Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)

[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

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.

____________________