[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H180-H190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 13) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H181]]

  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 13 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 13

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 107-229 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``February 7, 
     2003.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 29, 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).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us, H.J. Resolution 13, is a 
continuing resolution to continue to allow the government to operate 
through February 7th of this year. This is merely a date extension. It 
does not change anything else. We have not added any anomalies to those 
that were previously agreed to.
  We need to pass this CR today for one very simple reason. If I can 
just go back quickly and remember, the last CR we passed, we actually 
passed two CRs, one that was sent to the President to allow the 
government to continue to function, and the other that was sent to the 
other body to be used as a vehicle for the final appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2003.
  The other body has now worked its will on that CR. They have added to 
it, the remaining 11 appropriation bills that had not been concluded 
prior to the adjournment of the 107th Congress. We are still awaiting 
the paperwork from the other body so that we can appoint conferees and 
go to conference on that package.
  I would say to my friends that there are many differences between the 
Senate version of this appropriations bill and the House version, so 
there will have to be a conference.
  If we can receive those papers expeditiously, like today or tomorrow, 
we will move to go to conference immediately. Some of the pre-
conference work has already been done, but there is still a lot more to 
be done, so we are anxious to receive the papers. But since we are not 
to that point yet in the process, we do need this CR to keep the 
government up and running until February 7th.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend just a moment or two discussing 
how we got to this place, and then repeat for emphasis what I just said 
on the rule, so people understand what it is we are going to be trying 
to do here today.
  We are really in the situation where, well into the fiscal year, we 
have yet to pass 11 of the 13 appropriation bills, primarily because 
the budget resolution that was brought to this House floor in the first 
instance unrealistically stated what the needs of the country would be, 
or the congressional estimate of what those needs would be. So to try 
to keep the session moving anyway, the majority party brought out two 
appropriation bills. Then the system just sort of fell apart because of 
the unreality of the budget resolution, and we have been stuck with no 
other appropriation bills becoming law, so we have been operating on 
continuing resolutions.
  I would ask the gentleman, is this continuing resolution number 13? 
Something like that. I have lost track, we have had so many of them.
  Now we are supposed to pass yet another continuing resolution so that 
the House and Senate have more time in order to put together an omnibus 
appropriation bill which will at long last produce funding for all of 
the domestic agencies in the Federal Government. So this proposal is 
here to give us another week to get that work done.
  Mr. Speaker, we have two questions left. Number 1 is, what is the 
appropriate funding for those appropriation bills; and number 2, when 
are we going to get it done? As far as I know, we still do not have 
paper on this side of the Capitol, so we still do not know what the 
Senate has done in detail.
  This proposal before us now simply keeps the government open. The 
question is, what level of funding should we have in this short-term 
CR? We believe that, in addition to the funding that is being provided 
under the resolution being brought to the floor by the gentleman from 
Florida, we ought to add another $3.5 billion to fund the first 
responders, so that our policemen and our firemen and our public health 
people can get about the business of protecting us at the local level. 
We cannot expect State governments to provide this money, because they 
are in massive deficits all around the country. If we do not provide 
it, it is not going to get provided.
  The second thing we want to do is to provide $90 million to Centers 
for Disease Control for baseline health screening, so we can do a long-
term assessment of the health exposure experienced by first providers 
at the Pentagon and in New York on 9-11 when they ran into the combat 
zone, so to speak, and experienced an assault by many chemicals, some 
of which were suspected of being highly toxic.
  So that is what we want to do. As I said, I think it is especially 
important to do this in light of the misstatement by the White House 
Chief of Staff on national television last week. Last week, as I said 
in my earlier remarks, Mr. Card, the White House Chief of Staff, told 
Tim Russert, the moderator of Meet the Press, that the reason that the 
first responders did not have the money that they needed was because 
Congress had not acted on the money and had tied it up.
  I found that especially quaint given the fact that the President 
vetoed the lion's share of the money that we provided for first 
responders in the supplemental last year, money which would have gone 
through to the local communities if the administration had not vetoed 
bipartisan congressional efforts. So what we see is that on four 
occasions, as I said earlier, the White House has either blocked or 
resisted bipartisan efforts in both Houses to provide additional money 
for first responders.
  I will ask the House at the proper time today to approve this motion 
to recommit so that we can add this funding. I want to point out that 
it will still keep us within the Republican budget resolution. We will 
still have over $1 billion head room in the Republican budget 
resolution if we add this amendment, because the continuing resolution 
is operating at a funding level significantly below that Republican 
funding resolution.
  So I do not want to hear any claptrap on the floor today about how we 
are busting the budget with this motion. We are not; we are staying 
within the confines of the Republican budget resolution. But within 
that, we are saying it is time, it is time to deliver the money that 
the first responders thought they were going to get a long time ago, so 
we can get about the business, for a change, of dealing with 
substantive problems, rather than ping-ponging political arguments 
while we send no money to the people who are going to be on the front 
lines if we have any further terrorist attacks.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of first-line 
responders, I was a former Baltimore County Executive. Baltimore County 
is a county of over 750,000 people. The Second District that I 
represent has BWI Airport and the Port of Baltimore. We are very much 
concerned about the issue of the monies being put into the budget as it 
relates to first responders.
  One of the most important issues that we have if there is another 
terrorist attack, which we understand there will be, is that we need to 
be prepared. Our police officers and our firefighters are the first 
responders. Not only do they need to be protected themselves, but if 
they are not protected, they will not be able to protect our citizens.
  So we urge the President and urge Congress to move forward with the 
monies that are necessary to make sure that we secure our homeland.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to walk through once more what the record is with 
respect to dealing with this problem.
  Right after 9-11, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I went 
down

[[Page H182]]

to the White House. He and I and our staff chiefs, when we were locked 
out of our offices because of the anthrax scare, he and I went downtown 
to the White House after we had spent a week talking to every security 
agency in town, virtually, trying to find out what they thought the 
needs were on the homeland security front.
  We went down to the White House, expecting to have a give-and-take 
discussion about what additional funding we ought to provide. We ran 
smack into the President of the United States, who walked into the 
room, shook hands, sat down, and then said, and I am paraphrasing, but 
this is pretty close, he said, well, I understand some of you want to 
provide more money for homeland security; but I want you to know that 
my good friend, Mitch Daniels, tells me that we have more than enough 
money in the budget for our request. I want you to know if Congress 
spends one dime more on homeland security than we have asked for in our 
budget, I will veto the bill. Now I have time for four or five 
comments, and then I have to get out of here. That is what he said.
  So when my turn came, I expressed my lack of enthusiasm to that kind 
of rigid response, and I proceeded to ask the President a number of 
questions about security threats to a number of Federal installations, 
threats which were serious and classified. We urged the President to 
reconsider.
  In the end, over White House opposition, this Congress on a 
bipartisan basis provided $4 billion additional money for homeland 
security, including, I believe, about $400 million for first 
responders. Then last year in the spring supplemental, as I indicated 
earlier, the White House asked for no additional money for first 
responders; so no money for our policemen, no money for our firemen, no 
money for our public health people.
  The House and Senate worked again on a bipartisan basis, and we 
provided $551 million in that supplemental. The President vetoed $350 
million of that amount. Then finally the administration slowly awoke, 
and it provided $3.5 billion in their budget request for 2003; but then 
they cooperated in a procedure that prevented that money from ever 
becoming law, because they agreed with the procedure that kept the VA-
HUD bill and the State-Justice-Commerce bill from ever coming to the 
floor.
  So now we are operating under a continuing resolution which provides 
$650 million, far less than we need for first responders. We need 
several billion more. Yet, even after the administration had that 
authority to spend the money, they refused to allocate the money to the 
States. They have been fiddling around about proposed formula changes, 
rather than getting the stuff out there so we can accelerate our 
preparedness at the local level.
  If Members think we are ready for another attack, I invite them to 
read the report of the Rudman-Hart Commission, which spells out that we 
are still mortally unprepared to deal with local attacks.

                              {time}  1245

  So now we are faced with this situation, and despite the fact that 
the track record clearly shows that the administration has been 
resistent to congressional efforts to provide assistance to first 
responders, the White House Chief of Staff has told the country that it 
is the Congress that has not provided the money, when in fact the 
Congress on three occasions did provide the money or tried to and on 
each of those occasions the White House resisted.
  So what we will be asking the House to do is to provide this 
additional funding: the $3.5 billion to first responders and the $90 
million for the epidemiological studies of the health impacts on the 
firemen and police personnel who had to respond at the Pentagon and in 
New York after 9-11. And we would remind our friends on both sides of 
the aisle that this does not bust the budget. If you vote for our 
amendment, it will still keep us within the Republican budget 
resolution which seems to be so important on that side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I do so to explain to the Members that first responders 
are extremely important to dealing with any kind of a terrorist attack 
that might occur anywhere in the United States of America. And we will 
be addressing the issue of first responders when we do the final 
appropriations bill, which I have talked about in my opening remarks. 
But I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
because he has been very personally involved in identifying not only 
the needs of first responders but the needs of existing security 
agencies, and police agencies. And as he pointed out, he and I both did 
a very thorough survey of all of the needs of those agencies, 
especially the FBI, for example. Those will be the things that we will 
be addressing very shortly in the final appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2003. I appreciate his interests and I know they are genuine, but 
we are going to deal with them in the regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the distinguished ranking 
member for raising the point about the first responders. And I want to 
say as a member of the committee I certainly want to do everything I 
can to support addressing this issue with the first responders. It is 
very important. And yet at the same time, I think we need to go ahead 
and pass this resolution today because, Mr. Speaker, it is unfinished 
business, unfinished from last Congress. There were a lot of dynamics 
that kept us from passing it. Frankly, it kind of got away from the 
Committee on Appropriations, otherwise, I think we would not be 
standing here today.
  But the reality is, Mr. Speaker, we need to get this off the table so 
that we can move on to other things, addressing the economy, addressing 
Iraq, addressing Medicare and a prescription drug benefit, some of the 
things that I hope the President will talk about tonight when he 
addresses this Chamber.
  One of the things I want to mention is in terms of the situation in 
the Middle East, and I guess people are reading what Mr. Blix and the 
weapons inspectors' report is, and they are spinning it their own way 
for their own convenience and their own purposes; but it is very clear 
that it is a very difficult question that Saddam Hussein has had 
weapons of mass destruction, terrorist and biological weapons. And the 
question is not so much, well, he won the scavenger hunt, but did he 
prove that he has disarmed. And I think most people will agree that 
that has not been proven.
  I make these remarks, Mr. Speaker, because in my district a week ago 
I stood dock side at Savanna, Georgia, and then boarded a ship called 
the U.S.S. Mendonca, which was named after Private Leroy Mendonca, who 
was killed in the Korean conflict on July 4, 1951, who was a member of 
the Third Infantry Division. That ship is a special cargo roll-on, 
roll-off ship that was loading along with its sister ship about 450,000 
square feet of tanks, Humvees, personnel movers and helicopters, on 
their way to destinations not clearly known.
  A few days later I stood at the dais at Hunter Air Field and watched 
some of America's youngest, finest and most experienced and some of the 
older soldiers boarding airplanes going off to Kuwait. As I shook those 
soldiers' hands, and I went out there a couple of times, and I want to 
say parenthetically, great work is being done by a group called 
Southern Smiles, the U.S.O., and the Red Cross in terms of giving these 
soldiers some very needed personal items, but as I stood there and said 
good-bye to these soldiers I thought, they are going off to do their 
job, and now it is our turn and my turn as a Member of Congress to go 
off and do my job in Washington, D.C. and that is to protect the 
country as we see it from our standpoint, often through legislation and 
usually through appropriations. And, therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is so 
important that we get this bill finished up so that we can start the 
appropriations process once more for the coming term with a special eye 
to the troops overseas, and not just in the Middle East, but all over 
the globe.
  We have a very troubled universe as we know it, but we have got to 
get our modernization continued. We have to

[[Page H183]]

have our troops ready for any contingency, and we have to have the 
quality of life of soldiers in mind at all times.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this House to support this resolution 
and let us get on with next year's business.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me simply say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) that as 
far as I am concerned he has done everything humanly possible to try to 
see to it that we could provide the needed money to first responders. 
He tried that a year ago on the supplemental when he was pushed into 
backing away by the White House and by his own leadership, but we still 
got $4 billion additional homeland security money in that bill despite 
the resistance of the White House. And he also worked with us 
cooperatively to see to it that we had more money in the supplemental 
this previous summer for homeland security and for first responders. 
Again, the White House vetoed those efforts, so I congratulate the 
gentleman for his efforts. I just wish that the White House had been 
responsive to them. If they had, we would not be sitting here now 
worrying about the fact that they still do not have dime one that they 
need at the local level.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of 
the committee and the ranking member for their diligent efforts in 
trying to adequately fund our homeland security needs. And I think what 
this motion to recommit is all about on this floor today is to try to 
ensure that we do that promptly.
  I think we all know that September 11 was a declaration of war by 
terrorists against the United States. It was an unprecedented cruelty 
perpetrated against the American people that foreshadowed a new age in 
our country, a new kind of war, a new challenge. And this motion to 
recommit seeks to make good our response to that challenge.
  We clearly confront an enemy that lurks in the shadows, runs from 
battle; and we must be willing to make the necessary changes in our 
budgeting and the necessary sacrifices as a people to ensure that this 
new kind of war is won and won decisively by the United States.
  Today the frontline of the war on terror is found in places like the 
airports in Boston, the hospitals in Houston, the ports of Los Angeles. 
Those who fight this war for America are the police officers, the 
firefighters, the health care workers. They are the first on to respond 
to any kind of attack on our homeland, and they will be there to 
respond to those attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, in this new kind of war, the struggle to end an effort 
by a cruel and merciless foe, we know that victory will not come out 
without a dedication on our part to seeing this battle through. The 
keys to victory are vigilance, preparedness and perseverance; and that 
is why it is also important today to recommit this bill to ensure that 
we put the necessary money in the bill now to fund these very, very 
legitimate needs.
  I heard a State senator from my home State yesterday who said, Is 
homeland security going to be another unfunded mandate to the States? 
The answer to that should be clearly no. It is a national 
responsibility to protect this homeland; and the only way to do it is 
to put the money in the bill now to take care of these homeland 
security needs that I think the chairman and the ranking member of this 
committee both believe should be in it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct something that our colleague from 
Texas just said. He said that the only way to do this is to deal with 
it in this bill. This bill is simply a continuing resolution to keep 
the government functioning for another week. There will be plenty of 
time for this kind of debate. I think they will find plenty of support 
on this side of the aisle for the first responders. I do not think 
there is anybody over here who does not appreciate what the first 
responders do. But the fact of the matter is that the bill that is 
before us today is a continuing resolution to keep the government open. 
I think we all agree that that ought to happen. Nobody here, not on 
that side, not on this side, wants the government to shut down. So the 
idea that it has to be done on this bill or it will not get done is 
simply not true.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was assured that the 
gentleman said there will be debate on these appropriations. My only 
question is, in which fiscal year will the debate on the current 
appropriations occur, this one or next one? We are starting to run out 
of fiscal year.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, obviously there will 
be debate when the matter comes before the House on the bill coming 
back from the Senate. I suspect there will be additional debate when we 
take up the budget resolution and the appropriation bills for the next 
fiscal year. There will be adequate time both in that year and in this 
year to have that debate, but that is not the debate for this 
afternoon.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank him. I am 
reassured because he just said something very important and precedent 
setting. He said when we debate the appropriations bills for the next 
fiscal year. We did not debate the appropriation bills for this fiscal 
year. So at least I will take comfort from an assurance from the 
majority that in the next fiscal year, unlike the current one, the 
House may actually debate the appropriations bills.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, well, the good news 
is this year the House and the Senate are under the same management. We 
do expect thorough debates on all of the appropriation bills this year; 
and more importantly, we expect for the first time in a year and a half 
they will actually have a budget resolution in the Senate that we can 
work with and that will make life easier for both of us.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing we will do it next time around for 
a year and a half. Meanwhile, you have gotten zip to the local people 
who need it the most. We were told a year ago, oh, we will do it down 
the line. We were told in the supplemental, oh, we will do it down the 
line. Now you are saying here, we will do it down the line. Do it now.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do it now. What we want to do now is 
get the continuing resolution off the desk and get it down to the other 
body and to the President. Then we will do it now on the final wrap up 
bill for the fiscal year 2003. And if that is not adequate to satisfy 
the needs of the first responders, then we will have a supplemental 
appropriations bill which will be before the House very shortly. And if 
that does not take care of everything, then we have the fiscal year 
2004 appropriations bill; but I think we will get this job done pretty 
quickly.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned supplemental. I would 
suggest he call the White House and tell the President to reconsider 
his veto of the last supplemental that we sent to him where he denied 
us the ability to get $300 million to those first responders.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
just touched a sore spot, there is no doubt about that. The Congress 
and the President had a little different opinion on that particular 
bill.
  But I wanted to comment on the remarks the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner) who just spoke. He said that this is a national 
responsibility. Mr. Speaker, protecting the homeland, being able to 
respond to a terrorist attack or whatever the threat might be threatens 
everybody, not just the national government, not just the State 
governments, not just

[[Page H184]]

the local governments. But the response to a terrorist attack has to be 
a partnership.

                              {time}  1300

  The local governments have a responsibility to do things that they do 
far better and far more effectively than the Federal Government. We 
need the ability that is provided by local governments and local 
organizations and local first responders.
  In addition, we need the partnership with the States because the 
States do certain things that we cannot do nearly as well, and then, of 
course, the Federal Government has a major responsibility. So this is 
not just a national obligation or responsibility. This is a 
partnership.
  We all have to be in position to play our respective roles in 
responding to a terrorist attack or preventing a terrorist attack. We 
all have to work together. It is not just the Federal Government. And 
so, again, I go back to this, Mr. Speaker, let us get this continuing 
resolution through the House, down to the other body and to the 
President, and then hopefully, during that same time period, we will be 
able to conference the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, 
and then we will clear the decks for a supplemental and for the 2004 
appropriations business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  It does require a partnership between the local and Federal 
Government. The problem is the Federal Government will not come out on 
the dance floor and dance. They are leaving the locals out there alone. 
They have yet to provide one dime in new money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it amazes me how glibly we talk about the fact that this 
is just another continuing resolution, we are going to do something 
later. When immediately after September 11, 2001, we sprang into action 
here, passing legislation giving the world and certainly the people of 
the United States that the Congress was not afraid to meet its 
obligations, but certainly one of the most important obligations we 
have is to fund the Federal Government.
  Instead, we have dithered and dillied and dallied around discussing 
continuing resolutions. The Senate passes an omnibus bill. We will go 
to conference with them. We may do another CR. We just do not know. Are 
we going to do two budgets simultaneously? I really think it is 
outrageous that so little attention has been paid in the country to 
what has been going on here. Frankly, it distresses me that while all 
this is going on, we are back home in our districts when I think we 
should be here working.
  We made promises after September 11, couple of days later, we are 
going to fortify our Army at home. The President and most Members of 
Congress went to New York to Ground Zero promising enormous amounts of 
help and to do something about the borders of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the borders of the United States are in disarray. I 
represent part of the northern border area. We are concerned all the 
time with the people who come across the border into Vermont and to 
Maine. INS told me shortly after September 11 that there were 11 
million persons in the United States illegally. They did not know who 
they were, where they were or what they were up to.
  We have a mammoth task before us, and certainly getting the Federal 
budget straightened out and money back to the first responders is 
critical.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleagues that 
I have no further requests for speakers, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 11 \1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
not only yielding time, but offering this most important motion that I 
believe that all of us who say we want to defend the homeland should be 
on this floor supporting when the time comes.
  Tonight the President of the United States will come before the 
Congress and the Nation. He will talk about the state of the Union. He 
will say that our economy is headed in the right direction. We believe 
it is headed in the wrong direction, but more importantly, in some 
respect, he will talk about the challenges we face abroad.
  But we have two wars, Mr. President. One is the one that you seek to 
have us engaged in Iraq. There you are sending the greatest talent that 
America has to offer. You are sending an incredible amount of 
equipment. You are sending billions of dollars.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair requests that the gentleman 
address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the other war is here at home, and in that 
war, America has been left virtually defenseless, virtually 
defenseless. Instead of putting the best resources, the greatest 
opportunity to those people who I witnessed from my congressional 
district which sits on the west bank of the Hudson for which the World 
Trade Center was, in fact, a part of the normal landscape, those who 
responded on that fateful day of September 11 was not the Federal 
Government, was not the Defense Department, was not the Federal 
emergency management.
  No, it was police officers and firefighters and emergency management 
and hospitals and public health systems, and to them, we have taken 
many pictures, but we have done absolutely nothing about providing one 
red cent so that they can be prepared, God forbid, for the next attack.
  Who did the CIA say was America's greatest threat? It was al Qaeda 
and bin Laden, the greatest threat to terrorism on domestic soil, and 
yet all of our focus is elsewhere, and yet the President takes picture 
with individuals, with our police officers, with our firefighters, and 
no wonder, when they have not received one red cent, they say, Mr. 
President, you have merely been using firefighters and their families 
for one big photo opportunity. The Virginia Professional Firefighters 
Association and others, the president of the International Association 
of Firefighters says, Mr. President, you are either with us or against 
us. You cannot have it both ways. Do not lionize our fallen brothers in 
one breath and then eliminate funding for our members to fight 
terrorism and stay safe.
  There is a war here at home, and we have not prepared nor have we 
funded for it. I know that as I have traveled the country when I 
chaired the task force for House Democrats on homeland security, I can 
tell my colleagues that what I heard from first responders is that the 
plans we have on the shelf have nothing to do with chemical or 
biological weaponry, has nothing to do with the potential nuclear 
activity. We are not planning for it. We have not prepared for it, and 
we do not even have the equipment to deal with it.
  It is time for us not to listen to the counsel of patience and delay 
and wait for the next attack to be prepared. It is time for us to act 
now. Vote for the gentleman's motion to recommit so that we can give 
the first responders in this country the possibility of responding to 
the Nation's security and the next possible attack. God forbid, we do 
not do this now. We have waited already too long.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire again how much time we have 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 18 
minutes remaining and previously advised the Chair he does not have any 
further speakers.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the rescue workers were there for us when

[[Page H185]]

we needed them. The question before this body today is will we, the 
Federal Government, be there for them when they need us? I rise 
strongly in support of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion 
to recommit that provides the necessary funding to help protect this 
country, but I particularly want to speak about one program that was 
instituted and planned to help the first responders in New York City, 
and that is the $90 million proposed monitoring of health care at Mt. 
Sinai Hospital in New York.
  The 12 million that was originally allocated will run out in July, 
and only a small portion of the roughly 40,000 workers, and I mean 
laborer, fire, construction worker, those that were exposed to these 
deadly, deadly toxins, have been screened.
  Earlier, in a bipartisan way, we passed a supplemental, but that was 
vetoed, and these heroes need to be helped, and what I see is sort of 
the selective amnesia. When it is time to have a photo op or time to 
talk about heroes, everybody is there for the photo op, but when it 
comes to the time to allocate the money to the men and women who need 
the health care and need the continued services, it has not been there.
  Underscoring this is an important Mt. Sinai study that came out 
yesterday showing the illnesses and persistent illnesses caused by 9-
11, and I include it for the Record.
  I rise in support of Representative Obey's motion to recommit, which 
provides crucial funding to help protect the country.
  In particular, I support the $90 million to continue the health 
monitoring at Mount Sinai hospital for the men and women who were on 
the front lines of defense on September 11th and the days that 
followed.
  Sixteen months after that fateful day, we must make sure that those 
brave men and women who entered a battle zone of a new kind of war, and 
are really the first victims of the war, receive the medical care they 
deserve.
  Underscoring the need for this money was a report released yesterday 
by Mount Sinai hospital showing that a majority of ground zero workers 
and volunteers screened for health problems have serious persistent 
illnesses from the disaster.
  The initial screening program which ends this July will screen only 
about 9,000 of the approximately 40,000 rescue workers in need of 
medical attention.
  Dr. Stephen Levin and Dr. Robin Burton said the findings showed 
``disturbing levels of long term health problems'' and that it was 
``alarming.'' The analysis reveals that over 50 percent of the sample 
study have pulmonary illnesses, ear, nose, and throat ailments, or 
persistent mental health problems.
  They believe the same statistics will hold for the roughly 3,500 
responders they have seen to date: 78 percent of the participants 
reported at least one World Trade Center-related pulmonary symptom that 
first developed or worsened as a result of their rescue efforts; 52 
percent reported mental health symptoms requiring further evaluation; 
and only about one-third of the sample participants had received any 
prior medical care for any of their symptoms and conditions.
  In other words, for about one-third of these participants, their trip 
to Mount Sinai had been their only source of medical care; emphasizing 
the critical need to fully fund this program now, not later, not months 
down the road. Medical monitoring delayed is proper health care denied.
  Last week Senator Clinton, in a bipartisan effort, again successfully 
directed $90 million dollars from FEMA for this purpose. But again we 
face the challenge of securing the House support and the 
Administration's support and leadership to make this happen.
  These firefighters are just here to pick up their check not only for 
themselves, but for the ironworkers, the construction workers, 
laborers, rescue workers, volunteers, and their families who care 
deeply about their health.
  Medical monitoring delayed is proper health care denied.
  The rescue workers and volunteers were there for us when we needed 
them, now the question is will the federal government be there for 
them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering this recommit motion and implore my 
colleagues all to support it.
  Members of the New York State delegation, both Republican and 
Democratic, met with retired Marine Corps General and now director of 
antiterrorism for the New York City Police Department Frank LiButti 
this morning to discuss New York City's homeland security needs.
  Our needs are real, they are deep, and they are not being reflected 
in this budget. The President has talked a good game of protecting our 
first responders, but then why did he veto the medical monitoring 
funding of $90 million added on a bipartisan basis by the New York 
delegation in the summer supplemental? Mr. Bush said it was not an 
emergency.
  Many of my friends are firefighters. Many of those friends are 
conservative Republicans. They know and the entire New York City Fire 
Department know the people who first rushed into the World Trade 
Center, the people who lost over 300 of their brothers and sisters that 
day know that this is an emergency. Why does not our President and why 
does not President Bush recognize the emergency to protect my city and 
all of our major metropolitan areas from terrorism?
  Do we rationally think that if we go to war with Iraq that al Qaeda 
and other terrorist groups will not strike again? The question is not 
if, but when. The sound bites from the White House are great, and the 
President, he will talk tough tonight, and the Republican leadership 
here will say that they are working on it, but the time for back-
slapping is over. It is now time to deliver for New York City.
  We have missed Osama bin Laden. We have ignored our firefighters at 
Ground Zero. Let us not ignore them anymore. Let us recommit and pass 
the Obey supplemental bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this very 
important motion to the floor.
  I stand here beside this photograph of the first responder with the 
President of the United States with great pride. We can all associate 
ourselves with that moment. As the President embraces the firefighter, 
so did the entire Nation.
  On September 11, the whole world watched in horror when we saw the 
tragedy unfolding in New York and elsewhere and resolved that we must 
do everything in our power to make sure that such a tragedy never 
happens again. We also watched in awe to see the courageous action of 
the first responder, the police and firemen. That is why it is so hard 
to understand why we even have to go through this today.
  Does not the entire country agree that these firefighters and 
policemen, the first responders, are owed a debt of gratitude by our 
Nation? Do we want people to take risks to save the lives of others 
when we will not even fund a study to take a measure of what impact 
their courage may have had on their personal physical health?
  In the President's State of the Union Address last year, he promised 
to help local communities train and equip their first responders and 
provide for other homeland security needs. I listened with interest as 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said that 
this is not just a national responsibility, it is also a State and 
local.

                              {time}  1315

  It is indeed that. But as elected officials at the national level, 
our first responsibility is to protect the American people, to make 
this country safe. Certainly we do that jointly with the local and 
State governments, but they have incurred tremendous costs, $2.6 
billion as far as the municipalities are concerned; practically $75 
billion in terms of the States in order to help take up some of our 
national responsibility that we have not funded.
  And why have we not funded it? Because the administration and the 
Republicans have said that, for example, the $5 billion that was 
proposed in the other body as an amendment for first responders was 
well-intentioned but unaffordable. Well-intentioned but unaffordable. 
And the $1.5 billion that Congress passed and the President refuses to 
spend cannot be spent because we are on a war-time budget.
  How do we explain this to the American people? How do we explain it 
to this brave firefighter and his family, that we can afford a $674 
billion tax

[[Page H186]]

cut, largely benefiting the wealthiest people in our country, but we 
cannot afford $1.5 billion already passed by Congress for our law 
enforcement, for homeland security, and we cannot afford the well-
intentioned, but unaffordable, $5 billion for homeland security? And 
this amendment includes a $90 million study.
  Nothing could be clearer in terms of the need. Nothing could be more 
specific in terms of the remedy. Nothing challenges our conscience more 
that we would turn away from the first responders when they are 
suffering effects from the courage that we all identified with, 
worshipped at the shrine of, embraced, yet now we cannot do it. We are 
too busy giving $674 billion largely to the wealthiest people in our 
country. Where are our priorities?
  So tonight when the President comes to the floor to give the State of 
the Union address, I, like every other person in America, will welcome 
him with great anticipation and great respect. We all want our 
President to succeed. We all want to be in as much agreement with him 
as possible. But we cannot listen to rhetoric about first responders. 
We cannot look at photo ops and see the sincerity that we know is 
there, because our President is a sincere person, if this Congress 
refuses to match the compassion with the $90 million that is necessary 
for this study.
  I commend our colleagues from New York for bringing this to our 
attention and just say that this all takes place in the context of 
rejecting the $5 billion; rejecting the $90 million, rejecting the $1.5 
million, the pocket veto of the $150 million in emergency responder 
grants in August of last year, and the Justice Department temporarily 
suspending award grants to the first responders that I already 
referenced, and, according to calculations, the slashing in the budget 
is roughly $200 million out of the $3.5 billion for first responders.
  It just goes on and on and on. There is a consistent pattern of 
saying we cannot afford this. Well, if we cannot afford to come to 
their rescue, how can we expect them to come to ours? If we cannot 
afford to come to their rescue, how on Earth can we afford a $674 
billion tax cut for the wealthiest people in America?
  I know that is not the sentiment of this body. I know that is not the 
sentiment of our distinguished chairman. So let us all follow the lead 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and get this over with 
quickly before more people find out what is going on on this floor 
today; that this House may reject this $90 million study.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to support the Obey 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) and congratulate her. This is the first chance I have had to 
congratulate her publicly for her ascension in a historic way to the 
high position of leadership of her party. However, what it means is 
that she has removed herself from the committee that I have the 
privilege of chairing. And I would say that while we did not always 
agree, it was always a very distinct pleasure to work with her as a 
member of the Committee on Appropriations. So I would say to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that we will miss her, but I 
am sure we are going to see her a lot during the 108th Congress.
  I listened to her statement, and I appreciate the fact that she used 
the picture, as well as the previous speaker's use of the picture, of 
President Bush standing alongside a firefighter at Ground Zero in New 
York City. President Bush responded quickly and effectively to 
September 11th. No one can even challenge that. I think maybe what is 
happening here today, while we are talking about a continuing 
resolution, is a lot of debate that has to do with the regular 
appropriations bill. Maybe we are trying to make an argument where no 
argument exists.
  As I listened to the gentleman from New Jersey talking about the 
first responders at the local level, he is absolutely right. He made 
the point far more effectively than I did when I mentioned the 
importance of first responders. The people on the scene, the people in 
the cities, the people in the counties, are going to respond first to 
any event that is of a terrorist nature or a weapons-of-mass-
destruction nature. They are going to respond. And they do need the 
support and the help of the Federal Government and of the State 
governments. The States have some responsibilities as well.
  So we are arguing about something that doesn't really need arguing 
about. The problem is the motion to instruct by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be dealing with an appropriations issue and 
this bill is a continuing resolution, that just continues funding at 
last year's level. It does not create any new programs. It does not 
appropriate any new money. The final bill for fiscal year 2003 that we 
will be dealing with is available to deal with first responders.
  But I want to get back to September 11th and this picture. Again, I 
say I appreciate the fact that the minority used the picture of 
President Bush, because he did respond. He responded in a local way, in 
a State way, in a national way, and in an international way.
  Please, do not take the picture away. It encourages me when I look at 
it.
  The President did a really good job, but he did it in partnership 
with the Congress. Right after September 11th occurred, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I sat down with our counterparts in the 
other body, and we came up with an appropriations bill, an emergency 
appropriations bill, of $40 billion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say the gentleman is correct, we 
did; and I was immensely proud of the House on both sides of the aisle 
for cooperating in producing that bill, and I was flabbergasted that 
that cooperation on the part of the White House did not extend to our 
next request to provide for additional money, including the first 
responders.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I was 
happy to yield to my friend from Wisconsin, but I would point out the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I sat down with our 
counterparts in the Senate and we produced a bill of $40 billion that 
was, I think, passed unanimously in the House and I believe in the 
Senate as well, to make money immediately available to the first 
responders, to FEMA, to police, to firemen, to whoever needed the money 
after September 11th.
  As a matter of fact, we did something very unusual, Mr. Speaker. Of 
the $40 billion, we allowed the executive branch to use immediately $10 
billion with no strings attached to respond to September 11th, to 
respond to terrorism, and to do what had to be done immediately. Then 
we gave them an additional $10 billion that they could basically do 
whatever they wanted to with, but there were a few congressional 
strings. We just required that they report to us on what they were 
doing with that $10 billion.
  So the Congress responded rapidly. The Administration moved quickly. 
Then the other $20 billion, the second half of the $40 billion, we 
allocated through the appropriations process; but we asked the 
executive branch to suggest to the Congress how that money should be 
used. We did have some differences, but we worked out a plan that I 
think worked fairly well.
  Now, there is a lot more that needs to be done. September 11 was 
something that many people in this country had never seen before. I 
think the only thing that really compares to September 11 was December 
7, 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and we went to war in World War 
II.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this President responded well. This Congress 
responded well. The agencies of the government responded well. FEMA 
responded well. The folks in New York responded well, the Pentagon in 
Northern Virginia responded well, and Pennsylvania responded well when 
Flight 93 went into the ground. The Nation mobilized and responded very 
well. So we are creating an argument here where there is no argument. 
But maybe that is part of the process. You have to have an argument no 
matter what you do.
  I want to get this CR passed from here today, and I want to get it 
off the

[[Page H187]]

deck; and then I want to be able to proceed to the conference on the 
final bill for fiscal year 2003 where we will again address first 
responder-type issues as well as practically everything else in the 
government, except for defense and military construction, which have 
already passed and have already become law.
  So let us pass this CR today. Let us defeat the motion that would 
slow down the process, that would make this an appropriations bill as 
opposed to a continuing resolution. Let us do that and then get on with 
our business.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tonight the President will 
give his State of the Union address and next week the President will 
release his fiscal year 2004 budget, and we in the Congress have yet to 
pass 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003 funding. We are now 
on our seventh continuing resolution. I am concerned that Congress is 
abdicating its Constitutional responsibilities. Before the adjournment 
of the 107th Congress, we had ample time to pass the physicians, 
hospitals, nursing homes, home health services and other health care 
providers. Our nation's seniors deserve better.
  A cornerstone of a stable and dependable Medicare program is a system 
of adequate and appropriate reimbursements for health care providers. 
If payments are too high, or too low, the system will collapse and 
access to critical care for our seniors will be denied. Health care 
providers are being penalized for past federal accounting and 
legislative mistakes. Short-term fixes are necessary to ensure 
continuing access to quality care, while a comprehensive and thoughtful 
system of determining clinician reimbursements is developed. Medicare 
payments to physicians have already been cut by $139.4 million. Under 
the current law, payments will be cut an additional $695 million over 
the next three years.
  I have been in close contact with physicians and other health care 
providers in the Houston area, many of whom appropriations bills. 
Again, we are faced with uncertainty in the budget process, which we 
cannot afford with the condition of the economy.
  The latest unemployment figures indicate that nearly 6 percent of 
Americans are unemployed; 17 percent of African Americans are 
unemployed. Our nation is in an economic crisis that calls for 
leadership and a bold economic plan.
  The nation's health care system is in need of reform. Millions of 
seniors rely on Medicare for their health care needs. Any Omnibus 
Appropriations Bill and the President's fiscal year 2004 budget must 
stabilize the Medicare program. Many Medicare beneficiaries, including 
seniors in my 18th Congressional District, are losing access to 
critical health care services because of the inadequacy of the current 
Medicare payment rates.
  As a result of physician reductions in reimbursements, many Medicare 
beneficiaries risk losing access to their work in small- and medium-
sized businesses. They have made good faith efforts to ensure the 
continuity of comprehensive care for their Medicare patients, but they 
tell me that they cannot afford to do this forever. I am a cosponsor of 
the Medicare Physicians Protection Act, which would impose a one-year 
freeze on the physician's fee schedule to protect our health care 
providers, and the patients who depend upon them.

  Last week, the Senate passed a $390 billion Omnibus Appropriations 
bill. The bill was passed with little debate and loaded with last-
minute amendments. The large number of spending bills included in the 
Omnibus Appropriations package--11 in all--makes this year's budget 
debacle especially appalling. For instance, a provision in the bill may 
have major implications for how immigration applications are processed 
and how much they will cost. In the Senate Omnibus Appropriations bill, 
a provision to re-establish old requirements that immigrants applying 
for visas, citizenship or adjustment of family status pay a surcharge 
to subsidize the processing of applications by asylum seekers and 
refugees was included. However, the Homeland Security Department bill 
passed in November removed the surcharge on applicants, which can add 
as much as $80.00 to a citizenship application. This is one issue that 
must be worked out in the conference committee on the Omnibus 
Appropriations Bill. This would adversely affect many of my 
constituents applying for visas, citizenship or adjusting their status 
in my 18th Congressional District.
  In addition to immigration concerns, the Omnibus Appropriations bill 
must contain adequate funding levels to implement the Leave No Child 
Behind Act. We have become a government run by continuing resolution. I 
do not believe our Founding Fathers in their wisdom with grantings 
Congress the authority to raise revenue would have conceived a Congress 
not disciplined to follow our Constitutional mandate. This process is 
bad for the country and a poor reflection on the House and Senate.
  On the issue of the economy, the President has the wrong plan. It 
will not stimulate the economy and create jobs. The cornerstone of the 
plan is the elimination of tax dividends, a proposal, which only helps 
the wealthy in this country and does not provide a stimulus to the 
economy.
  Continuing resolutions, because they historically have been viewed as 
``must-pass'' measures in view of the constitutional and statutory 
imperatives, became a major battleground for the resolution of 
budgetary and other conflicts. Consequently, the nature, scope, and 
duration of continuing resolutions began to change. I recognize the 
urgency in passing continuing resolutions; however, Congress must pass 
a serious comprehensive appropriations bill that adequately funds 
domestic programs for our nation citizens from education to health 
care.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 29, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. OBEY. Without the pending recommit motion, certainly.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 
     13, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back forthwith with an amendment:
       Section 101 of Public Law 107-229 in further amending by 
     adding at the end:
       ``Provided further, $3,500,000,000 is available for Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Management and 
     Planning Assistance, for state and local first responders 
     homeland security grants to equip first responders, and 
     $90,000,000 is available for the Centers for Disease Control 
     for baseline health screening and long-term medical 
     monitoring of emergency response and recovery personnel 
     exposed to toxic substances at the World Trade Center site.''


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion 
to recommit because it violates section 302(c) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. Section 302(c) prohibits the consideration of any amendment 
that provides new budget authority for a fiscal year until the 
Committee on Appropriations has made the suballocations required by 
section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  This motion to recommit increases the amount of budget authorities 
provided by the measure. The suballocations published by the Committee 
on Appropriations on October 10, 2002, lapsed upon the adjournment of 
the 107th Congress and no new 302(b) suballocations have been made for 
the 108th Congress. Hence, I make a point of order that this motion to 
recommit violates section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be 
heard on the point of order?

[[Page H188]]

  Mr. OBEY. I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.
  The gentleman contends the motion is not in order because the 
majority has failed to file its 302(b) allocations. If this amendment 
were to be ruled out of order, what that would mean is that the 
majority has put the fix in in the Committee on Rules so that they can 
bring what they want to bring to the floor but the minority cannot.
  In other words, the minority would be penalized procedurally for a 
failure to act on the part of the majority. I would find that to be a 
quaint interpretation indeed. It is patently unfair to allow the 
majority to bring up a bill without filing its suballocations and then 
punish the minority for something the majority has not done.

                              {time}  1330

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). If no further Members wish 
to be heard on the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As the Chair ruled on January 8, 2003, supported by the House on 
appeal, section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
precludes consideration of an appropriations measure, including an 
amendment, providing new budget authority after the Committee on 
Appropriations has received a section 302(a) allocation for a fiscal 
year until the committee makes the suballocations required under 
section 302(b).
  The Committee on Appropriations has not made the required section 
302(b) suballocations, and the motion to recommit provides new budget 
authority in violation of section 302(c) of the Budget Act. The point 
of order is sustained.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the majority is going to abuse the rules in 
such a way that the minority is precluded from meeting its 
responsibilities, I have no alternative but to appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Putnam

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) to lay the appeal on the table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 196, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 15]

                               YEAS--222

     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
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     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 (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     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 (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     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
     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
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     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)
     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
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     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
     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
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Combest
     Cubin
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Gutierrez
     Herger
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (CA)
     Olver
     Shaw
     Smith (WA)
     Watson
     Waxman
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
have 2 minutes to record their votes.

                              {time}  1351

  Messrs. McDERMOTT, RUSH, RUPPERSBERGER, EVANS, SCOTT of Georgia, 
LYNCH, and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. RYUN of Kansas, ROGERS of Michigan, and HALL changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the House.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this 
chamber on January 27, 2003 and I would like the record to show that 
had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on 
rollcall vote 13 and ``yea'' on rollcall 14. Also, I was briefly absent 
from this chamber on January 28, 2003 and missed voting on rollcall 
vote 15. I want the record to show that had I been present in this 
chamber, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 15.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have another motion to recommit at the desk.

[[Page H189]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair assumes the gentleman is still 
opposed to the resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Safe assumption, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 
     13, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back promptly with an amendment further 
     amending Section 101 of Public Law 107-229:
       1. to provide $3,500,000,000 in homeland security grants to 
     equip first responders, and
       2. to provide $90 million for the Centers for Disease 
     Control for baseline health screening and long-term medical 
     monitoring of emergency response and recovery personnel 
     exposed to toxic substances at the World Trade Center site.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 5 minutes, but let me 
simply say that this motion simply does two things. It would provide 
that we will approve $3.5 billion in homeland security grants to first 
responders, and it will provide the additional $90 million that is 
needed to continue the study of long-term medical effects caused by the 
disaster of 9-11 when our firemen and our policemen and other emergency 
workers immediately responded to the hits on the Pentagon and the World 
Trade Center.
  When those firemen and policemen and other emergency workers 
responded to the Nation's needs at the Pentagon and at the World Trade 
Center and in Pennsylvania, for that matter as well, on 9-11, they did 
not stop to ask does this fit in our fiscal year? Are we going to 
exceed our budgets? They simply responded, did their duty, and did what 
had to be done. Today I want to make clear this motion will not bust 
the Republican budget. Even if this money is still provided, we will 
still be within the overall ceilings of the Republican budget 
resolution. So no one can claim if they vote against this motion that 
they did so in order to preserve the sanctity of the budget, resolution 
because we do not breach it.
  I would simply urge the House to adopt the motion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a real argument 
here because we are not opposed to providing this funding, and the only 
difference we have is that it does not belong on a CR. It belongs in 
the 2003 final bill, or it belongs in the supplemental which will be 
coming very quickly. So what I would suggest is that we defeat this 
motion, we pass the CR, and then we get prepared to finish up the 
fiscal 2003 appropriations business.
  Again, as I pointed out in my earlier comments, I think what is 
happening here is that we are trying to create an argument where no 
argument really exists. We believe in homeland security and first 
responders as strongly as anybody else. We have already proven that. We 
have taken the lead in that. President Bush has taken the lead in that. 
We have done a good job as the majority party in leading this Congress 
to deal with the preemption of, and the need to respond to, weapons of 
mass destruction, and terrorist attacks or whatever else we may have to 
face. And we still recognize the need to do more.

                              {time}  1400

  Now, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. But the funding 
that is called for in this motion is going to be addressed but it does 
not belong on a CR.
  Let us kill the motion, let us pass the CR, and then get along with 
the rest of our business.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. 
Obey's motion to recommit this CR.
  By now, we've all read or heard about the Hart-Rudman Independent 
Task Force report stating that the United States remains ``dangerously 
unprepared'' for another terrorist attack.
  The Task Force determined that first responders are not prepared for 
a chemical or biological attack, their radios cannot communicate with 
one another, and they lack the training and protective gear to protect 
themselves and the public in an emergency. As the Task Force report 
stated simply and chillingly--``The consequence could be the 
unnecessary loss of thousands of American lives.''
  I am outraged that this President, who declared war against 
terrorism, is itching for a war with Iraq, and started sowing the seeds 
of conflict with North Korea with his ``axis of evil'' speech, is now 
telling the American people that we can't afford to invest in homeland 
security. It stands to reason that the closer our nation gets to war, 
the greater the threat of another domestic terrorism attack becomes.
  When your national security policy stumbles from a vague declaration 
of war against an ideology, to crying foul before the first IAEA 
inspector enters Iraq, to antagonizing national leaders with name-
calling, you can't afford not to pay for homeland security.
  Federal funds are desperately needed to equip firefighters, protect 
our ports and borders, enhance airport security, defend against 
agricultural terrorism, and protect our critical infrastructure.
  I'd like to quote, if I may, a letter I received from the Mayor of 
the City of Oakland Park, Florida. ``I am writing to express my deep 
concern that funding for first responders, promised nearly a year ago, 
has still not been provided to America's cities, towns and villages.'' 
I have received similar letters from community leaders throughout my 
District, and when they write expressing concerns about homeland 
security, they have my undivided attention. I would venture to guess 
that most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have received 
similar letters as well.
  I urge you to support Mr. Obey's motion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9, rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 222, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               AYES--201

     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)
     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
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     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
     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
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez

[[Page H190]]


     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--222

     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
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     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 (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     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 (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     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
     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
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Combest
     Cubin
     Herger
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (CA)
     Olver
     Shaw
     Waxman
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they 
have 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1416

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


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 15, 
Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair (House Joint Resolution 
13), had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, On Motion to Recommit with 
Instructions (House Joint Resolution 13), had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________