[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H92-H97]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 AND HOUSE JOINT 
   RESOLUTION 2, FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 15 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 15

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     2003, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
     by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
     by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 15 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of two continuing resolutions, H.J. Res. 1 and H.J. Res. 
2, both of which make further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
2003. The rule provides that H.J. Res. 1 will be debatable in the House 
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.J. 
Res. 1, and it provides one motion to recommit the underlying measure. 
H.J. Res. 15 also provides that H.J. Res. 2 will be debatable in the 
House for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.J. 
Res. 2. It provides one motion to recommit.
  As we start this year's legislative session, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to consideration of 
the two underlying continuing resolutions, both of which will allow the 
Federal Government to remain open until the end of this month. Failure 
to pass these measures would mean the government, outside of the 
defense and military construction appropriations bills, would have to 
shut down on midnight this Friday, January 10. We simply cannot allow 
that to happen to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a good reason, other than nostalgia, 
to explain why we are still trying to complete our work from 2002. The 
rest of America has already celebrated the new year. They have already 
started to write 2003 on their checks. But for the House of 
Representatives, the calendar year has not turned.
  Every year this House has the responsibility to pass the 13 
appropriation bills that keep this government running.

                              {time}  1345

  Funding for education, health care, environmental protection, 
homeland security, national defense all must originate here. The 
scorecard from the last Congress shows that the majority could only 
pass 2 of these 13 bills. So we are here today to consider a sixth 
continuing resolution to keep the government open and running. We are 
here for one simple reason: The majority party in this House has 
failed. They did not do their job, and the American people deserve to 
know that.
  Members of this House get up all of the time and give great speeches 
about how much they value education, about how no child should be left 
behind. But when it comes to actually funding education, the majority 
says maybe we will get to it later.
  I just met with leaders from hospitals and home health care agencies 
and nursing homes in Massachusetts that are struggling just to hold on. 
They need relief and they need it now; but when it comes to actually 
funding our health care system, the majority says maybe we will get to 
it later.
  Where is our commitment to our police, our firefighters and other 
first responders? Where is our commitment to environmental protection, 
and funding for our transportation and infrastructure needs? Certainly 
not in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, later is not good enough. We need to act now on the 
issues that matter to the American people. Indeed, we should have acted 
yesterday. As even senior Republican appropriators have pointed out, we 
are leaving ourself extremely underfunded in the area of homeland 
security. Take a look at port security, for example. Right now 21,000 
shipping containers arrive in U.S. ports every day, each one big enough 
to carry a weapon of mass destruction, but less than 2 percent are 
actually screened.
  As the Washington Post has reported, Customs Commissioner Robert 
Bonner has said there is virtually no security for what is the primary 
system to transport global trade.
  Worse yet, the rule before us prevents Democrats from even offering 
amendments to correct that mistake and provide that critical funding. 
Somehow, the majority found time last year to pass huge tax breaks for 
the wealthiest Americans, but not much else. We hear a lot of talk 
about homeland security, but we are not funding our homeland security 
needs.
  This is a time for New Year's resolutions. I hope my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle will resolve to bring our appropriation 
bills to the floor in a timely manner and let the House work its will, 
vote and move on. The American people deserve a House of 
Representatives that functions, that does the job given to it by the 
Constitution, and I hope that we can at least achieve that much during 
this new year.
  Mr. Speaker, there will be a vote on the previous question, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on that previous question. A no vote will 
allow Democrats to offer important amendments to fund some of our vital 
interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, of course the CR before us is not supposed 
to have items that raise the cost of government, nor agreement on what 
the cost should be. There is a sleeper item in this CR that Members 
need to know about because it certainly raises the cost of government a 
great deal and a great deal more than was necessary.
  We are treated in this CR to a lease. That is I must say an 
unprecedented circumvention of the committee process. Perhaps that 
could be justified

[[Page H93]]

under some circumstances. There are three hugely negative consequences 
for doing so today. We have raised the price of the interim 
headquarters for the Homeland Security Department. We have disrespected 
the committee which was in a position to help mitigate the price and 
the length of the lease, and we have undermined the economy of the 
Nation's capital. Let me say a word about each of those.
  First, raise the price. What we have here is something that gives 
every appearance of a sweetheart lease. It was supposed to be 5 years, 
it is 10 years, which is more than is necessary because this is an 
interim headquarters. This is not the headquarters. It cannot be 
cancelled. It is for $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars for a 
10-year lease. After 10 years, we could have bought a building. Why 
would we lease a building for 10 years at a time when we are cutting 
appropriations to smithereens.
  We disrespected the committee to the detriment of this lease because 
the committee had ideas about how to meet the deadline without signing 
such a long lease that in effect bought the building, but at the end of 
10 years taxpayers will have nothing to show for a 10-year lease. A 
quarter of a billion dollars is the least of it. We are going to have 
to add millions more to enhance the security of this leased building, 
this building we do not own. We could have built this building.
  Finally, we have undermined the economy of the Nation's capital. What 
has been done is the Federal Government has taken all of the most 
valuable land in the District of Columbia off for yourself. Having done 
that, all we get in return are Federal jobs. We cannot tax the people 
who come in here for their Federal jobs, but at least they can leave 
their disposable income here. Now we will not even have that.
  Mr. Speaker, according to a survey that we had done, a study that we 
had done, the cost to the District of Columbia over 10 years is a loss 
of $342 million. We cannot replace that money. Under the Constitution, 
there are only two sectors in the Nation's capital, government and 
tourism. We are leaving the Nation's capital without an economy. We had 
no fair chance to compete for the interim headquarters.
  Mr. Speaker, sadly the District of Columbia had no fair chance to 
even compete for the interim headquarters. That is clear if we review 
the language of the request for proposal. They preselected the suburbs 
from the beginning. The language gave it away. They might as well have 
said, ``We want to locate this in Northern Virginia.'' What they said 
instead is we want an office park setting. Give me a break. We do not 
have office parks in big cities.
  They took out what is standard in all RFPs for Federal sites, and 
that is that there be access to a Metro. That means that the residents 
of the District of Columbia, those particularly in the lower levels, do 
not have any way to get there from here. This is a heartless thing to 
do to the Nation's capital, but that is what has been done.
  Let me put Members on notice, all the District of Columbia asks is 
not that we get a site, but that we have a fair chance to get a site. 
This administration did not give us a fair chance to get the interim 
headquarters. We will not allow the Homeland Security Department to be 
the only department other than the Pentagon whose headquarters are 
located outside of the District of Columbia. The Pentagon had to be 
located out of the District of Columbia because there was not enough 
room for it. There is enough room for the Department of Homeland 
Security in the Nation's capital. We insist that the permanent 
headquarters be located here, and I ask Members of this body to assist 
us in making sure that happens.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for 10 years, 
and each year we have had continuing resolutions, both when I served in 
the minority and also in the majority. They are always unfortunate 
because it holds up the work of this House.
  I would say to my colleagues a little lesson in history, in the 107th 
Congress the House passed 58 bills, 58 bills that the other body 
refused to either take up or pass. They gridlocked them. I would say 
that this body did its work. We passed bills. And regardless of the 
gridlock in the other body, we did many things together, Republican and 
Democrats, that helped the American people. I worked with many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), whom I serve with on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, we intercepted a memo from James Carville, a political 
partisan, Democrat operative, and it was entitled, ``It's the Economy, 
Stupid,'' and he recommended two things to the other body, one that 
they not pass a budget. Why? Because a good example is prescription 
drugs. The House did its work. We passed prescription drug legislation 
two times in this body. The last time was for $350 billion, more than 
the other side of the aisle requested during the first go-round, yet it 
did not satisfy them. Carville and the other body, they requested $1.3 
trillion for prescription drugs in their first go-round. Why? So they 
could bad mouth Republicans to specific interest groups. And in the 13 
appropriations bills if Democrats do not have a budget, they can put a 
trillion here and a trillion there. In Labor-HHS, for example, over 
time it was $278 billion more, yet they talk about being fiscal 
conservatives and it just does not add up.
  Yes, we did not pass the appropriations bills as the gentleman talked 
about, but we chose to wait and see what we could do to work it 
together. But with the Senate not passing its bills, it made it more 
and more difficult.
  The second portion of the Carville memo recommended that the Senate 
not pass any of the House bills, which they did. They held 58 of them 
up during that time, bills that would help the American people, such as 
the energy bill, and I can tell Members California is very strapped for 
energy and the need for infrastructure. Yet the other body, upon 
recommendation, held that bill up.
  The economic stimulus package, we all know that the economy, a lot is 
based on the stock market. We had bills that we passed in this body 
that would help people regain confidence in the stock market so that 
the people like from Enron that invested their life savings in a 
retirement plan would not have some CEO take the whole bundle of wax 
and leave them with nothing. We heard testimony of a lady that had over 
$200,000 in her retirement account. After Enron, she had like $15,000 
in her retirement account. The gentleman says we did not do our work, 
but the Senate refused to take up legislation. They refused to take up 
an energy bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would tell Members yes, we did not pass appropriations 
bills, but we were not going to play the Carville game.
  Secondly, when the Democrats had majority in this place, we remember 
in 1993 when they said they were going to help the middle class. They 
increased the tax on the middle class, after months and months of the 
then-majority leader saying that they were going to cut taxes on the 
middle class. They increased the tax on Social Security. That is 
because they had a President in the White House that would sign it. 
They increased the tax on gas. They even had a retroactive tax. They 
took every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund. They cut 
veterans' COLAS and military COLAS, and this is when they had control. 
They passed it because they had large numbers in the majority in the 
other body.
  In the other body, we have a 2-vote margin. We do not have 60 votes 
to pass things in the Senate. They are not like the House where it is a 
simple majority. Yes, in the future there is also going to be gridlock 
from the Senate because the same partisan Democrats that held up 
legislation in the Senate when they were in the majority are going to 
hold up legislation on the Senate side.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members 
not to make improper references to the Senate or characterization of 
Senate action or inaction.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that we can 
come together on in this House over the next 2 years; but, if we look 
at the pending bill, all I have heard so far is vitriolic, partisan 
points at the Republican Party. That is not going to get

[[Page H94]]

Members anywhere; it just makes us madder, like it makes the other side 
of the aisle madder when they do not get their way.
  There is a lot of things we can do together, which we do within the 
committees themselves. But when it comes to the leadership of the 
Democrat Party, that is their goal, to gridlock, to hold things up like 
over the past 2 years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out, the name of our party 
is not the Democrat Party. It is the Democratic Party. We would 
appreciate it if we would at least be called by our proper name, okay?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman and my friend from 
Wisconsin. The Democratic Party. I meant nothing by that and the 
gentleman knows that. But there are a lot of things we can do and most 
of these freshmen that came have ideals, actually sitting down and 
working together. Unfortunately, we have got a Presidential election, 
and there is a lot at stake for the parties. Myself, I am a fighter. 
The gentleman knows me by now, over 10 years. But I would much rather 
sit down with the gentleman from Wisconsin and with the leadership of 
the Democratic Party and work out these things instead of this 
bickering. It hurts all of us.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say to the gentleman from California that I am sorry 
that my comments made him mad, but I will restate my position, that I 
believe that the majority party failed to do its job in the last 
Congress. You are in charge. You have the majority. You are supposed to 
pass these 13 appropriations bills and you failed to do so. As a 
result, here we are talking about our sixth continuing resolution; and 
we are underfunding education, we are underfunding health care, we are 
underfunding environmental protection, we are underfunding homeland 
security; and I think the American people are furious over the 
inability of the leadership of this Congress to lead. That is your job.
  I would also simply point out to the gentleman that rather than 
adjourning early to get an early jump on Christmas shopping, we should 
have remained in session and worked out the differences with the other 
body; and we should have stayed here, remained here until we did our 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, what is happening here today is that the democratic 
processes in the institution that is supposed to represent the finest 
of democratic traditions in the world are being mutilated, and I want 
to explain what I mean by that.
  The majority party for the last year has been able to prevent this 
House from making any significant decisions whatsoever on 90 percent of 
the domestic budget. They have succeeded in preventing the education, 
health and labor bill from coming to the floor for a vote. They 
succeeded in preventing the science budget, the housing budget, the 
veterans budget and others from coming to the floor.
  And now that we are past the election, they are now doing two things. 
By this resolution before us today, they are making it possible for the 
House to consider two resolutions, both of which will be sent to the 
Senate. The first resolution will continue the authority to keep the 
government open for 1 month, and the second resolution will be used as 
a vehicle to which the Senate will then attach all of the remaining 
appropriation bills as they have been worked out in the Senate. It will 
be attached to that vehicle and then sent back here for an up-or-down 
vote, and no Member will have any opportunity to affect that package in 
any way whatsoever. That will mean that we will have gone an entire 
year without any degree of accountability for the actions of either the 
majority party or the minority party. Our last opportunity to affect 
the content of that budget comes today on these resolutions. We are 
being denied again an opportunity to provide any meaningful alternative 
to the proposition that is being put together by the majority party.
  The House rules say that if the Committee on Appropriations has not 
passed what is called a 302(b) allocation under which it takes its 
spending authority and allocates that authority to the 13 different 
subcommittees, if the committee has not done that, then the rules of 
the House say that the House cannot consider an appropriation bill. The 
Committee on Rules agreed to waive that provision for the majority, so 
they are allowing the majority to bring a bill to the floor allowing 
for a huge amount of spending, but they did not afford the same 
privilege to the minority. That means that we cannot offer any 
meaningful amendment to the funding level being provided by the 
majority.
  There are reasons for rules. Whether you are talking about a New York 
Giants-San Francisco 49ers game or whether you are talking about the 
House floor, the purpose of rules is to see to it that everybody is 
treated the same. What this rule in essence says is that there is only 
one team that can even touch the ball; that is, the Republican majority 
team. And it says the Democratic team can have no opportunity 
whatsoever to have any impact on the outcome. That destroys the ability 
of this place to be a legitimate representative body.
  After the election, I was watching McNeil-Lehrer, and I noticed in 
the panel that they had, the moderator asked the panel, what were the 
roles going to be for the Republican and Democratic Party after the 
election. When they discussed the Democratic Party, Tom Oliphant, the 
distinguished columnist, said, ``Well, they are now the minority party 
and so it is their responsibility to offer alternatives to the majority 
party's propositions.'' That is correct. But we are being denied by 
this rule by the majority party the opportunity to offer meaningful 
alternatives. That is bad for us, but it is also bad for the majority 
party because it means that there is no way to hold the majority party 
accountable for its decisions and there is no way to judge whether 
their decisions or ours are better, or more in tune with the country's 
needs. That is a disastrous result in what is supposed to be the most 
representative body on the face of the Earth.
  If we had not been boxed out by the illegitimate action of the 
Committee on Rules, what we wanted to do is to offer a simple amendment 
which would put the House on record supporting expenditures which the 
majority party has already voted for on the supplemental. We wanted to 
make certain that the $2.5 billion in homeland security items, for port 
security, for border security, for FBI computers, et cetera, we wanted 
to make certain that those contingent appropriations which were frozen 
by the President, we wanted to give the House an opportunity to say 
that those items should be provided in this continuing resolution. The 
President has stonewalled on those $2.5 billion worth of items.
  And we also wanted the House to reaffirm its support for $275 million 
of additional veterans medical care, for $200 million additional 
funding to fight terrorism in the Middle East, which we would have 
provided to Israel. The election reform money which both parties posed 
for political holy pictures about early on, we wanted to provide that. 
And we are being denied the opportunity to provide all of it. None of 
that adds to the spending level of the Republican-approved budget 
resolution. It does add to the level in this bill, but this bill is 
substantially below that resolution. Yet we are being denied the 
opportunity to strengthen the homeland security of this country because 
of the partisan needs of the majority party. I think that is 
illegitimate.
  The other thing we wanted to do is to see to it that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission is funded at the level promised in the 
Sarbanes-Oxley bill so that we could in fact put our money where our 
mouth is and afford investors decent protection from corporate fraud in 
their balance statements and in their accounting. We are being denied 
by the Republican majority the opportunity to do that as well.
  That is why we are going to be asking this body to vote against the 
previous question on the rule so that we

[[Page H95]]

can in fact offer this legitimate amendment, to offer these items which 
all of you, at least 90 percent of you on the majority party side of 
the aisle have already voted for. The items I am asking people to allow 
have already been supported by 90 percent of the Republicans and 
Democrats in the Senate and the House. I do not think that would be too 
much to ask if this House were a legitimate democratic body, which 
apparently the House is not. Democracy in this House is being shredded. 
The Republican Party is simply afraid to vote on these issues because 
they know that they would either lose the vote or else have a 
substantial segment of the American people saying to them, ``What in 
God's name were you thinking when you turned those items down?'' This 
is an illegitimate action, an illegitimate, arrogant and 
antidemocratic, small ``d,'' operation, and the majority party ought to 
be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the rule. By 
prohibiting a motion to strike the imprudent and fiscally irresponsible 
language in the continuing resolution concerning the housing of the new 
Department of Homeland Security, this rule circumvents fair, 
deliberative legislative process. This language in the CR authorizes 
the government to enter into a long-term lease for a building in 
Virginia to house some of the employees of the new department. The Bush 
administration and the House Republican leadership have thereby created 
a Department of Homeland Security that itself is not secure. This was a 
backdoor deal done without participation from House Democrats, and 
frankly very little participation by House Republican leadership and 
members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Here is how: the CR says that the prospectus to lease the property is 
deemed approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
We have not even considered it. We have not even seen it in open 
committee hearing process. In fact, it was not approved by our 
committee or any other relevant committee of either the House or the 
Senate. We did not have a chance to meet and discuss it. The prospectus 
was signed on Christmas Eve and delivered through the mail slot in our 
door the day after Christmas when people were on leave. The new 
department and the security of the people who work there, frankly, are 
far too important for this kind of gimmickry; and in the process, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been marginalized 
and trivialized.
  This secretive process avoids answering questions by the 
administration, such as does the commercial office space that they have 
chosen meet basic security standards, such as a 100-foot setback to 
protect against truck bombs? Does it have shatterproof windows? Neither 
of these issues is addressed in the prospectus, nor in the CR.
  At the signing of the Homeland Security Act, President Bush said, 
``Our objective in creating this department is to spend less on 
overhead and more on protecting neighborhoods, borders, waters and 
skies from terrorists.'' Well, this lease is going to cost the 
government a quarter of a billion dollars over 10 years, and in 
addition the government is going to have to spend tens of millions of 
dollars to make necessary security enhancements to the building. That 
is not keeping overhead costs down. Furthermore, they have got a leased 
building. After investing all the money, the Bush administration is 
clearly prepared to walk away from that investment and stick the 
taxpayers with the bill. A better solution is for the Federal 
Government to build a new facility to house the department. We proposed 
that solution last year in committee. The House passed it in July as 
part of the Homeland Security Act. It did not continue in the final 
legislation, but nonetheless there is a longstanding provision of 
Federal law that requires Cabinet-level offices to be built in the 
District of Columbia.

                              {time}  1415

  Common sense tells us it is better to own your house than rent it, 
and this building is not going to hold the 17,000 employees of the new 
department headquarters. At most it is going to hold 2,200 people on a 
10-year lease that if they try to cancel they are going to pay a huge 
price. This is fiscally irresponsible. It is a disrespect to the 
people, it is a disrespect to the public discussion and legislative 
process, and under the rubric of security, secretive process is not 
appropriate.
  Vote against the rule and against the CR.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my major 
concern is that we need not continue this abdication of our 
responsibility to the Senate. This is the second bill in a row that we 
have said let the Senate take care of it. The people of this country 
elected us in the House of Representatives to take care of some 
business as well.
  The other point is that I would like to have a voice before we cut 
education, which this will do. I would like to have a voice before we 
cut veterans care and appropriations for our veterans who served in our 
wars, and particularly low income energy assistance, particularly at 
this time of cold weather. We will have none of that, none of that if 
we move in this direction. We cannot start this year by consistently 
setting a pattern of abdicating our responsibility here in the House of 
Representatives and keep saying let the Senate do it. Is that what we 
are going to do when we go back and we campaign and when the people ask 
``What did you do on that vote? Did you have a say?'' No, we just voted 
to extend the shell, let it go over there to the Senate, let them do 
the work, and then they just pass it back.
  So I urge the Members to let us take another look at this and let us 
do the will of the people and let this House of Representatives stand 
up and be the House that we are out there on the campaign trail telling 
people send me to the House of the people and let me do the people's 
will. Not one time did we say send me to the House and I will abdicate 
and let the Senate do our will.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would respectfully 
remind the gentleman, as he previously reminded the other Member, to 
refrain from improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is a close contest as 
to which aspect of this bill is more outrageous, its terribly deficient 
substance or its antidemocratic procedure. As to the substance, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin just mentioned, this bill continues the 
Republican position of complete and total hypocrisy with regard to 
corporate accountability. When the Sarbanes-Oxley bill was signed, the 
President quite proudly cited this as an example of his concern for 
increased corporate accountability. A key piece of that bill which the 
President signed called for an increased appropriation for the 
Securities and Exchange Commission so it could do the large number of 
new responsibilities it is given by Sarbanes-Oxley. Consistently since 
the passage of this bill at every budget opportunity, the Republican 
majority in this House has refused to make one penny of that available 
so that none of the additional responsibilities of Sarbanes-Oxley have 
been funded. This bill continues the pattern of hypocrisy, of having 
called for and signed into law funding for Sarbanes-Oxley to the SEC 
and not providing it. The President has sent up before that for fiscal 
2004. Of course given this Committee on Appropriations and this House's 
track record, fiscal 2004 will not be passed until late in 2004, but 
even if it were to be in an unprecedented way passed on time, it will 
have been over a year and a half between the signing of the bill and 
its funding.

[[Page H96]]

  Similarly, let me warn Members that when they go back from here, they 
will be told by public housing authorities if they have them in their 
district and people who administer section 8 that this appropriation 
substantially underfunds both, public housing authorities for a 
combination of reasons, including the incompetence which has kept the 
bill from being passed in a timely fashion and the priorities of an 
administration that is in power. Public housing authorities will not be 
given enough operating money to run their budgets.
  When the Republican majority at the President's behest abolished the 
drug elimination program by which public housing authorities fought 
drug use, they were told, well, that is okay, they can fund it out of 
their regular operating budget, but now comes the second part of that. 
They have underfunded the operating budget. So first they say fund that 
$300 million program nationally out of their operating budgets and then 
they cut the operating budgets by hundreds of millions more so there 
will be no chance of doing that.
  So the Sarbanes-Oxley bill is rendered once again a nullity under 
this in substantial part. The public housing authorities are given too 
little money to do their basic operations, and there is not enough 
money to continue the existing section 8 contracts, and as I guess as 
an admission of the indefensibility of this bill, the Republicans have 
of course come up with the most antidemocratic procedure imaginable so 
that no amendment addressing any aspect of what I have just talked 
about will be in order. So we have I guess a synergy, a terrible bill 
which can only be put forward with an outrageous procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat because people ought to understand 
that there is a synergy here. It is a bill so deficient in its 
substance that it can only be brought to the floor under an 
antidemocratic procedure that presents the substance from being 
addressed. And let me say Members of this body who vote for this rule 
and prevent any amendment, when they go back to their districts and 
talk about their support for public housing authorities that are in 
trouble, the elderly housing with the drug problems that they want to 
fight, talk about their commitment to Sarbanes-Oxley, will be telling 
people things that will be in direct contrast to their actions. Vote 
for this rule and you vote to keep the funding needed to make Sarbanes-
Oxley a reality, you vote against allowing the public housing 
authorities to meet their basic operating needs so that when elderly 
people complain to you about the problems of heat, the problems of law 
enforcement, the problems of maintenance, understand that voting for 
this rule makes you responsible for that.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman if there are any 
requests for time on his side?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thought we had a 
doubleheader here, but apparently we have a trifecta. Not only do we 
have a bill that is lousy in its substance and indefensible so that 
procedurally no amendment can be offered, but it is in both cases so 
bad that the majority will not even explain or defend it. So the 
procedure is bad, the substance is worse, and the majority confirms 
that by refusing quite sensibly to try to say a word in its defense.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me close for our side by again expressing our frustration on this 
side of the aisle that we are still dealing with last year's work. The 
fact that we are dealing with the six continuing resolutions before us 
today I do believe is a failure of the majority party's leadership in 
the last Congress, and it continues in this Congress. As we bring this 
bill to the floor, we continue to undercut and underfund education and 
health care and transportation needs as speaker after speaker has 
already said.
  We are going to call for a vote on the previous question, and I am 
going to urge people to vote no on the previous question. This rule is 
unfair, it is undemocratic, it is arrogant, and this is an issue of 
fairness. The majority has waived the budget rules for themselves, but 
they have not waived those rules for the minority. This is another 
abuse of power, and maybe in his closing statement the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), my friend, can explain why one set of rules 
applies to the majority and a different set applies to the minority in 
dealing with an issue of this importance. By defeating the previous 
question, we will restore some fairness to this debate, to this 
process, by applying the waiver of budget rules to the motion to 
recommit so that we can offer a meaningful motion to recommit and we 
can provide the funding, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
said earlier, to the SEC so that it gets the proper funding as 
authorized by the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. It also can provide much needed 
moneys for homeland security which, for all of our talk about homeland 
security, we continue to underfund important needs. It provides 
important moneys for veterans medical care. Everybody talks about how 
we are committed to veterans, and yet here we are again moving forward 
on a bill that underfunds veterans medical care and we are not even 
being allowed an opportunity to correct this. So I would urge all of my 
colleagues to vote no on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record just prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), who worried about the fact that the Republicans were not 
defending the bill during the discussion on the rule, under the regular 
order during the discussion of the 1-hour debate on the rule, we should 
be discussing the rule. We will be delighted to defend the substance of 
our bills in the subsequent debate on the bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

            Amendment to H. Res. 15 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
     by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, 
     and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
     by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 1 
     and House Joint Resolution 2, points of order against 
     amendments for failure to comply with section 302(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5

[[Page H97]]

minutes the time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  Members will be reminded that the Chair will strictly enforce the 15-
minute rule.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 198, not voting 10, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Delahunt
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Inslee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Nethercutt
     Pickering
     Towns
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). The Chair 
advises Members that approximately 2 minutes remain on the 15-minute 
clock.

                              {time}  1447

  Messrs. ISRAEL, DAVIS of Tennessee, HOYER, GORDON, KANJORSKI, and 
EVANS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today, January 8, due to family 
considerations, I unfortunately was not able to vote on several 
rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 
rollcall No. 5. I also would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 6, 
``yes'' on rollcall No. 7, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 8.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________