died in over 
50 homicide attacks in Israel.
  I support foreign aid. Foreign aid exports are values. It buys 
cooperation overseas. It makes tense areas of our world more peaceful, 
but on every level, Palestinian aid has failed in those fundamental 
values. Rather than promoting our values, the people of Nablus were 
cheering on September 11 when captured by TV cameras. Rather than 
buying cooperation, money that we have provided has found its way to be 
producing suicide belts, according to some of the documents seized at 
the Ramallah compound. Rather than making the world more peaceful, the 
Palestinians have used the money to import arms from Iran.
  I believe that we should vote yes on this bill. I believe we should 
vote yes on future foreign aid bills, but I also think it is time we 
had a debate on the floor of this House with an up or down vote on 
whether or not we should continue to provide aid for the West Bank and 
Gaza.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill 
H.R. 4775, the Defense and Homeland Security Supplemental 
Appropriations Act Conference Report. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for including the restoration of highway funds that was 
agreed to by the Authorization Committee and 410 Members of this House. 
It was the right thing to do, and it will benefit all the States for 
transportation needs.
  Although unfortunately, the Committee on Appropriations also 
rescinded $320 million in highway contract authority that was created 
in TEA-21 and has already been appropriated to every State, such a 
rescission is unprecedented, and it is absolutely unacceptable to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This $320 million will 
be taken from the balance of the contract authority that exceeded the 
obligation limitations that has been placed on the highway program. So 
it is sometimes called excess contract authority, but there will still 
be programmatic impacts resulting from this rescission.
  State Departments of Transportation utilize their full amount of 
contract authority when they plan ahead for projects in every Members' 
district.
  It has an immediate effect, too. States have been given the 
flexibility to move funds across programs. This flexibility will be 
lessened in 2003 by this rescission. Therefore, some of the 
transportation projects that were coming off the shelf in 2003 will be 
put back on the shelf.
  The rescission of the contract's authority should not be used now or 
in the future to balance the spending of the Congress. I will submit 
for the Record a State-by-State table showing the cuts to each state.

    STATE-BY-STATE IMPACT OF $310 M RESCISSION OF HIGhWAY CONTRACT 
   AUTHORITY IN FY 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL (H.R. 4775)


        State                                   Contract Authority Lost
Alabama.....................................................-$6,055,699
Alaska.......................................................-1,531,493
Arizona......................................................-5,103,144
Arkansas.....................................................-4,186,819
California..................................................-31,502,078
Colorado.....................................................-4,605,662
Connecticut..................................................-3,984,645
Delaware.....................................................-1,205,967
Dist. of Col.................................................-1,102,821
Florida.....................................................-12,154,625
Georgia......................................................-9,771,545
Hawaii.......................................................-1,218,691
Idaho........................................................-2,123,194
Illinois....................................................-11,964,461
Indiana......................................................-6,779,800
Iowa.........................................................-4,608,642
Kansas.......................................................-4,570,334
Kentucky.....................................................-5,375,294
Louisiana....................................................-5,497,393
Maine........................................................-1,831,982
Maryland.....................................................-5,589,406
Massachusetts................................................-6,436,734
Michigan.....................................................-9,894,776
Minnesota....................................................-5,204,170
Mississippi..................................................-4,349,567
Missouri.....................................................-8,309,367
Montana......................................................-2,647,739
Nebraska.....................................................-3,123,825
Nevada.......................................................-2,183,077
New Hampshire................................................-1,496,695
New Jersey...................................................-9,229,067
New Mexico...................................................-3,117,390
New York....................................................-16,823,836
North Carolina...............................................-8,003,803
North Dakota.................................................-2,344,956
Ohio........................................................-11,486,595
Oklahoma.....................................................-5,892,937
Oregon.......................................................-4,346,259
Pennsylvania................................................-15,576,784
Rhode Island.................................................-1,702,512
South Carolina...............................................-4,979,995
South Dakota.................................................-2,372,588
Tennessee....................................................-6,974,601
Texas.......................................................-22,757,525
Utah.........................................................-2,889,990
Vermont......................................................-1,420,695
Virginia.....................................................-7,934,231
Washington...................................................-6,528,778
West Virginia................................................-2,886,042
Wisconsin....................................................-5,736,023
Wyoming......................................................-2,585,746
      Total................................................-320,000,000
  I again, though, thank the appropriators and realize they have to 
deal with the other side of the aisle, but I would also suggest 
respectfully in the future, be very careful about fooling around with 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's jurisdiction.

[[Page H5225]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank the 
chairman and the ranking member and the conferees for working so hard 
to develop a bill that I think a majority on both side of the aisle can 
support.
  I would like, however, to speak about the provisions on Colombia that 
remain in the bill. I believe the Colombia provisions in the conference 
report are a slight improvement from those in the House-passed bill. At 
least now Congress is asking for written commitments from the newly 
elected Uribe administration on how he will pursue the war in Colombia.
  Still, I have gave reservations regarding the wisdom and the 
consequences of expanding U.S. involvement in Colombia's grinding 
violence and deepening civil war, a civil war that has plagued Colombia 
for nearly four decades.
  Mr. Speaker, I have little trust in conditions. They are easily 
waived or distorted when viewed as getting in the way of policy, and I 
believe that the House will return to debate this matter again in 
September.
  The House of Representatives should think long and hard before it 
gives a green light to any policy that commits more of America's 
precious resources to a hideously complex civil war in Colombia.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I congratulate the chairman for a job well done.
  I want to thank the leadership, also, for sticking with their 
commitment to require printing and dyeing and finishing of textiles to 
remain in the United States. I am speaking today in support of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report, because it is a 
victory for the textile industry and at no cost to the Government.
  In the 1970s and 1980s, 13 small towns in Western North Carolina 
attracted printing, dyeing and finishing jobs to their communities. 
These towns sold bonds to pay for the necessary water and sewer 
infrastructure, while textile companies built plants whose taxes would 
pay for those bonds. Since this manufacturing method had a low labor 
content and high value added content, these firms expected to remain 
competitive.
  All was well until the textile industry started leaving because of 
lower labor costs around the world. The printing and dyeing and 
finishing jobs also started leaving, resulting in what we call stranded 
bonds investment without a manufacturing base to pay for the bonds. 
Local water-sewer rates have exploded to cover the costs.
  With the new commitment requiring that printing, dyeing and finishing 
remain in the United States, these small towns will have available 
attractive facilities for economic development and taxable investment 
to pay for the bond expense while enhancing employment opportunities.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the conference report 
on H.R. 4775. The small towns of North Carolina thank my colleagues.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important 
piece of legislation. A supplemental appropriation is absolutely 
necessary to take care of the very important needs of this country and 
this world. It is absolutely important that we fight this war on 
terrorism and that we have the resources to do so, and to establish 
homeland security.
  Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
others for the $200 million that they have appropriated for AIDS in 
Africa. This is extremely important. I know that it is very difficult 
to satisfy everybody with a bill like this, but I think we have done 
some good things with this bill: money for Israel, money for 
Afghanistan, money for the Palestinians, and money for Africa.
  If there is one request that I could have had in addition to all of 
this, it would have been to appropriate more money for the famine in 
southern Africa. We have about 13 million people who are at risk of 
starvation. Unfortunately, there has been a drought. Unfortunately, the 
grain silos are empty; and there are people in villages who are going 
to die. Even with the food resources that we are trying to get there, 
it will not reach there and the rains are going to set in in September 
or October. These people, whole families, babies, children who are now 
eating dirt and bugs, are going to die.
  So if there was anything else I would have done with this 
supplemental appropriation, it would have been to try and avert that 
famine that is taking place in six nations of southern Africa.
  Having said that, I appreciate the work of this committee, and I 
appreciate the manner in which they tried to take care of all of these 
very difficult problems. I am hopeful that that which we were not able 
to do relative to southern Africa, perhaps we can do it in the 
agricultural appropriations bill. Perhaps there will be some room there 
that we can find a way to get more money to those who are going to die 
of starvation unless we attend to it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this 
time and also thank him for his hard work and the chairman's hard work 
in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor.
  However, I want to really express today my disappointment and 
frustration, quite frankly, with the level of AIDS funding that is in 
this bill. We have heard time and time again how AIDS is killing 
millions of people in poor countries throughout the world. We know that 
AIDS is a complex disease that requires a comprehensive strategy.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey), our minority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the Congressional Black Caucus, 
and all of those who have worked very hard to raise the level of 
funding for global AIDS programs in this bill. Last month, however, our 
efforts to do even more to increase global AIDS funding was derailed by 
the President. This was a total outrage, given the administration's 
stated commitment to lead in fighting this scourge.
  I attended the 14th International Conference on AIDS in Barcelona and 
heard from AIDS experts, activists, and people living with AIDS who 
demanded treatment now. There are 28 million people in Africa living 
with HIV and AIDS, but only 30,000, 30,000, who receive treatment, in 
comparison to nearly 100 percent of the people in the United States who 
need treatment and receive it.
  At the conference, alarming statistics and forecasts indicated that 
HIV infections are not decreasing, nor are they leveling off. They are 
growing. This crisis will only continue to worsen. Today, there are 
over 40 million people living with AIDS. By 2010, we will see more than 
100 million new AIDS cases unless we step up to the plate. China, 
Russia, and India are ticking time bombs. We must put at least $1 
billion into the trust fund, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this conference report. 
This conference report funds the war on terrorism, but it also helps to 
make as whole as possible my district in New York where the World Trade 
Center stood before the attack last year. This conference report 
fulfills the congressional part of the President's pledge to 
appropriate $20 billion to help New York recover from the attack.
  We still have some problems with FEMA doling out the money; but I 
want to commend the chairman of the

[[Page H5226]]

committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey), and especially the New 
York members of the Committee on Appropriations who worked so hard to 
ensure that New York would not be forgotten and that we now have this 
$21.4 billion appropriated.
  I want to also express my support for the $200 million in aid to 
Israel included in this legislation. Israel is our only true ally in 
the Middle East, and our only true friend in the fight against 
terrorism. It is only right that we support Israel in its fight against 
terrorism.
  I also want to say that the $200 million appropriated for fighting 
AIDS in Africa is a good first step, but we must increase it because it 
does not meet the scale of the catastrophe in Africa, and the United 
States should step up to the plate more. But this is a very good first 
step.
  So I want to congratulate the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations, 
and I support this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for the 
comment that he just made. The conferees have worked really hard with 
the delegation from New York, including the Senate and House Members; 
and we have all worked together very well.
  This conference report continues to recognize the tremendous human 
losses suffered by those businesses located in the World Trade Center 
during the September 11 attacks, and we have included this emergency 
appropriation for the purpose of assisting these businesses. As stated 
in the joint explanatory statement of the Committee of the Conference, 
the conferees added $33 million to the amount provided over the initial 
request, and we did so expecting that that additional money would be 
made available specifically for helping to assist those firms located 
in New York City who, at the time of the terrorist attacks, suffered a 
disproportionate loss of their workforce and who intend to reestablish 
their operations in New York City.
  I have discussed this issue on numerous occasions with Mr. Gargano, 
who serves as Governor Pataki's Chairman and CEO of New York's Empire 
State Development Corporation. It is our understanding that in 
cooperation with New York City and the Lower Manhattan Development 
Corporation, the State of New York will ensure that these funds will be 
available for the intended purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to filibuster, in 
hopes that the gentlewoman who wishes to speak on this gets here.
  Let me say that, given the fact that I am trying to stall until 
another Member gets here, there are several items that I think the 
membership ought to know about that we have provided in this bill above 
the administration request.
  We have provided $225 million for modification of airports. Those 
modifications are needed in order to create an actual place to install 
the explosive detection systems which are supposed to be placed in 
those airports. It would be pretty difficult to meet the deadline 
without that additional funding, which the administration did not 
request.
  We also now have the situation in which air marshals at this point 
cannot communicate with the ground except through the pilot. We think 
that is fairly unfortunate and risky, and so we provided $15 million to 
fix that problem.
  We have also provided additional funding for port security grants, 
and I think that is probably among the most important money in the 
bill.
  We have taken a number of other actions which I think will enhance 
overall security, even while we have not provided all of the funding 
that the Transportation Security Administration asked for for other 
activities, in large part because the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, 
has so little confidence in the way that agency has approached its job 
to date.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my filibuster.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time. I was not going to get into this, but I want to thank the 
chairman of the committee.
  As the chairman knows, I have great concern about LaPlata, Maryland, 
that was struck by a tornado some months ago, and literally two-thirds 
of the town was obliterated, knocked down, along with almost a thousand 
homes destroyed.
  I was hopeful that there would be some additional funds in this bill. 
That was not possible. But I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member, with whom I talked during the course of the conference, for 
their assurances that during the course of the next weeks that we will 
address this problem. I want to be able to assure the folks of LaPlata 
that we have not forgotten them and we are going to assist them as soon 
as we possibly can; and I thank the chairman for his assurance on that 
and working with me to accomplish that objective, and I thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey) as well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to use this time as we consider the supplemental to 
raise an issue that I think has tremendous emergency potential, but it 
has great implications for us as a Nation as we respond internationally 
and as we are trying to bring stability in regions of the country that 
we want to have stable commerce with.
  And that is to recognize that in southern parts of Africa there are 
countries where people are literally starving today and that we could 
intervene and make a difference. A little money could be provided for 
food, and those who are starving need not die from starvation and the 
starvation numbers need not increase.
  Just yesterday, the World Food Program revised their numbers up that 
they expect will be affected if we did nothing, from 13 million to 14 
million. It is so easy for us in our luxury, or in our secure areas not 
to see this as immediate, because it is over there. Well, their 
problems over there become our problems in terms of security.
  As we are now trying to bring stability to all regions, in particular 
developing countries, I would hope we would see it in the Nation's 
interest, our security interests, even if we do not see it in the 
humanitarian interest, of doing the right thing. So I want to bring 
this to the attention of the appropriators. And I know it is not in 
this bill. I offered amendments when it came to the House before, and 
we were not given an opportunity; but I just want to use every moment 
and every breath I have to raise the consciousness and awareness that 
we can make a difference.
  Now, let me say parenthetically, Americans are making some difference 
now. But because we are a very affluent country, we cannot afford not 
to do what is necessary. We need to have that opportunity to make a 
difference. Mr. Speaker, 13 million could possibly die if we fail to 
act. We need those resources, and if not through this bill, through 
some future bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, Article I of the Constitution indicates that it is 
Congress which is given the power to determine the expenditure of 
taxpayer's money. Nowhere in the Constitution, in Article I or any 
other article, do we have a mention of the Office of Management and 
Budget. And yet I think as has been often the case, or has often been 
made obvious, the present director of the Office of Management and 
Budget seems to believe that the only role of Congress in the 
appropriations process is to salute whatever whim seems to occupy OMB 
that day. It is not the first time in our Nation's history OMB has had 
that attitude; but it is the most recent and, therefore, the most 
annoying.
  Let me simply say OMB and the White House itself has on numerous 
occasions chastised this Congress for the decisions we have made on the 
supplemental, and they have also chastised the Congress for being 
somewhat tardy in getting this bill to the White House.

[[Page H5227]]

  Let me point out that the White House did not send this bill to 
Congress until late March. They could have sent it up in January. They 
did not. They could have sent it up when they sent up their budget in 
February, but they did not. They delayed until late March, and then on 
three separate occasions after the conferees reached agreement on the 
content of this bill, OMB saw fit to blow up that agreement and ask for 
a different cut of the cards.
  Because of that history, it has taken the Congress more time than it 
otherwise would have taken. Nonetheless, we now have a product which 
does not suit everyone exactly, but it is a reasonable product; and I 
believe it deserves the support of the House. I do not support every 
item in it; no Member does. But it is a reasonable effort to reach a 
conclusion on this matter, and I personally intend to support it 
because of that fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I express my great admiration for the job that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations have done together, but the conference report has 
some extraneous provisions which the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has objected to on a bipartisan basis, including one 
provision that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terrorism: a 
rescission of $320 million of highway contract authority.
  That means if this stands, and apparently it will, that every State's 
highway program will lose interstate maintenance, national highway 
system funding, surface transportation program, bridge, congestion 
mitigation, and air quality improvement funds. California loses $31 
million; Pennsylvania, $15 million; Illinois, $11 million; and 
Minnesota, $5.2 million.
  For the first time in the history of the highway programs, these 
States will have to return budget authority which has been apportioned 
to them. These cuts are over the express objections of both the House 
and the Senate authorizing committees. Some will argue this has no 
effect because the obligational authority is not reduced in fiscal year 
2002, but I disagree. These rescissions will limit the States' 
flexibility to use their different categories of funds. When we passed 
TEA-21, we expected that contract authority would be greater than the 
annual obligation limitation. This excess contract authority has played 
a critical role in funding the States' need to set their own priorities 
for highway investments, and they have done exceedingly well with it.
  States will have to go through the process now of returning these 
funds from each of the highway categories to the Federal Highway 
Administration, and put more pressure on each State's highway next year 
if reauthorization of TEA-21 is delayed.
  Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I must oppose the conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the conference committee and the 
staff who worked very diligently for a number of weeks to get us to the 
point where we are today to have this supplemental on the floor.
  Our counterparts in the other body worked with us very diligently. I 
suggest that they raised a number of very challenging issues. This is 
one of the more difficult conferences that I have been involved with in 
a good many years; but with the leadership of Senator Byrd and Senator 
Stevens, we came to a good conclusion on a good supplemental conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, since this is primarily a national defense emergency 
supplemental bill.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep 
appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the very fine work they have 
done on this supplemental bill. This is, after all, the supplemental to 
provide additional funds for the war on terrorism.
  It was not quite a year ago that we met downstairs in this building 
to mark up the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for national 
security. As we were meeting that very morning, all of us had the 
experience of seeing those planes fly into those buildings in New York, 
shortly thereafter learning about a plane flying into the Pentagon and 
the President brought us all together to discuss for the first time the 
war on terrorism.
  One of the most significant moments of my time in public affairs was 
to share with Members in this House when the President came to the 
House, bringing us all together, both bodies of the Congress, the 
Supreme Court, all of the members of the cabinet, in order to talk 
about this new challenge that America was faced with. I will never 
quite forget that scene when the leader of the other body, who was in 
the well of the House, came across the well of the House and we saw the 
President of the United States and that leader in friendship and 
leadership and otherwise hug each other expressing the public's view 
that we ought to be together as we go about fighting this war.
  Indeed, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has indicated that 
this bill might have moved more quickly. There are any number of 
interests that have come forward since the fiscal year 2002 bills were 
marked up, and indeed the best effort has been made to reflect those 
additional interests in this fiscal year 2002 supplemental. But most of 
it, approximately half of it, is money to fight the war on terrorism; 
and we are coming together to further express our commitment on both 
sides of the aisle to make certain that we do whatever is necessary to 
see that we win this war.
  America is not backing off from the challenge that is before us. 
Indeed, the people of the United States continue to insist that we work 
together intently to make sure that America remains the strongest 
Nation in the world carrying forward that battle to be successful in 
the war on terrorism.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will support this legislation.
  Its provision to provide funding fro Amtrak is especially critical to 
avoiding a shutdown of our national passenger railroad system later 
this year. Congress has a special obligation to fund Amtrak as part of 
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997. The fiscal problems 
facing Amtrak are not the responsibility of the railroad alone, but 
also reflect the unrealistic and unattainable goals that we impose on 
Amtrak under that legislation and our failure in Congress to provide 
necessary capital funding. The $205 million provided in this bill is a 
stop gap measure to keep the railroad functioning as we look at 
opportunities next year during the Amtrak reauthorization to address 
larger fiscal and structural issues.
  This conference report contains funding for homeland security that is 
much needed in my district. It is essential that we provide our local 
governments and first responders with the resources to provide training 
and acquire the equipment necessary to be prepared for potential 
terrorist attacks.
  Our military has responded with great professionalism to the 
unforeseen tragedies of September 11, but we need to utilize tools 
beyond those of the military in reducing global risks. I am 
disappointed that we had to add military spending to this bill. The 
FY02 military budget we adopted last fall was $351 billion, a figure 
already exceeding the military spending of the next 25 nations 
combined.
  Finally, the conference report appropriates $134 million for 
reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. I am pleased that this total 
includes funding to repair houses damaged during military operations. 
The conference report appropriates some $3000 million for assistance to 
Afghanistan from various accounts.
  Afghanistan is believed to have one of the worst landmine and 
unexploded ordnance problems in the world, with 5-7 million still 
littered about the country. In addition to Afghan citizens, U.S. 
service personnel have also been killed by these explosive remnants of 
war. $4 million is included in this conference report for humanitarian 
demining and cleanup of other unexploded ordnance.
  Representative Leach and I led a request to the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee for assistance to unintended victims of the 
Afghan war in its FY03 bill. A bipartisan group of 38 Members joined 
us. This is an important gesture for us to make to the Afghan people to 
show them that our military campaign is not against them; it is against 
Al-Qaeda. I hope we can build on the assistance

[[Page H5228]]

for housing repair that is in this conference report in the 
appropriation for FY03 funding when the House Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee marks up its bill following the August recess.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today the House is voting on H.R. 4775, the 
2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and 
Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States. This legislation 
provides key support to our military to conduct the ongoing struggle 
against the barbaric forces of international terrorism, additional 
support for some key friends and allies in the war against terrorism, 
and supports other critical programs. I fully support the conference 
report and urge all my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very important provision that 
is contained in this legislation, section 603 of the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, relating to the dangerous security situation on 
Afghanistan, which is jeopardizing U.S. efforts to stabilize and 
democratize that war-torn nation. On May 21, 2002, I offered an 
amendment to H.R. 3969, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, 
which is substantially similar to section 603 and was adopted by vote 
of 407-4. My amendment and section 603 require the Administration to 
submit a strategy for addressing this critical problem. Under section 
603, the Administration is required to submit a report on the strategy 
for meeting the immediate security needs, and a further report within 
90 days on the long term strategy for meeting long term security needs 
in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States and its coalition partners have freed 
Afghanistan from the choke-hold of the al-Qaeda terrorists and the 
repressive regime of the Taliban. With the support of the international 
community, a new, interim authority is in place and the country is, 
uncertainly, on a path to peace and stability. But that very peace and 
stability is being threatened, and the new government of Afghanistan, 
led by Chairman Hamid Karzai, is being undermined by lawlessness and 
insecurity. Afghanistan is in grave danger of relapsing to the very 
conditions of violence and warlordism that created the Taliban and 
attracted al-Qaeda to operate in Afghanistan.
  This is not the vision we had for Afghanistan as we sought to help 
liberate it from the grasp of the terrorists and the Taliban. President 
Bush has pledged to help restore security and rebuild Afghanistan, and 
Secretary Rumsfeld has himself noted on many occasions that security is 
fundamental to all other issues and objectives in Afghanistan. Mr. 
Speaker, if this was not clear on May 21, when I first raised this 
issue, it certainly is now. A key member of the Karzai Government, Vice 
President Haji Abdul Qadir, was assassinated on July 6, 2002. The 
assassination of this key Pashtun leader highlighted the instability in 
Afghanistan that threatens the U.S. mission there. And just this week, 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced that U.S. soldiers, including 
U.S. special forces, will protect President Karzai, perhaps for several 
months, in order to protect the nascent political process that is 
taking place. I could not agree with him more when he said that it is 
important that the political process in that country ``not be negated 
by violence.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration decision to protect President 
Karzai speaks volume about the threats facing Afghanistan today. Just 
as President Karzai is threatened by continuing insecurity, so is the 
entire Afghani population. The bill before us today, and the 
Afghanistan Freedom and Reconstruction Act passed earlier this year, 
provides funding to help transform Afghanistan from a land of 
repression and chaos into a safe and secure environment where freedom, 
human rights and democracy can grow, and terrorism and opium production 
will wither. However, none of this can be accomplished without 
security. The United States is providing critical assistance to create 
a new professional, multi-ethnic Afghan Army that can address 
Afghanistan's long-term security needs. But something must be done now, 
whether it is the expansion of a multinational force or through some 
other mechanism, to stabilize the countryside. Neither we nor our 
Afghan friend have the luxury to wait until a future Afghan security 
force is fully trained and deployed.
  Section 603 requires the Administration to address this issue in a 
constructive way. It requires the Administration to formulate a 
strategy to increase security in the country during the transaction to 
a fully functioning national army and police force. I fear that a 
failure to do address the security situation may lead to a failed 
Afghanistan, reduced instead of increased international assistance, 
delays in the accomplishment of U.S. military objectives and a far 
longer engagement for our military in the region.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will support the conference report on the 
supplemental appropriations bill when it comes to a vote this afternoon 
because of the funds provided for the war on terrorism, homeland 
security, and assistance to the city and state of New York.
  That said, there are provisions in this bill that have nothing to do 
with these important objectives. One provision will undo a past trade 
commitment that the U.S. made in good faith to the countries of the 
Caribbean Basin region. That commitment relates to the rules of origin 
for apparel products under the CBI program. This bill includes changes 
to those rules of origin that make the program much more restrictive.
  We all know why these provisions are being included--it is to make 
good on a deal made by House Republican leadership with a few 
Republican Members from textile states in order to secure those 
Members' votes for a fundamentally flawed fast track bill.
  The CBI bill was crafted carefully on a bipartisan basis and it was 
an opportunistic, serious mistake to undo the provisions in that bill. 
The irony is that it is most likely that the promises in this bill will 
prove to be a pyrrhic victory.
  Provisions in the House bills on fast track and Andean Trade 
Preferences would significantly expand imports of textiles and apparel 
products from various countries--to a much larger degree than the trade 
at issue in this dyeing and finishing provision. The House Republican 
leadership therefore has been giving with one hand and taking away with 
the other.
  In a way, this dyeing and finishing amendment encapsulates the trade 
policy of the current Administration. It is going back and forth, with 
no direction.
  It is a reflection of the basic flaw of the House Republican 
leadership to approach trade policy as a purely political issue and 
thumb its nose at bipartisanship from the very outset.
  A trade policy on such a narrow partisan basis is not viable as it is 
built on shifting sands of political expediency, instead of a strong, 
broad foundation.
  Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with reserved 
support for the FY 02 supplemental Conference Report. This legislation, 
billed as a wartime supplemental, has egregious spending proposals I 
cannot wholly support. However, with more than $14 billion going to 
support our men and women in uniform, I am unable to oppose the 
measure.
  In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this bill is the embodiment of resentment 
our constituents express in regular helpings. This process, of using 
strong and vital proposals to shield what is essentially pork, afford 
the hard working taxpayers in this country a valid complaint against 
their government.
  I have read and reread the bill, Mr. Speaker. I shook my head with 
disgust and held my breath when casting my aye vote. My vote supports 
our efforts to defend this great country and to protect our interests 
in other lands. However, I know that this supplemental could have been 
better and I know for a fact that our constituents deserve better.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, first the good news. I am pleased that this 
conference report includes language that provides that adjustments in 
obligation authority for the federal highway program due to the Revenue 
Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) calculation will be zero for fiscal 
year 2003. This will ensure that the obligation levels behind the 
budget firewall for fiscal year 2003 will be at TEA 21 estimated levels 
for the year ($27.7 billion) and about $4.4 billion over what was 
included in the President's budget. The lower budget number in the 
President's budget was a result of adjustments made to correct previous 
overestimates for 2001 revenues and lower estimates for future 
revenues.
  However, it is important to note that there is no reason why Congress 
cannot provide funding in addition to this ``minimum'' guaranteed level 
of funding and, indeed, the Highway Trust Fund can support additional 
funding. This provision is identical to what was approved by the House 
earlier this year when H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act, 
was passed by a vote of 410-5 and will provide for more stable highway 
funding for the states.
  Now, the bad news. In an unprecedented move, the conferees have 
included a Senate provision that rescinds $320 million in contract 
authority from the Highway Trust Fund that has already been distributed 
to the states. In my more than 20 years here in the House, I cannot 
remember a time when states have had to give back federal highway 
apportionments.
  Mr. Speaker, this move is objectionable on many levels.
  Contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund is under the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is 
not the place of the Appropriations Committee to rescind contract 
authority. Under the Rules of the House, this is a violation and would 
be considered legislating on an appropriations bill. It should be of 
grave concern to all those Members who are not on the Appropriations 
Committee--which is about 85 percent of us--to see the continued 
usurpation of authorizer's authority and the long arm of the 
appropriators reaching beyond their legitimate powers and authorities.

[[Page H5229]]

  In addition, this is a terrible precedent. For decades, the Public 
Works and Transportation Committee, as our Committee was known back 
then, worked diligently in support of efforts to take the Aviation and 
Highway Trust Funds off-budget. And it was just because of budget games 
such as this that were played with Trust Funds that spurred that 
effort. We made real progress in TEA 21 where, for the first time, 
highway spending levels are linked to revenues coming into the Trust 
Fund. If the Appropriators are able to use the Trust Fund for budget 
gimmicks today, what is to stop them from doing so again in the future. 
Perhaps we should be thankful that the rescission in this bill is 
``only'' $320 million, when, I understand, it could have been a lot 
more. But we must stop manipulating the Trust Fund and the highway 
program for illusory budget reasons.

  But perhaps most important is the impact on state transportation 
plans and programs. States receive contact authority each year in 
accordance with TEA 21 in the various highway program categories. They 
are able to target obligation authority (which is typically less than 
contract authority) received each year among the various programs to 
meet specific transportation priorities and needs. This flexibility is 
needed by the states to properly manage and plan to ensure the most 
efficient and effective highway program. If suddenly a state must give 
back contract authority (and I understand DOT will require an across 
the board return of contract authority from among the various funding 
categories), states lose this vital flexibility. And some states may 
have large amounts of contract authority in only a few categories, so 
that impact would be felt more deeply in other programs.
  I understand this rescission has been justified on the basis of 
budget authority ``savings'' that were necessary to meet target 
spending levels. It is distressing that the Transportation Committee 
offered up over $1 billion in savings from the loan guarantee program 
under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 
reducing the outstanding loan authority down to the value of all 
pending loan applications. However, conferees did not avail themselves 
of this option and instead chose to focus on the highway program.
  The proper course of action to take would be to restore this contract 
authority as we continue the appropriations process for fiscal year 
2003. I trust the appropriators and leadership will work with us to 
ensure this correction is made.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot begin to play with the highway contract 
authority given to the states. We have never required them to ``give 
back'' contract authority already distributed. This is a very dangerous 
precedent and I trust we will go no further down this road in the 
future.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very 
important legislation.
  I want to express my sincere thanks and happiness that the funding 
for New York's recovery has been included in this bill.
  I would like to also note that this legislation includes $90 million 
for a longterm study that will be conducted by Mt. Sinai hospital to 
track the health impact of 9/11 on the dedicated and courageous 
response-and-recovery workers at the World Trade Center.
  However, while I am pleased that this study was included and that we 
are taking care of the utilities, I must say that I am very troubled 
that this bill does not contain any funding to aid the New York City 
Board of Education with its costs because of the September 11th 
terrorist attack.
  I, along with many members of the New York Congressional Delegation, 
and especially my friend and colleague Representative John Sweeney, who 
tried to include the aid in Committee, have been working on this 
important issue since the Board came to us with their concerns. Because 
of the attack, the Board has incurred costs such as making up for lost 
instructional time, clean up and repair of impacted buildings, 
transportation for relocated students, and the loss of perishable food 
and lunch revenues. Our goal simply has been to obtain for the New York 
City schoolchildren the same kind of aid that was made available to the 
Northridge schools following the 1994 earthquake. FEMA indicated that 
it wanted to help, but lacked the necessary authority.
  After months of correspondence with FEMA, we believed that to provide 
the Board with this funding, language needed to be included in the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill directing FEMA to reimburse the Board. 
However, even after the inclusion of such language by our colleagues in 
the other body, FEMA and OMB have indicated that this language is not 
sufficient, and the FEMA still lacks the authority to reimburse the 
Board. I am very disappointed with FEMA's inability to come to the aid 
of New York City's schoolchildren, who have done nothing wrong and 
deserve to have the best possible educational experience.
  Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11th are unprecedented in our 
nation's history. As a result, President Bush pledged that his 
administration would do whatever it takes to rebuild New York City. 
While we appreciate his support and much of the good work that has 
already occurred, the red tape that seems to be tying up the aid for 
the New York City schools must be cut as soon as possible. I am hopeful 
that we will be able to come to some resolution with FEMA so that the 
Board can continue its preparations for the upcoming school year.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2002.
  The Republicans have created a bill that throws important priorities 
in with a laundry list of poor choices. I can't in good conscience vote 
for a bill that in one breath provides billions in new funding for 
defense while cutting a reasonable investment in America's 
infrastructure and public housing.
  I can't support a bill that authorizes spending--to the tune of $29.8 
billion--that the President already said he would veto. It is critical 
that we make funding for transportation safety available as quickly as 
possible. But we can't be effective if we don't provide the funding the 
Transportation Safety Administration says it needs. The Secretary of 
Transportation says passage of this bill will delay the installation of 
screening and detection systems needed to keep weapons and explosives 
off our airlines.
  This bill opens the door for U.S. military involvement in Colombia, 
moving us one step closer to being mired in a civil war there. I cannot 
support this, just as I have always opposed the United States giving 
funding to other nations to purchase weapons that might be used to wage 
war or harm innocent civilians.
  This bill also withholds funding for critical UN family planning 
efforts that are vital in combating poverty and hunger throughout the 
world.
  I do support a great deal of what is funded in this bill. We must 
crack down on corporate fraud. We should make college more affordable 
for all Americans by boosting Pell Grant funding. We need to do more to 
help the victims of domestic violence and assist poor mothers and their 
children. We should assist local communities and first responders in 
their emergency preparedness efforts. We ought to boost the security of 
our transportation systems and at our ports.
  America should also be a responsible force abroad as well by helping 
Afghanistan rebuild, giving needed humanitarian aid to refugees, and 
providing support to vital global health care initiatives like the 
fight against HIV/AIDS.
  I support all of these important endeavors. But, unfortunately, this 
bill is far too flawed to gain my vote. I urge my Republican colleagues 
to think about what our priorities should be and consider the 
consequences this bill imposes on our nation's and the world's future.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________