[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.
____________________