Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H558-H673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.J. RES. 2, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS
RESOLUTION, 2003

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted,
I call up the conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 71, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
February 12, 2002, Part II.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start my brief comments on this bill to say,
``wow.'' We are finally here. And some of the complaints that we heard
about how we got here are very legitimate, and the process was not the
best, but we are finally here, and it is important that we get this
bill off the deck, because fiscal year '04 is already descending upon
us.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay a strong compliment and tribute
to the members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the
aisle who really worked hard to get us where we are today, and so we
can conclude our work for fiscal year '03. All of the members of the
subcommittees were involved at their levels, we had a very open
process, we exchanged information and ideas and facts and details with
each other as we went through the process. I would compliment the staff
who worked many, many long hours; and as it was suggested, some of this
bill was not written until 5 o'clock this morning, and I know that,
because I was here at 6 o'clock this morning to file the bill, and
joined my colleagues on the Committee on Rules at 7 o'clock to get a
rule on this bill.
So what led us up to here, we should all be happy that it is behind
us. Now we are in a position to close out fiscal year 2003, and I hope
that is what we will do.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this conference report on the
consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 to the House.
This is an important appropriations bill. It not only includes 11
appropriations bills, and that is why the stack is so high and it
weighs so much, but it also adds additional funding for national
defense, national security, homeland security, intelligence activities,
and support of our troops in Afghanistan.

{time} 1715

It is an important defense bill, a homeland defense bill, and an
antiterrorism bill. It is a must-pass bill. It includes funds for our
troops in Afghanistan, our intelligence agencies, homeland security,
law enforcement, first responders, education programs and many other
important operations of our government. It includes money for election
reform, something that has been very important to the Members of the
House.
I am sure this bill will not please everyone in all respects, and I
do not know of any bill that we bring to the floor that does. But it
does address many important needs of our country. Most importantly for
the Congress, it preserves one of our most basic and important
responsibilities under the Constitution: to appropriate funds from the
Treasury. The passage of this bill will allow us to focus on the year
ahead as we begin to provide funds for the government for the next
fiscal year.
We have already received the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2004, and we expect that very shortly, within the next 10 days to
2 weeks, we will receive a supplemental appropriations request dealing
with national security, national defense. I think we have done a good
job in holding down spending to appropriate levels.
When the chairman of the Senate committee and myself met with the

[[Page H559]]

President and we discussed what the top number should be, we agreed on
a top number. We have stuck to that top number with the only exception
being when the President either agreed with, or requested additional
funding for important matters. This bill includes $397.4 billion in
discretionary funding. This is discretionary money that pales in
comparison to how much money is spent through mandatory programs; and
that is something you will hear me say often, that the biggest spending
for the government comes from mandatory spending programs, not the
discretionary accounts that we are dealing with today. This is a
fiscally responsible bill and it does comply with the fiscal parameters
described by the President.
Let me highlight just a few items that I think should be of interest
to the Members. On homeland security, the bill provides record levels
of resources to defend our homeland, something that we have all sworn
that we would do with whatever resources were necessary. This bill
includes $3.5 billion in assistance to State and local first
responders. It includes $6.1 billion for the Coast Guard and $4.3
billion for the FBI, including new investments in information
technology, something that many of us have discussed here on the floor
numerous times as a serious requirement.
In the global war on terrorism there is $10 billion in this bill
included to support our military and intelligence activities. For the
veterans, Veterans Administration and veterans medical care, we have
included a $2.5 billion increase for medical care over last year and
$1.1 billion over the President's budget request.
On education funding, we provided educational assistance to needy and
disadvantaged students through the Title I program. It has been
increased by $1.4 billion. Special education State grants are increased
$1.4 billion over last year and $400 million over the President's
request.
On funding for space programs, something that has been called to our
attention in our minds and in our hearts since the disaster with the
shuttle Columbia, NASA funding is increased by $513 million over last
year bringing the fiscal year 2003 funding to $15.4 billion; that is
$414 million above the President's budget request. $50 million is
provided to NASA to investigate the recent Columbia tragedy, so that we
can do everything possible to prevent any further or future tragedies
of a like nature. Additional flexibility is provided to the
administrator of NASA to utilize resources where they are most needed.
Election reform is funded at$1.5 billion, something that has been
very important to the Members of this House. There is $1.5 billion to
help the States meet new standards under the Help America Vote Act,
including over $1.4 billion in direct assistance to our States for the
improvements of administration, the buy-out of antiquated equipment and
new safeguards for voting rights. Also there is funding for programs to
ensure that disabled voters have access and programs to encourage young
Americans to participate in the electoral process.
I think we have reached a point of no return on this bill, Mr.
Speaker. This is a must-pass bill. I hope we can get this important
bill on the President's desk as soon as possible so that our soldiers,
diplomats, law enforcement, intelligence officers can have the
resources they need to protect our country.
While some may complain that potential operations in Iraq have
diverted our attention from the threat of terrorism, funding in this
bill for the intelligence activities proves that we will not and have
not directed our attention away from that important subject.
The bill includes about $4 billion in funding for intelligence-
related activities in support of the war on terrorism. This $4 billion,
among other things, funds ongoing counterterrorism operations of the
Central Intelligence Agency, funds the intelligence community's
Counter-Terrorism Center, directly supports the intelligence
requirements of counterterrorism activities of the Central Command and
the Special Operations Command, funds the increased cost of maintaining
24-hour operations of intelligence collection and processing system,
funds overtime costs for analysts and dissemination of imagery and
signals intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I think if anyone wants to look at this bill and find a
reason why they should vote against it, they can do that. They can do
that with any bill that is put on this floor, I believe. But this is a
national defense bill. It provides for needs of our country and it
provides some fiscal restraints that I think that most all of us have
talked about and promised our constituents we would deal with over the
years. So this is a good bill. It could have been really worse, but it
is a good bill.
Many people worked long and hard to get us where we are so I just
hope we can pass it so that our Committee on Appropriations can begin
its 2004 responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert into the Record a
series of tables that provide more detail on this bill.

[[Page H560]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.001

[[Page H561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.002

[[Page H562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.003

[[Page H563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.004

[[Page H564]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.005

[[Page H565]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.006

[[Page H566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.007

[[Page H567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.008

[[Page H568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.009

[[Page H569]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.010

[[Page H570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.011

[[Page H571]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.012

[[Page H572]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.013

[[Page H573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.014

[[Page H574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.015

[[Page H575]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.016

[[Page H576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.017

[[Page H577]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.018

[[Page H578]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.019

[[Page H579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.020

[[Page H580]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.021

[[Page H581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.022

[[Page H582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.023

[[Page H583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.024

[[Page H584]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.025

[[Page H585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.026

[[Page H586]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.027

[[Page H587]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.028

[[Page H588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.029

[[Page H589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.030

[[Page H590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.031

[[Page H591]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.032

[[Page H592]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.033

[[Page H593]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.034

[[Page H594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.035

[[Page H595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.036

[[Page H596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.037

[[Page H597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.038

[[Page H598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.039

[[Page H599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.040

[[Page H600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.041

[[Page H601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.042

[[Page H602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.043

[[Page H603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.044

[[Page H604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.045

[[Page H605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.046

[[Page H606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.047

[[Page H607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.048

[[Page H608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.049

[[Page H609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.050

[[Page H610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.051

[[Page H611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.052

[[Page H612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.053

[[Page H613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.054

[[Page H614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.055

[[Page H615]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.056

[[Page H616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.057

[[Page H617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.058

[[Page H618]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.059

[[Page H619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.060

[[Page H620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.061

[[Page H621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.062

[[Page H622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.063

[[Page H623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.064

[[Page H624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.065

[[Page H625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.066

[[Page H626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.067

[[Page H627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.068

[[Page H628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.069

[[Page H629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.070

[[Page H630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.071

[[Page H631]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.072

[[Page H632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.073

[[Page H633]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.074

[[Page H634]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.075

[[Page H635]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.076

[[Page H636]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.077

[[Page H637]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.078

[[Page H638]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.079

[[Page H639]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.080

[[Page H640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.081

[[Page H641]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.082

[[Page H642]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.083

[[Page H643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.084

[[Page H644]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.085

[[Page H645]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.086

[[Page H646]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.087

[[Page H647]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.088

[[Page H648]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.089

[[Page H649]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.090

[[Page H650]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.091

[[Page H651]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.092

[[Page H652]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.093

[[Page H653]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.094

[[Page H654]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.095

[[Page H655]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.097

[[Page H656]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.098

[[Page H657]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.099

[[Page H658]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13FE03.100

[[Page H659]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot ask people to vote against their bill because
it does some things which any piece of legislation would do which came
to the floor at this point. It does provide needed funds for Medicare.
It does provide funding for a number of programs which, if we did not
pass the bill, would be limited to last year's level; and that would
cripple a good number of programs, including education. But before
Members decide how they want to vote, I think they need to understand
that this legislation is a god-awful mess brought to the floor by a
god-awful process.
About $360 billion, or 90 percent, of the $400 billion in spending
contained in this bill, never came before the House of Representatives
until it arrived in this one huge take-it-or-leave-it package today.
That means 90 percent of the domestic budget involving hundreds of
individual programs was never subjected to debate or amendment in the
United States House of Representatives.
What you have here, as I said earlier, is the biggest back-room deal
in terms of spending in the Nation's history. And when you have a back-
room deal which is not ever aired in public, that means a lot of people
are going to get hurt, and a lot of people are going to get things that
they should not get. And I want to walk through some examples.
The most urgent need in this country is to ensure that we can track
down and stop people who would commit acts of terror against our
citizenry. This bill leaves huge gaps in our defenses. Once again, we
are delaying the ability of funds that are required to protect American
lives.
I would say to everyone who would listen that this is not the fault
of our good friend, the chairman of the committee; he has done his
duty, and he understands the need for action in this area. But there
are many others in this Chamber and there are some on the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue who are not being helpful and who are blocking the
resources that are critically needed at the moment. This Nation is in
serious peril and here are some examples:
The head of the Customs Service says we need to greatly beef up the
inspections of cargo containers used in worldwide shipping. He and
others have warned that these containers offer terrorists with
significant opportunities to get bombs, chemicals, missiles and other
dangerous weapons into this country. He has asked for $57 million right
now to do that job, $57 million. This bill contains $12 million, less
than 25 percent of what is needed. We have $392 million in spending for
new courthouses in this bill, but the committee could not find the
other $45 million to fully fund the container security initiative that
was asked for by our own administration.
In addition to the containers themselves, we have huge security
issues with respect to ports. We have ships arriving in this country
every day containing millions of gallons of highly flammable and toxic
chemicals. They are bombs waiting to be detonated. The Coast Guard says
the costs of upgrading security at these ports is $1 billion. This bill
contains only $150 million or 15 percent of the amount that ought to be
in the bill.
Now, we have known since we saw the pictures of those brave police
and fire fighters on September 11 that the next attack might put them
in even more dangerous situations. Very few police departments have the
equipment necessary to allow first responders to enter an area that has
been hit by chemical, biological or radiological weapons. We have been
trying to get that money out for more than a year, and we have hit
roadblocks time after time after time.
The White House is playing a flim-flam game with respect to this
issue. A year ago, the President blocked the inclusion of significant
first responder funds in the supplemental. Last summer, he vetoed first
responder funds in the second supplemental. He has also refused since
last October to release the first responder funds made available by the
continuing resolutions. But he spends a lot of time going around the
country being photographed with firemen and policemen and talking about
the $3.5 billion in funds for first responders in his 2003 budget.
He does not mention, however, where he got the bulk of the money to
pay for that $3.5 billion increase. He got it by eliminating a series
of ongoing programs that also provide grants to local policemen and
firemen. That is like the boss offering to double your pay next month
if you will agree to take no pay this month. It does not help a heck of
a lot.
This bill restores those basic cuts, but it does so by slashing the
President's first responder initiative. When all grants to fire and
police are combined, this conference report is $466 million below the
President's request for first responders. For the first time, Congress
will have a worse record on first responders than the White House, and
that is outrageous. So I guess the answer is, let them use duct tape.
There are deficiencies in other areas. The Department of Energy, the
committee could not find $108 million identified last spring by the
Army Corps of Engineers as being absolutely essential for physical
security upgrades to waterway navigation and dams around the Nation.
And none of the $254 million identified by the Secretary of Energy last
spring as necessary to secure radioactive material, nuclear weapons and
other highly toxic substances at U.S. nuclear weapons plants and
laboratories is provided in this bill.
Education is a mixed bag. Now, for the last 6 years, on average, we
have been able to provide about a 14 percent increase in education.

{time} 1730

The good news in this bill is that we have been able in this bill to
raise the funding for education above the real dollar freeze that the
President presented, or 3 percent in nominal terms.
This bill is about $3 billion above the President's for education. It
means that we will have about a 10 percent increase. That is still a
cut in the rate of increase that we have had for education on average
over the last 6 years, but it is some progress and I am pleased to see
it; but it is still funded at such limited levels that we will be
leaving an additional 628,000 children behind who would not have been
left behind if we had funded this bill at the Senate levels.
We are also turning a blind eye to what is happening on college
campuses. State and local budget crunches are hitting, and tuition is
skyrocketing in some places by as much as 36 percent. This bill holds
Pell grants to a 1\1/2\ percent increase over last year. That simply
means college will not be affordable to tens of thousands of young
people who want to better themselves by getting a college education.
We have an ugly product with respect to both homeland security and a
mixed bag with respect to education. I save the worst for last.
This bill is sad with respect to both funding and legislative
language that will damage the environment and damage our forests and
wilderness areas. This bill is a wholesale attack on environmental
protection. The interior section of this bill is one of the worst
appropriation measures to come to the floor of this House in many
years. The park service is cut by $110 million below the President's
request. The committee has trampled on a commitment made by the
Republican and Democratic leadership of both bodies to provide a
specific level of funding for key conservation programs, an agreement
that was entered into in order to prevent the creation of yet a new
entitlement in this area, and yet the committee has walked away from a
solemn commitment that it made.
Then we have the environmental riders, or I should say the
antienvironmental riders. This bill will exempt the Tongass from any
review whatsoever once the regulations are out, and they have not even
been completed yet; but this bill will prevent any review of whatever
regulations are produced by either administrative challenge or
challenge in courts. That is outrageous.
It also includes language which again allows funds in this bill to be
used for preliminary activities, preliminary to drilling in ANWR. The
worst provision involves an innocuous-sounding program called the
Forest Stewardship Pilot Program. Currently, there are 80 projects
around the country in which noncommercial organizations work at

[[Page H660]]

thinning growth in forests that are considered vulnerable to fire.
These small projects are not required to get the normal environmental
waivers. The House bill proposed to expand the number of projects by
12. The Senate bill would expand the project by 28. Reasonable people
can disagree on what ought to happen here, but the conference agreement
provides no limits whatsoever. You might as well turn our national
forests over lock, stock and barrel to the timber companies. That is
what this provision does.
There are no longer any legal limits to what can be cut under this
provision. Whatever the administration wants, by all means, go ahead.
Then, as I said earlier, we have some special provisions. I have
mentioned the provision in this bill which is here on behalf of a
company that operates three chicken plants in Georgia. This provision
says that the USDA shall certify chickens as being organic even if they
are not fed organic meal. That provision may boost the profits of one
company, but it undermines the integrity of the entire organic
certification process.
Then there is another nifty little provision that arrived in the
Committee on Appropriations last night. It involves the bank accounts
of 10 Texas dairy farmers. As we all know, and I know a lot of you like
dairy farmers. I do, too. I have a lot of them in my district. They are
not getting this kind of treatment.
I was stunned to see what was being done in this bill. It seems that
these 10 dairy farmers have herds close to the Mexican border. There
have been concerns that the herds might be exposed to bovine
tuberculosis, and USDA decided that they ought to be slaughtered. The
problem is that if the cows had already been infected the farmers would
be able to defer tax payments on the money received from the
government; but because the cattle had not yet become infected, that
deferral option is not allowed under Tax Code. So somebody decided the
only fair thing to do was to have the government pay the taxes in full
up front. So this bill contains 15 million bucks to be distributed to
10 farmers to cover their tax liability. Had they received the
deferral, their benefit would have only been a fraction of that amount.
So I guess moral of the story is, there is no limit to how rich you
can become if you have certain friends on the Committee on
Appropriations.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer a motion to recommit to try to
improve this bill in the most egregious area of the bill, and that
motion to recommit would negate the language in this bill which allows
funds to be used for activities preparatory to drilling in the ANWR. It
would also provide funds that eliminate the special rider that abuses
the pilot stewardship forest thinning contracting program. We would
eliminate the rider that says that Tongass is exempt from all
environmental review in court or in administrative activities, and we
would raise the first responder funds in this bill to the amount
requested by the President. That is what the recommittal motion will
do.
There are many other provisions I would like to reach. In a
recommittal motion we cannot do it under the rules under which we
operate, but we are going to try to at least correct the most egregious
antienvironmental provisions in this bill and try to put enough money
in for first responders so that you can all go home and look at your
firemen and policemen with a straight face.
I would urge support for the recommittal motion when it comes, and I
would urge you to use your own judgment in terms of how to vote on
final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I do
so to restate my earlier comment that if one looks really hard, one can
find a few things in this bill not to like, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in his usual, skillful approach to his
legislative responsibilities, has done just that.
He has identified a few things he does not like, but I wanted to
comment on his comments about the ANWR, and there is no money in this
bill for the Bureau of Land Management to develop or predevelop the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. The President did not request
funding for oil and gas development in ANWR, and the interior bill does
not include funding for ANWR. So that really is not an issue, and we
will address the other issues in the motion to recommit when we get to
that point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill today. The bill and
conference report beside me, I would lift it but it is tough. It is
about a foot and a half tall. We were given this document around noon
today, if we could get a hard copy. That indeed was difficult as it
was. So we have that amount of time to go through this.
I disagree that if one flips through this bill a person can find a
few things wrong. It is tough to find much right about this bill. I
object to the process as well as the product.
We had a House rule which says that we ought to have 3 days to review
any omnibus bill like this. We are given a couple of hours. We waived
that provision. We should not have.
I would say that this bill in many ways is a work of art. It is kind
of a Hall of Fame bill, because if my colleagues look at it, I will
just name a couple of the provisions in it. These are elements in the
bill. We usually find the more objectionable earmarks or pork in the
conference report, but we have not had time to leaf through that.
In the bill we will find, if one is a baseball fan, we will find
$750,000 earmarked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. If we look a little
further, if one is not a baseball fan, we can find $350,000 for the
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why we have that as an omnibus bill from
the Federal Government I do not know. If one still is not a rock and
roll fan or baseball fan, we can look further in the bill and find an
earmark for $90,000 for the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame. I did not
even know there is a Cowgirl Hall of Fame. Perhaps there is not, but
now there will be. Who knows what else is in this bill and report. We
will be discovering it for months.
We should not do business like this. It should not be done.
I would have thought, given the hall of fame element, that I ought to
nominate some of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for the
hall of fame for pork, but I am afraid that they would fund it.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Let us start over.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman who just spoke said it was hard to find something good
in this bill, but let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is
money in this bill to take care of our soldiers in Afghanistan who are
fighting the war against terrorism. There is money in this bill to
upgrade our ability to perform intelligence activities, to know what
the enemy might be planning to do against us. There is money in this
bill to protect our homeland. There is money in this bill to provide
funding and training and equipment for first responders, police and
firemen, medical technicians, other people on the scene.
There is plenty in this bill that is good, and that is the reason it
is going to be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), chairman of one of our very important subcommittees on
homeland security.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me the time, and let me say at the outset how much we
appreciate the work of our great chairman.
This has been a long, tortuous path that he has had to lead us
through. He has got us here against all odds, and we owe a great debt
of gratitude to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the fine
work that he has done in bringing this bill to us.
The gentleman who spoke just before the chairman, we have got to be
sure that we come here with clean hands when we speak. Yes, this bill
is big and we would like to have had it in a different form here, but
we had to work with what we had to work with.
The gentleman from Arizona who says he is against the bill because he
does not like all the spending in it, well, he requested 10 items in
the defense bill. I do not know whether they

[[Page H661]]

were granted or not, but he requested spending in the sum of $160
million, and now he says he is against the bill.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman name what that is?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, there are 10 of them. Would the
gentleman like to read them?
Mr. FLAKE. Sure.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, here they are. While the
gentleman is reading, I will proceed.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent conference report. It has
significant benefits for homeland security and transportation
activities in this country. I would like to take a minute, if I could,
to highlight some of the aspects of the bill that I have just referred
to.
Homeland security. We include $5.2 billion for the Transportation
Security Administration, slightly more than the House figure, but it is
$400 million more than what the President's asking in next fiscal year
2004. So TSA is going to have to slim down over the next few months to
hit the President's target. They will also have to begin addressing
security needs outside the aviation sector, and the bill funds several
programs in port security and land security and other areas to help
provide that focus.
Within this $5.2 billion for transportation security, we have $440
million to procure more of the airport bomb detection systems and
install them with inline systems with baggage handling systems at the
airports so we can get these systems out of the lobbies of our
airports.
There is $100 million to reimburse the airlines to armor the cockpit
doors to prevent another 9-11, and there is $8 million for commercial
pilots to receive firearms training so that they can carry the weapons
into the cockpit.

{time} 1745

There is $150 million for port security grants and $10 million more
for port security research and development.
There is $35 million to improve the security of commercial trucking
and intercity passenger buses.
And then the Coast Guard, very important to our homeland security, we
include $4.3 billion for their operating needs. That is higher than
either the House level or the Senate-passed level as we went into
conference. We increased them above either one of our levels and well
above the administration request.
It includes significant new funding for homeland security activities,
including new maritime safety and security teams at the Nation's larger
ports and upgraded infrared sensors so the Coast Guard can patrol more
effectively after dark.
Now, in transportation we include $31.8 billion for Federal-aid
highways. That is $8.6 billion above the administration's request and
$4.1 billion above the level guaranteed in authorizing legislation. Let
me repeat that. We are above the level stipulated in the authorization.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, under this bill every
State will receive more formula highway money in 2003 than they got in
2002.
The conferees deserve a lot of credit for placing such a high
priority on highway spending. This will be a significant boost for the
economy and a huge boost for communities around the country who are
mired in traffic congestion problems.
The bill also includes high-priority projects in response to the
thousands of requests we had from Members of this body. No one knows
the needs of our districts better than the Members of this House who
are elected from those districts, and we have tried to be as responsive
to those requests as we could.
Mr. Speaker, we should all be pleased about the Amtrak provisions of
this bill. For the first time in at least a decade, this bill forces
some real reforms on Amtrak. It allows the Secretary of Transportation
to take a much more active and authoritative role.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the conference report.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I just wanted to point out that it was not noted by the gentleman who
spoke before me that all 11 items that I requested have a ``DEF'' right
next to them. That means defense.
I think all of us recognize that the proper role and function of the
Federal Government is to fund our armed services, and I am proud of
that. But we do not see anything else there. None at all. There is a
difference between the National Cowgirls Hall of Fame and funding
aviator night vision imaging systems for our helicopters.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the
gentleman's comments, I just want to point out on the Interior
appropriations bill, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed
out and I did as we discussed the rule, our only major concern is the
fact that on the conservation spending category we, for 2 years, kept a
commitment that was made by the Republican and Democratic leadership of
the Committee on Appropriations; and this year we did not get a good
allocation in the conference, and we had to cut approximately $700
million out of our bill.
A lot of the most important conservation spending categories were
substantially reduced, which I deeply regret, because we had made a
commitment to people outside of the Congress that we were going to stay
with this trust fund and increase the level of conservation spending by
about $160 million each year until we got up to $2.4 billion. Of
course, this year we did not make our goal.
I just would point out to my colleagues that the League of
Conservation Voters urges us to support a motion to recommit, which the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will offer, on the fiscal year 2003
omnibus appropriations bill. They say, ``We strongly oppose the
numerous antienvironmental riders that were added in conference and by
the Senate, and we are concerned about the substantial funding cut the
bill makes to the conservation trust fund.''
I would also point out to my colleagues, many on both sides supported
a very modest amendment to create increased funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Both sides put an increase in,
but when we got to conference, it was stripped out at the direction of
the leadership on the Republican side. I think the Endowment for the
Arts and Humanities does wonderful things for our country, and I was
really kind of shaken by the fact that after this was cut in half
during the Reagan administration and we were starting to move in the
right direction, giving modest increases for both the arts and the
humanities, that that money was, that increase was, stripped out.
So I wish I could tell my colleagues that this bill, when it left the
House this year, was a very good bill. But now that we get the
conference report, we are now $800 million below where we were when
this bill was before the House.
I must point out also there are a whole series of categories within
the Forest Service where we borrowed money last year to fight forest
fires, and much of that money has not been repaid. So I hope, as we go
through the year, if we have a supplemental appropriations bill, that
we can go and readdress some of these important issues and do a better
job.
The fact that we are below the President's request on the Park
Service, or the House level on the Park Service, is also of concern to
me.
I am going to vote for this bill. We have to preserve the
prerogatives of the Congress. And I see the Speaker here on the floor.
When the Speaker was elected he made a speech and he said, we are going
to run these railroads on time. Well, I am confident this year we are
going to go back to the regular order and pass our 13 appropriation
bills in time, and I support that endeavor.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the
time remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each have 12
minutes remaining.

[[Page H662]]

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me
this time, and I congratulate the chairman and all the people, the
leadership and everyone else involved in this bill. I rise in strong
support of the 2003 bill.
I will be very brief, but there is $4.3 billion for the FBI, an
increase of $773 million above last year to help stop what we are
concerned of, what may very well happen to this country,
counterterrorism, counterintelligence. There is additional money for
the DEA. There is $6.16 billion for INS, for Entry-Exit, funding
additional border patrol, land patrol, immigration, and so many other
very, very positive things.
With regard to local law enforcement, $1.4 billion to prevent violent
crimes and acts of terrorism, including $500 million for the Byrne
formula grant, $400 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
program.
With regard to domestic preparedness for equipment, training, and
exercises for fire, EMS, HAZMAT, and law enforcement, all of that is in
this bill.
There is $2.1 billion for crime control. Again, very important.
Also, the body should know the conference report includes $716
million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $150 million above
the request and $248 million above fiscal year 2002 to provide the
necessary resources for corporate abuse.
For the State Department, we have adequately funded embassy security
and diplomatic readiness.
There are a lot of positive things in here with regard to the Supreme
Court and others.
I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by one, commending the chairman and the
full committee staff for an outstanding job, and also to personally
thank the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary staff
for their tireless efforts, requiring long nights away from their
families while preparing this legislation.
Mike Ringler, clerk of the subcommittee, Christine Ryan Kojac, John
Martens, Leslie Albright, Butch Davisson, and Nisha Kumar have worked
night and day to finish the CJS portion. And Rob, on the other side,
and many others have been involved.
I think this is good legislation that will save a lot of lives and
good for the country.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally bring to the House Floor the
conference report on the fiscal year 2003 Commerce, Justice, State and
Judiciary Appropriations. Within a very tight allocation, we were able
to provide funding for a variety of critical national priorities.
For Federal law enforcement, the Senate bill was over $700 million
below the House. We were able to restore those funds in the conference
report, including; $4.3 billion for the FBI, an increase of $773
million above last year and $45 million above the request, to continue
efforts to modernize the FBI's IT infrastructure, and to improve the
FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities; $1.65
billion for the DEA, an increase of $15 million above the request, and
$80 million above last year to continue to fight the scourge of illegal
drugs; 6.16 billion for the INS, Including $362 million for Entry Exit,
and funding to hire an additional 570 border patrol agents, 460 land
border immigration inspectors, and 760 additional airport and seaport
inspectors and support personnel.
The conference agreement provides $4.6 billion for State and Local
law enforcement, including: $1.4 billion to prevent violent crime and
acts of terrorism, including $500 million for the Byrne formula
program, $400 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
program, and $515 million for law enforcement hiring, overtime,
equipment, training, and technologies; $1 billion for the Office of
Domestic Preparedness for equipment, training, and exercises for all
types of first responders, fire, EMS, hazmat, and law enforcement; and
$2.1 billion for other crime control programs, including $391 million
to prevent violence against women, $57 million for methamphetamine
enforcement and clean-up, $7.5 million for a prescription drug
monitoring program to combat the abuse of prescription drugs such as
OxyContin, and $465 million for juvenile delinquency and accountability
programs.
The conference report includes $716 million for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, $150 million above the request and $248 million
above fiscal year 2002, to provide the necessary resources to protect
investors from corporate abuse.
For the State Department, we have maintained the higher House funding
level of $7.8 billion to fully fund the request for embassy security,
to provide second year funding for the Department's Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative, and to fully fund estimated current year
assessments for the United Nations and United Nations Peacekeeping.
For the Department of Commerce, the Conference Report provides $5.73
billion for the Department of Commerce and other trade agencies, over
$400 billion above the level in the House bill. This funding will allow
the Department to generate timely and accurate economic statistics,
negotiate and verify fair trade agreements, improve weather
forecasting, and manage the Nation's fisheries.
For the Federal Judiciary, the conference report provides $4.9
billion, $199 million above fiscal year 2002. This includes funding to
process an all-time-high number of criminal and bankruptcy cases, to
continue the renovation of the Supreme Court building, and to fund the
Judiciary's security requirements.
Overall, Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement represents a sound
and fair resolution of the multitude of issues that we faced in
conference, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner.
We have come a long way toward constructing an acceptable bill, and I
urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
I would like to thank the Commerce-Justice-State subcommittee staff
for their tireless efforts and long nights away from their families
while preparing this legislation. Mike Ringler, clerk of the
subcommittee, Christine Ryan Kojac, John Martens, Leslie Albright,
Butch Davisson, and Nisha Kumar have worked night and day to finish the
CJS portion of the Omnibus Bill and I want to personally thank them for
their work and efforts.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 12 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time, and I want to recognize and commend the
appropriators for the difficult task that they had over this past year
in coming together on this legislation.
I also want to express my very serious disappointment on what
happened in the conservation accounts in the Interior appropriations
portion of this legislation, that we were not able to fund the
commitments that we had made that so many local communities and
conservation organizations rely on, where we have partnerships with
business and civic organizations and individuals coming together to try
and provide for the conservation of our lands and our open spaces,
which have been terribly successful.
The urban parks being zeroed out is a major disappointment to so many
urban areas where we have, again, put together coalitions from the NBA,
from women's sports to neighborhood organizations, from the Urban
League and so many to rebuild these recreational facilities and
opportunities for young people. It is a major disappointment.
I also must tell my colleagues that the forest stewardship contracts
now simply open up the forest in a most unregulated fashion.
The disappointment is really this, and it is not the fault of these
appropriators, it is the process. Because with this process it is not a
fact that I did not get to be heard on this bill at one particular time
or another, but my constituents did not. So many millions of Americans
that are deeply concerned about the health of our environment, about
the health of our forest, about the activities on our public lands are
shut out from this process because those decisions were made last night
or this morning or the night before, and they have had no time to
respond to them. The vote will be taken about it, and they will read
about it in the newspapers over the coming weeks.
That is a major affront to democracy. That is a major affront to the
basic principles of this institution, to the basic principles of
representative government, that the people in this country have been
closed out of this process.

[[Page H663]]

Yes, the process has gone on a lot longer than it should have, but it
was far more closed than at any time in the history of the House of
Representatives. And that is a major, major disappointment for those of
us, as we sit here on the brink of war talking about freedom and we
think about bringing freedom and democracy to other countries and we
see it shut down in the people's House.
Legislation sits here and nobody has the ability to read it. Nobody
knows what is in it, but we are going to be asked to vote for it. That
is not the democracy we should be exporting. That is not the process we
should be exporting.
It is a process that denies our constituents. Whether they are
interested in education or the environment or public health or
aerospace, it denies them the opportunity to be heard; and it is a
corruption, an outright corruption of the basic and fundamental
principles of our government, of our constitution, and of this
institution, and it ought to be stopped.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and author of No Child Left
Behind.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and let me congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
his staff, the committee members, along with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff, for a product well done,
considering the handicaps of never having a budget and never having
appropriation bills from the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has promised to do its part on behalf of
America's school children, and the spending bill we debate today more
than delivers on those promises. Much like the President's budget
itself, this agreement is particularly generous towards education. It
will provide yet another large increase in Federal education funding on
top of record increases provided last year and the years before. This
means that more than enough is being provided for States and public
schools to carry out the reforms in the bipartisan No Child Left Behind
Act.
Not only are we providing enough money, we are providing more than
enough. For 35 years, this Congress spent billions of dollars in
education without ever insisting on results for the children that it
was meant to serve. Just over a year ago, on this very floor, Democrats
and Republicans stood proudly together to bring that era to an end. And
as my colleagues rightly pointed out, we made a commitment to our
children on that day.
But maybe some of us need to be reminded of what that commitment was.
What No Child Left Behind promised was that politicians would stop
using money as an excuse for a 35-year failure to close the achievement
gap. Thirty-five years and $150 billion later, the achievement gap has
not changed at all over that period of time. We have now significantly
increased our funding for education, twice since the bill was signed
into law, and there are no more excuses. Our children need results.
Let us look at title I. Under this agreement, aid to needy and
disadvantaged schools through title I is increased by another $1.4
billion. And this is on top of the $1.5 billion increase provided as a
result of last year's spending bills.

{time} 1800

In other words, title I has virtually doubled since fiscal year 1995.
Are we spending too little? I do not think so.
Let me look at the second chart which is even more striking, and this
is on special education, IDEA. As the chart shows, we have increased
IDEA in this agreement by $1.4 billion. That is on top of the $1.2
billion that we increased it last year. Since fiscal year 1995, we have
increased funding for IDEA 400 percent. That quadruples the amount of
money that we are spending for our special-needs children.
In addition to that, we put another $100 billion increase in the
Teacher Quality Program. We increased Pell grants and pay off the
shortfall from the prior year, and we increased Head Start funding by
another $131 million.
Mr. Speaker, if money alone can solve the problems in education, they
would have been solved a long time ago. What we need to do is work to
change attitudes in America that says that all of our children deserve
a chance at a decent education.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am amused by the prior speech. I would
simply observe with respect to title I, the Republican Party in this
House had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting the very
funds which the gentleman so proudly now pointed to on his chart.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit
which would remove the corrupt, dirty little disgusting
antienvironmental riders that were picked up on this bill as it went
through this process that simply are wrong. We ought to remove them. We
ought to be ashamed of the antienvironmental riders that were added
like leaches on the body politic.
We should have good, honest debates about money around here; but we
should be ashamed of the leaches that get added to legislation in the
dark of night that are against the environmental values of this
country, and there are three of them that ought to be removed that will
be in the motion to recommit, and I will tell Members what they are.
Antienvironmental leach number one: we in Congress pass environmental
laws, and they ought to pertain to everywhere in America, in all 50
States in America. But in an unprecedented antienvironmental rider, the
majority party, unless Members vote for this motion to recommit, says
that the environmental laws of the United States passed by this
Congress do not apply in one of the most beautiful places in America,
the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska.
What possible excuse is there for telling Americans that in one of
the pristine spots in this country the laws of the United States of
America do not apply? What excuse is there? Members have said in this
wilderness designation there is no judicial review.
What kind of Congress passes laws and then says we let the executive
ignore the law by not having a judicial review? That is not a Congress
that I know or should be proud of. We should get rid of this
antienvironment rider.
Leach number two: the other side in this bill has attempted to simply
say we are going to salvage logging, essentially without meaningful
protection or laws. We have to remove it.
Leach number three: there is a dirty little secret of a back-door
deal to try to open up the Arctic wilderness to oil drilling, and that
is wrong. It should not be done in the dead of night. Join us to pass
this motion and get rid of the antienvironmental riders.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services and Education.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this
omnibus appropriations conference report. I want to share with my
colleagues some of the things that are covered by this conference
report.
Our subcommittee section totals $133.4 billion, and I would emphasize
this is the amount of the President's budget request. It includes
funding for programs that touch the lives of all Americans from newborn
health screening, Head Start, dozens of education programs, health
research and prevention programs, training for dislocated workers to
older Americans programs and the efficient administration of our Social
Security and Medicare programs. All of these are encompassed in the
bill.
And for the education portion, it brings funding to title I to $1.4
billion, an increase overall in education funding of 7 percent. I think
as was pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), this is a
record. I think it is something we can all take pride in supporting on
behalf of the people of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this omnibus appropriations
conference report and to share with my colleagues the important
programs we are funding within the Labor, Health

[[Page H664]]

and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies title.
Mr. Speaker, this portion of the bill totals $133.4 billion, the
amount of the President's budget request. It includes funding for
programs that touch the lives of all Americans from newborn health
screening, Head Start, dozens of education programs, health research
and prevention programs, training for dislocated workers to older
American programs and the efficient administration of our Social
Security and Medicare programs. All these programs and more encompass
this bill.
As my colleagues know, students, parents and teachers are working
together to see real gains in student achievement as established in the
No Child Left Behind Act passed by this Congress a year ago. This bill
provides the vital funding to bring the goals of the new law to
fruition, including a $1.4 billion increase in Title I funding, aiding
disadvantaged students.
In the area of special education, we have also included an increase
of $1.4 billion over fiscal year 2002 as we continue to increase the
federal portion of special education dollars. And to assist those
seeking to improve their skills through higher education, we have
increased the maximum Pell grant to $4,050 while also addressing a
shortfall in the program that has resulted from a larger than expected
number of students returning to school by providing more than half a
billion dollars over the President's request for the program.
I am pleased to report that the bill includes the fifth and final
year of a commitment to double biomedical research funding for the
National Institutes of Health with funding set at $27.2 billion. At
this level NIH will be able to fund more than 38,000 research project
grants, the highest number ever funded. These grants span countless
areas including basic research as well as that for specific diseases
that are the leading causes of death and disability--Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, AIDS and hundreds of others, including
rare diseases.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been key in
bringing new health research into practice through health promotion
programs. Now, as we face continued threats to our homeland we call
upon the CDC to act as our first line of defense against bioterrorism
as well. We have provided $4.3 billion to the CDC for these important
activities.
Within the Health Resources and Services Administration we have
included $1.5 billion for Community Health Centers, access points to
those who have no health care, and $2 billion for Ryan White Aids
program, a $96 million increase.

The bill provides funding for services for our neediest people,
including $1.8 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) and $1.376 billion for programs for older Americans,
including nutrition programs such as Meals on Wheels and totaling
nearly $719 million.
This bill funds the Department of Labor at $11.9 billion, $116
million below last year. However, within the account for the Workforce
Investment Act, we have tried to focus our resources on the needs of
the many people in our country who have been dislocated from their jobs
by boosting support for dislocated workers by $92 million overall. We
are hopeful that the many good people in our local communities working
to provide job placement assistance to these unemployed workers will
use this funding to assist these workers in re-gaining employment as
quickly as possible. Finally, Job Corps, an outstanding program that
partners with so many businesses to train our nation's youth for
productive employment is increased by $60 million. Job Corps provides a
needed second chance to many of our youth who had not found initial
success in school or work.
Mr. Speaker, these programs serve the people of our great nation well
and help to strengthen the educational, health and job opportunities
for all Americans. I urge the support of the Members of this body in
passing the bill today.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the members of my
staff and that of Mr. Obey in the endless hours of work they have
provided to bringing this bill before us today. Craig Higgins, Sue
Quantius, Susan Firth, Meg Thompson, Nicole Kunko, Francine Mack-
Salvador, and Elizabeth Bowles, as well as David Reich, Cheryl Smith
and Linda Pagelsen have done a terrific job in producing the product
before us. Thank you to each of them.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for the
opportunity to briefly discuss the importance of ensuring that Miami,
Florida, is selected as the location of the Permanent Secretariat for
the Free Trade of Americas.
Due to its role as the headquarters of the FTAA, the Permanent
Secretariat will operate as the critical nerve center of an
unprecedented economic colossus twice the size of the European Union.
The Permanent Secretariat will provide vital administrative services
for FTAA member nations, while providing the situs for dispute
resolution and other critical proceedings established under the FTAA
agreements.
Although the FTAA will not be established until 2005, the site
selection process for the Permanent Secretariat is currently ongoing. I
wish to bring to the committee's attention the fact that should the
FTAA become a reality, its success as well as the effective promotion
of our national interests will depend significantly upon the placement
of the FTAA's Permanent Secretariat in Miami, Florida.
The Permanent Secretariat's ability to effectively discharge its
crucial functions will depend upon its geographical proximity to member
nations, the reliability of the communications, the security of its
facilities, and the quality of the transportation infrastructure.
Only a location in the United States can meet all of these criteria,
and Miami is uniquely qualified. Miami is also universally recognized
as the top of three prenegotiated candidates for the Permanent
Secretariat, which also includes Panama City and Mexico City.
Due to the Bush administration's drive to accelerate negotiations,
the beginning of negotiations next week, and the occurrence of a
ministerial meeting in November, the committee's attention to this
issue could not be more timely.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARRIS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman
that throughout the 2004 process, we will continue to work with the
gentlewoman and the Florida delegation for this purpose.
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his acknowledgment
of my request and his support.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time, and so does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in order to express the House's appreciation
to Greg Dahlberg, who has served this institution so ably and for so
long. For over 20 years he served on the Committee on Appropriations on
the Subcommittee on Transportation, on the full committee central
staff, and on the Subcommittee on Defense. Since 1994, he was a senior
Democratic staffer for defense appropriations which covers virtually
all of the military operations in the government.
He was appointed Under Secretary of the Army the last 6 months of the
Clinton administration. He volunteered to help the new administration
get started, and stayed a few extra months. He has been a personal
adviser and great friend to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha) and myself. He has served over 200 Democratic members to help
them understand defense issues and to deal with those issues in their
districts. He has a deep concern for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines deployed throughout the world. He loves this institution, and
he has given help many times to both Democratic and Republican Members
of this institution.
In the defense world there are many opportunities for qualified staff
to leave the Hill for more lucrative jobs. Greg has resisted that
temptation for many years, and for that we are grateful. We certainly
wish him well in his future endeavors. He has been the institutional
memory of this House on the budget process and on defense intelligence.
He is one of the finest, most dedicated public servants, and one of the
most decent human beings I have ever had the privilege to work with.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Chairman
Lewis) reminded me that Greg Dahlberg was still here. I thought he was
gone.
Yesterday we praised him in a closed briefing. Not only did the
gentleman

[[Page H665]]

from California (Mr. Lewis) and I praise him, but the Secretary of
Defense praised him because not only was he Under Secretary, he was
Acting Secretary of the Army for a period of time.
I was shocked when he came back. This guy went over there, he had an
office as big as this room here. He had a bathroom, car, an airplane,
and he came back to the cubbyhole where we share a little room 12 by 12
with six other people.
Greg Dahlberg is a dedicated staffer. I have never seen a guy so
dedicated. This guy is one of the finest people I know. It is
completely bipartisan. He tries to get things done. He wants to take
care of not only the military, but every other job he has been involved
in. We are going to miss the honorable Greg Dahlberg. This is his last
day.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, whether it is within the rules of the House or
not, I think this institution owes Mr. Dahlberg a round of applause for
his service.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Defense.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and it is very appropriate that I should follow
with my remarks those of my friend and colleague and partner in this
business, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). The gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was very kind to begin his remarks with a
tribute to Greg Dahlberg.
I wanted to mention that the work of our subcommittee, that is the
Subcommittee on Defense, along with MILCON, got their work done last
year for the 2003 year; and it is largely because of the very fine
relationship we have with our professional staff and with the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member.
Just the day before yesterday in our meeting, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, responding to the needs that are within this
bill, and this bill includes a $10 billion package which is an additive
to the 2003 bill which was not included in that budget relative to some
of the costs carrying forward the war on terrorism. It is costing us
over $1.5 billion a month, and we are very cognizant of the importance
of this legislation in connection with that defense effort. Indeed, I
want to have in the Record a copy of the letter from the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff that reflects his support for this
legislation.
But probably this piece would not be a part of this package or would
not be effectively here if it were not for the work of our very fine
staff.

{time} 1815

Greg Dahlberg reflects the finest of those professionals that we have
around this place. We have them on both sides of the aisle, and
especially among those committees that deal with the work on behalf of
defense.
I think the Members know that, year in and year out, we come to the
floor with a major portion of our discretionary money in the defense
arena and we carry those bills forward with almost no rancor, taking
usually very little time on the floor. And I think, generally speaking,
those who are watching the action on the floor today should know that a
significant reason for this bill going forward, so important that it go
forward now, is that we do have this rather sizable piece of money that
is critical to our being able to be consistent in moving forward with
the war on terrorism.
And so while Greg leaves us officially in the near term, shortly,
sometime, I am not sure when, I am sorry to see him leave. I am proud
to be a friend of his; I expect to work with him in the months and
years ahead, but in turn, I want to thank him for helping us get the
kind of bipartisan support we expect to have for this bill as it
passes.
Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff,

Washington, DC.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: During our meeting yesterday you asked
Secretary Rumsfeld and me how significant the $6.1B for
Defense currently in the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill
is to the Armed Services. The following elaborates on our
answer of yesterday.
The Global War on Terrorism is costing about $1.6B per
month. This expense is not part of the Services' FY 2003
budgets. As a result, the Services are dipping into their
budgeted 4th quarter operating accounts--we are in fact
dipping into Service 3rd quarter operating accounts now--to
fund first and second quarter FY 2003 expenses associated
with the war. Without the $6.1B funding in the FY 2003
Omnibus, we will need to take immediate actions to reduce
spending. These actions will negatively impact readiness.
I offer my support for your efforts in passing the Omnibus
(H.J. Res. 2) before the President's Day recess. The package
you have worked includes essential funding for the Defense
Department; that is important to our national security.
The men and women of our Armed Forces deeply appreciate the
support of your Committee and that of the entire Congress.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Myers,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Members of the House what the
content of the recommittal motion will be. We will simply strike the
antienvironmental riders exempting the Tongass National Forest plan
from administrative and judicial review, expanding the Forest Service
stewardship contracting demonstration program throughout the United
States, turning over the forests of the country to the timber companies
lock, stock and barrel if they choose.
It would also reconsider language in the conference agreement which
removes the restriction in the House-passed Interior bill which
prohibited the use of fiscal 2003 BLM funding for activity related to
oil drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
It would add funding for critical conservation resource programs at
not less than 2002 levels. That is consistent with an agreement that
was made and should be abided by until the year 2006.
And it also would add up to $500 million above the current conference
levels to fund training, equipment and assistance for first responders;
in other words, bringing it up to the presidential request.
Mr. Speaker, I full well recognize that there are many good things in
this bill. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There are many
things that we have to provide. And so I am certainly not going to ask
Members to vote against the bill, but I am going to ask them to vote
for the recommittal motion if you care about our environmental
stewardship and if you really care about providing the equipment and
the support necessary to our first responders, our policemen and
firemen.
If indeed you want to send them the resources they need rather than
duct tape, vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, included in this legislation is $1.1
million for the Roanoke River Upper Basin Project. Is it the gentleman
from Ohio's intention and expectation that the contract for
construction will be awarded only on an open and competitive bidding
process?
Mr. HOBSON. If the gentleman will yield, yes, I agree.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I do so, Mr. Speaker, to say also a sad good-bye to Greg Dahlberg,
who was not only a trusted staff but a trusted friend.
Greg, you know that we are going to miss you.
I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for spirit of
cooperation that we have enjoyed with each other working through this
process. And I also want to say, please vote against his motion to
recommit. I want to thank the Speaker of the House for the strong
leadership that he gave us in trying to come to a conclusion on some
very thorny issues, as well as the distinguished majority leader of the
Senate. As for Senator Stevens, I tell you he worked miracles, because
he had to come down $9 billion more than we had to come down in order
to meet this number.
I want to pay a special tribute to Vice President Cheney. The Vice
President weighed in as we were trying to solve some very difficult
issues. He was

[[Page H666]]

extremely effective. I just really appreciate the fact that he helped
us get to where we are today, where we can finally pass this bill out
of here, conclude the work of fiscal year 2003 and begin the work of
fiscal year 2004.
And, yes, by the way, again, please vote against the gentleman from
Wisconsin's motion to recommit.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this omnibus
appropriations bill. It is unfortunate that Republicans felt it
necessary to use this legislation as a vehicle to peddle their anti-
environment agenda while forcing cuts in basic priorities. I would have
liked to support many provisions included in this bill.
This bill contains funding I have worked for to fund two Army Corps
of Engineers flood control studies that will help communities in my
district to evaluate flood problems. It will also provide money for a
pilot program in Alameda County to protect children at risk from
entering the long-term foster care system. I strongly support these
vital programs. However, I have no choice but to oppose the legislation
before us today.
I cannot in good conscience support this Republican bill because it
will open the door to an unprecedented assault on our environment. It
grants logging companies unfettered access to public lands to devastate
and degrade our national forests. It specifically invites the timber
industry to invade Alaska's Tongass Rainforest and reduce the splendor
of this wilderness to a patchwork of clear cuts. It opens the pristine
landscape of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the gas industry
to make another oil field. An it leaves little money for the unkeep of
our national parks and conservation efforts.
Beyond assaulting our environment, this bill continues to shortchange
education and will leave our children behind regardless of the
President's rhetoric to the contrary. It calls for an across-the-board
cut in federal investment in our schools, a cut of over $300 million
this school year. This bill also makes it more difficult for parents
and students to pay for college. The meager increase for Pell grants
doesn't even keep pace with the rising cost of inflation.
The bill makes a drastic cut in housing subsidies for poor families.
In this tough economy, there is little reason to make times harder for
those who have already been hardest hit by this tough economy.
Finally, this bill makes a mockery of homeland security and public
safety. While the President continues to raise fears about impending
terrorist attacks, his Republican cronies aren't funding the first
responders who will be on the front lines if such an attack occurs.
This bill also contains cuts in security at our ports, dams, and
nuclear facilities that if breached could have a catastrophic impact.
I urge President Bush and Congressional Republicans to end their
assault on our basic priorities. I ask my colleagues to support
Representative Obey's motion to recommit, which would remove the
disastrous anti-environmental riders from this bill. And, if that
motion does not pass--which it won't--I urge my colleagues to vote
against the entire bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to vote
for this conference report, because it does include some things that I
support and that are very important for Colorado and the country. If
those items, or even the parts of this omnibus bill that included them,
were being considered separately, I well could vote for them.
But that is not the situation today. Instead, today Members of the
House are presented with a more difficult choice. We must vote yes or
no on this entire conference report, which rolls into one enormous
package no fewer than 11 of the regular 13 appropriations bills that
together cover all of the government except the Department of Defense.
This is not the way the House should do its work. It is an
embarrassment for all of us. But the responsibility lies solely upon
the Republican leadership. They are the ones who refused to allow the
House to consider only a few of the regular appropriations bills last
year, either before the November elections or in the subsequent lame
duck session. They are the ones who have brought this embarrassment,
this shame, even, upon the House.
Nonetheless, each of us has had to try to review the results,
weighing its good and bad features, without adequate information and in
undue haste--haste now, after months and months of delay--and decide,
on balance whether to support it. So I have done my best to review and
understand what is before the House. And, on balance, with some regret,
I must vote against it.
Let me briefly explain how I reached that decision, weighing the good
parts of the bill against its serious defects.

good aspects of the bill

Here are some of the good things in the bill:

colorado funding items

The omnibus bill provides funding for several important activities in
Colorado. I want to highlight just a few:
Rocky Flats Cleanup Funds--I am very glad that the omnibus bill
includes $664 million to continue the ongoing cleanup of the Rocky
Flats Site. This is a matter of the highest priority to all Coloradans,
because this former nuclear-weapons production site, with its large
quantities of radioactive materials, toxic chemicals, and other dangers
is just 15 miles from the heart of our largest metropolitan area. The
Department of Energy, through its contract with Kaiser-Hill, is working
hard to have it cleaned up so it can be closed and transferred to the
Department of the Interior for management as a National Wildlife
Refuge. The funding included in the omnibus bill will enable that
effort to continue, so this is definitely a good part of the overall
package.
NIST laboratory repairs--I am particularly glad that these include
more than $11 million to enable the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NIST, to begin what the conferees very accurately describe
as ``urgently needed construction and renovation'' work at NIST's
laboratory in Boulder. The condition of this laboratory has been of
great concern to me, and I want to express my thanks to Chairman Frank
Wolf and Ranking Member Jose Serrano for making sure that these funds
were included. I look forward to continue working with them and the
rest of the appropriations committee so we can complete this important
task.

Beaver Brook acquisition--The conference report includes $2.5 million
for the Forest Service to continue with acquisition of lands in the
Beaver Brook watershed, in Clear Creek County, now owned by the City of
Golden. I am glad that this is included, but regret that the amount is
significantly less than the $4 million for this purpose that was
included in the Interior appropriations bill passed by the House. I
will seek to have sufficient funds included in the appropriations bill
for fiscal 2004 to enable the Forest Service to stay on schedule for
completion of this acquisition.
Great Sand Dunes--The bill includes $7 million to acquire lands
slated to be included in this National Park System unit, and another $5
million for acquisition of lands that will be included in the adjacent
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge system. I support these
acquisitions.
Other good aspects of the bill include the following:

Medicare Provisions

The omnibus bill includes increased payments for Medicare physicians
and rolls back a scheduled March 1 pay cut that could result in serious
health care access issues for our nation's seniors. I have long
supported increased Medicare payments for providers and have
cosponsored legislation to roll back the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services physician payment cuts scheduled for 2002 and 2003,
and to devise a formula that better reflects the cost of care. So my
vote against the omnibus bill should not be perceived as a vote against
increasing payments for Medicare doctors. My record proves otherwise.

Drought Assistance

The drought Colorado and other states are suffering from has
devastated many farmers and ranchers. Some of us in Congress have been
asking for drought relief for almost a year. I am encouraged to see
that there is some relief in the omnibus appropriation bill, but I am
concerned that for many people it may be coming too late. It would have
been appropriate for drought assistance funds to have been included in
the supplemental appropriation passed last year, but the resistance of
the Administration meant that didn't happen. And the refusal of the
Republican leadership to act in a more timely fashion on the regular
appropriations bills has compounded the problem.

Limits on Information Program

I am very glad that the conference report retains the Senate's
provision limiting the Defense Department's ``Total Information
Awareness'' program. I thought the potential for abuse of this program
outweighed its purported advantages, and think the restrictions
included in the conference report are most appropriate.

International Assistance

The conference report includes $295 million for humanitarian
assistance to Afghanistan and $800 million for international HIV/AIDS
programs. Bother are needed.

NASA

The conference report includes $50 million for NASA to investigate
the cause of the Columbia shuttle tragedy, which is very important. It
also provides that the general funds provided for the shuttle program
will be exempt from the across-the-board rescission made by the bill--
something that I support.

Election Reform Funding

The conference report includes funding to implement the Help America
Vote Act, including funds to help Colorado and the other states to
modernize their voting equipment. I strongly supported that election-
reform law, and regretted that the President chose not to

[[Page H667]]

spend the funds provided last year for its implementation. So I am glad
these funds are included in this omnibus bill.

Bad Aspects of the Bill

If those are some of the good things, what are the bad? Here is a
partial list:

Shortchanging First Responders

I have strongly supported efforts to improve our homeland security
against terrorism. I supported establishment of a Homeland Security
Department, as recommended by former Senators Gary Hart of Colorado and
Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and did so even while the Bush
Administration was opposing the idea. Central to those efforts will be
the ability of our first responders, police, firefighters, and others,
to meet the challenges they are facing. Unfortunately, in my opinion,
the Administration's attitude toward them has been nothing short of
shameful, and the Republican leadership of the House has slavishly
followed the Administration's lead. The President and Homeland Security
Director Tom Ridge have repeatedly promised the nation's police and
fire departments $3.5 billion in ``new'' first responder grants. The
President first pledged this ``new money'' in a February 25, 2002
speech to the nation's governors. However, last year, he threatened to
veto the post-9/11 Homeland Security Bill if it included additional
homeland security money. And in August, the President refused to spend
the $5.1 billion homeland security package, which included $150 million
in emergency first responder grants and which was developed on a
bipartisan basis. Then, in December of 2002, the Justice Department
announced that it would ``suspend awarding grants to aid first
responders to terrorist attacks'' even though Congress had provided
stopgap funding for first responders in continuing resolutions. And
just last month, our Republican colleagues, following the lead of the
Administration, voted down legislation to immediately fund the promised
$3.5 billion in new money for first responders.
Now some of our colleagues are saying that this conference report
funds the President's supposed request for $3.5 billion in ``new''
money for first responders. However, the fact is they are counting
previously existing law enforcement and firefighting grants, as well as
the new first responder initiative. For comparison, in 2002 those
existing programs actually received roughly $2.3 billion. So, in
reality the conference report includes only $1.2 billion in ``new''
money--far less than the $3.5 billion in ``new'' money that was
promised.

Undermining Organic Food Standards

Organic food products have become a $10 billion dollar industry in
America--and Colorado is the number-two producer in the nation. The
success of this segment of agriculture is built on consumer confidence
in the USDA's standards represented by the ``organic'' label. Yet, this
omnibus appropriation bill undermines some of the integrity of those
standards by allowing meat to carry the ``organic'' label even though
the livestock were fed on non-organic feed. The USDA took years to
develop the organic standards working with a states and private
entities.

Weakening Environmental Protection

As others have pointed out, the bill includes many provisions
contrary to good environmental policy. Not only are these bad in
themselves, their inclusion in an omnibus appropriations measure makes
them doubly objectionable.
This is particularly important to me because I was a member of the
Resources Committee during the 107th Congress, and am looking forward
to membership on both that Committee and the Agriculture Committee in
this Congress. Many of the provisions in this omnibus bill are
legislative in nature, and should properly be dealt with in legislation
originating in one or both of those Committees. Particularly notable in
this regard are the provisions related to ``stewardship contracting''
as an aspect of forest management. While I understand why some of its
proponents find it attractive, it is a subject that needs careful
review and consideration, and should not be dealt with as a minor part
of an omnibus appropriations measure.
If the motion to recommit had been adopted, many of my concerns
regarding this conference report would have been resolved. That the
motion did not succeed adds a great deal to my reluctance to support
this conference report.

Inadequate Funding in many areas

Overall, the conference report reflects the fact that the Republican
leadership, not the appropriators, but their leadership, acted as
agents of the Administration by imposing arbitrary and unrealistic
constraints on funding for vital functions of government.

conclusion--No way to do business

This bill is a textbook example of how we should not legislate,
behind closed doors, without meaningful participation by more than a
small number of Members, and under ``crisis'' conditions resulting from
deliberate strategy. This along is a major reason that I cannot support
the conference report.
So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, while it was not an easy decision, I have
decided I cannot support this conference report.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to
recommit because this massive piece of legislation falls short in some
issues critical to our nation, and includes certain controversial
provisions that need to be debated and considered through the
legislative process, not in closed conference.
I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin that there are homeland
security priorities that we can and must fund that are not adequately
addressed in this 1,100 page bill. For example, this legislation funds
only one-fifth of what the U.S. Customs Commissioner says is needed to
effectively inspect the thousands of cargo containers that enter our
nation everyday. This presents our nation with an unfortunate
vulnerability to terrorism and Congress must fund this priority.
In addition, as a member of the House Resources Committee, I feel
provisions included in this legislation, such as a rider potentially
allowing significant commercial logging in some of our most
ecologically sensitive areas, and the funding of preliminary work for
opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, are
uncalled for. These important and controversial issues should be fully
debated and open to amendment through the normal legislative process.
In addition, the cutting of important conservation program funding by
$200 million dollars will set our nation further back in protecting our
most important resources. These programs are supported by the states,
and especially important to my home state of Wisconsin.
Further, thanks to an 11th hour provision inserted into the fiscal
year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, consumers of some organic food
products may not know if their food is truly organic. This provision
seriously undermines both consumer confidence in organic food labels
and the USDA standards. The provision will permit some livestock to be
labeled ``organic'' even though the livestock products do not meet the
strict criteria established by USDA. Most significantly, producers of
select livestock (chicken and other poultry products) would not have to
meet the requirement that the animals be fed organically grown feed.
The recently enacted organic standard was the result of many years of
careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic
producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this
outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no
longer have confidence in the organic labeling process.
Such a massive omnibus bill incorporating 11 spending bills and
totaling nearly $400 billion, also lends itself to abuse through the
inclusion of numerous pet projects that are not based on necessity and
would not be justifiable to the public if considered in the light of
day.
Mr. Speaker, we must have priorities in our funding. We must confront
the threats facing our land while ensuring our children have access to
quality education and our most needy have access to healthcare.
This legislation does meet many of the obligations of our government,
and on their own merits, I would have supported them. However, the
inclusion of funding for countless projects and programs that were
never debated or considered on the House floor makes this bill
unsupportable in its current form.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can
address some of the most damaging aspects of this bill.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003
Omnibus Appropriations Bill has included language relating to the
funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under
the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch,
Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not
Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that
installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the
intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and
Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to pay such
installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of
the Peck judgment installments is ``not otherwise provided for'' as
that phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States
Code. Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for
payment of such installment, and it is intended that such
appropriations be so utilized.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for
the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriation Bill has included language relating
to the funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003
under the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck
Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is
not Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of
that installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the
intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and
Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to

[[Page H668]]

pay such installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that
payment of the Peck judgment installments is ``not otherwise provided
for'' as that phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United
States Code. Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304
for payment of such installment, and it is intended that such
appropriations be so utilized.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed the Omnibus
Appropriations bill, to fund federal government operations for the
remainder of Fiscal Year 2003.
This Omnibus package combines 11 of 13 separate funding bills that
should have been completed months ago. But rather than conduct hearings
and encourage thoughtful debate on America's budget priorities, the
Republican leadership in this Congress has cobbled together a 3000
page, $400 billion mega-spending bill in mostly back room deals. And
now they ask for a simple yes or no vote on this huge package.
Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress and I am extremely
disappointed by the process. The American people have been shut out of
the process. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could use this vote as a
lesson for my three children and children throughout my district, to
teach them how the great democratic institutions of our land reflect
the will of American people.
But today, Mr. Speaker, the democratic and deliberative process have
been hijacked. The Committee system of this Congress has been bypassed.
No hearings. No testimony from impartial experts. No debate. No markup.
Nothing.
Mr. Speaker, this is no way to begin this new session of Congress.
The full House has been given little opportunity to debate, and no
opportunity to amend this huge bill. This is a dreadfully flawed
backroom process that has allowed logging and oil interests to attach
riders that are harmful to our environment. These riders, which have
nothing to do with the appropriations process, allow for clear-cutting
in national forests, prevent Forest Service administration decisions
from being challenged in court, and remove a House-passed provision
that would have barred preliminary work on a drilling program in the
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
But at the same time, this omnibus spending bill does include certain
provisions that I strongly support. Among them are the full 4.1 percent
cost-of-living pay raise for federal employees that the Administration
had so strongly opposed, and a desperately needed adjustment to the
Medicare reimbursement formula for doctors, hospitals and other health
care providers that will improve access to care for thousands of
patients. This matter should have been addressed months ago; it should
not have been necessary to include it in this bill.
Although I support the federal pay raise and the Medicare formula
fix, I am angered that they are being held hostage by the disastrous,
short-sighted riders that wreak havoc on our environment. I object to
this kind of back-room political extortion, a cynical abuse of the
legislative process to advance the interests of a few over the needs of
many.
That is why I voted in favor of the Motion to Recommit this bill and
consider an alternative that better reflects our needs and priorities.
But since the motion to recommit did not pass, I was forced to cast a
yes-or-no vote on the final package. Even with the terrible riders, I
could not vote to deny our federal employees the pay raise they
deserve, or to deny seniors access to Medicare by failing to adjust the
reimbursement formula, or to deny funding for schools or homeland
security or the many other needs that are funded in this bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, those of us who support progressive environmental
and conservation policies will persevere. We will keep fighting these
short-sighted policies. The American people do not support them and
they will not stand.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better so we can do better.
We can do so much better.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have often been reluctant
to support omnibus bills, which package multiple pieces of legislation
into one. It is poor policy to legislate in this manner. This
particular omnibus appropriations bill, combining eleven appropriations
bills totaling $397.4 billion is the worst example of this that I have
seen.
Many of the individual bills were never brought before the relevant
committees and we are barred from offering amendments on the floor. The
final draft of more than 1,000 pages were first made available to the
full Congress less than 12 hours before we are being asked to vote on
it. Nobody knows the extent of the riders, earmarks and provisions that
have been added to this bill. What we do know is in here includes some
of the most egregious environmental riders imaginable: allowing nearly
unlimited clear-cutting of our national forests; exempting the
Administration's Tongass National Forest management plan from all
judicial or administrative appeals; and, allowing preliminary work for
drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--despite the
fact that it is currently illegal to drill there.
Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the process that
has taken place to get us to this point. I am not able to defend the
process to them and, therefore, cannot support final passage of this
bill. It is not fair to legislators or the people they represent to
conduct Congress in this manner. I look ahead with promise to a new
fiscal year when Congress can again return to legislating.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for final passage of the FY 03
Omnibus Bill, but I will hold my nose as I do so.
Let me first note one positive aspect of the omnibus--the increase in
Medicare provider payments. I'm very pleased that the conferees
approved a 1.6 percent increase this year, to prevent the drastic
payment cuts that threatened seniors' access to healthcare.
But all is not well, unfortunately. I believe, as do so many of my
colleagues, that these are unusual and dangerous times that require
urgent action. We cannot continue to leave this government limping
along with frozen budgets, trying to meet the challenges of a new
world. So I find myself compelled to vote for this bill, to protect my
constituents and the people of the United States. Our federal agencies
need to have appropriate funding to deal with the threats and
challenges of the world as we see it today.
Mr. Speaker, the House leadership did not think it necessary to give
our local first responders the funding they need to deal with
emergencies. We've heard so much rhetoric about the need for this
country to be prepared for the dangers around us. So why have we
shortchanged the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel
who are so crucial to these preparedness efforts? I voted for the
motion to recommit because it added $500 million above the conference-
approved levels for training, equipment, and assistance for first
responders.
What I also cannot condone is the senseless assault on our
environment contained in this bill, including language that removes
oversight of public land management in areas like the Tongass National
Forest. I also cannot condone a decrease in funding for conservation
programs, which are so crucial as we consider how to end our dependence
on foreign oil.
These are only two of the things I can find wrong in this bill,
because we had less than one day to work on it. Who knows what else
have been slipped in? I will vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I do
so with great reservation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003
Omnibus Appropriations Bill has included language relating to the
funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under
the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch,
Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not
Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that
installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the
intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and
Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to pay such
installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of
the Peck judgment installment is ``not otherwise provided for'' as that
phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States Code.
Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for payment
of such installment, and it is intended that such appropriations be so
utilized.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the conference report.
This omnibus act includes the fiscal year 2003 appropriations act for
foreign operations, exporting financing, and related programs. As
chairman of the Subcommittee, I'm pleased we'll finally enact into law
important funding provisions and policy language that the
Appropriations Committee considered last fall. It is vital that the
Congress maintain a partnership with the Administration, both in
funding for foreign assistance and in the development of the policy
that accompanies and guides that assistance. Failure to enact foreign
aid appropriations bills in a timely manner erodes and compromises the
constitutional role of Congress in both these important areas.
The foreign operations division of this conference report totals
$16.3 billion in discretionary budget authority. It is $250 million
below the level approved last year by the House Appropriations
Committee, $130 million below the Senate level, and $171 million below
the President's request. However, despite these reductions we have
managed to fund important initiatives in funding for HIV/AIDS,
assistance for Afghanistan, and in the War on Terrorism.
Assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in the foreign operations division of
this conference report totals $800 million. That compares to $475
million in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations act. As part of this
funding, $250 million is a contribution to the Global Fund to fight

[[Page H669]]

AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, bringing the total United States
contribution to date to $725 million.
In the two years since I became chairman of the subcommittee, we've
raised funding to combat HIV/AIDS from $300 million to $800 million, an
increase of over 250 percent. I know everyone would like more, and the
President recommends major increases in future budgets. However, I
think we can take some satisfaction in the way this Congress has
responded to the needs in this area.
The conference report also includes the recommendation from the House
bill that provides a minimum funding level for Afghanistan of $295.5
million. The President's budget stated that final funding levels for
Afghanistan were yet to be determined, but I believe it is necessary to
maintain an emphasis on reconstruction of the physical infrastructure
as well as building institutions of democracy in Afghanistan. For that
reason funding in this bill for disaster assistance and refugee
assistance is increased above the levels recommended by the President.
Total refugee assistance in this conference report is $813 million,
compared to the President's request of $720 million. Many members of
the House wrote to us last year to support as high a level as possible
for refugee assistance, and we have responded.
We also have a new focus in this conference report on economic
growth, including trade capacity building, basic education, and clean
water. We include bill language providing that not less $452,000,000
should be provided for trade capacity building in the developing world.
This is an issue close to my heart, because I believe that without the
ability to participate in the international trading system, developing
countries will be left behind in the global economy.
We also maintain and enhance assistance for our allies in the War on
Terrorism. Israel will receive almost $2.8 billion in assistance,
including an increase of $60 million in military assistance. Jordan
will receive $250 million in economic assistance, an increase of $100
million. In addition, Jordan will receive $198 million in military
assistance, an increase of $123 million. Anti-terrorism training for
the security forces of our allies will increase from $38 million to $64
million.
I am disappointed we were not able to fund $200 million for
additional anti-terrorism assistance for Israel as I recommended twice
last year--once in the supplemental and once in the regular fiscal year
2003 bill. In this conference agreement, we were forced to reduce the
overall level of the House bill by $250 million, and the Senate bill
did not contain this funding. Therefore it was impossible to
accommodate this increase without damaging cuts to other programs.
However, it is my expectation we will be addressing this matter as part
of the supplemental appropriations request we should be receiving from
the Administration in the next month.
It should come as no surprise to learn that we do not continue
funding for the heavy fuel oil costs of the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization, or KEDO, since North Korea has abrogated the
Agreed Framework. This results in a reduction of $70 million from the
President's request.
This conference report continues assistance to Eastern Europe and to
Eurasia through out regional accounts. Funding for the Former Soviet
Union and Eurasia is provided at a level of $760 million while
assistance for Eastern Europe is funded at $525 million. However, we
include language similar to that contained in the House bill
prohibiting funding for the Government of Urkraine unless the President
certifies that it has not provided arms to Iraq. We do not want to
reward governments that are aiding Saddam Hussein.
We also retain important language initiatives from the House bill,
including language that tightens oversight on both the West Bank and
Gaza assistance program of AID and on our funding to the United
National Relief and Works Agency. In neither case do we prevent funding
for the important humanitarian work done by these agencies; we only ask
for oversight by the USAID Inspector General in the case of the West
Bank and Gaza Program, and a report by the GAO on whether current law
is being followed by the State Department in providing assistance to
the UN Relief and Works Agency.
After long negotiations with the Senate, the Committee came to a
compromise on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. The conference report
funds this account at a level of $700 million, which is $75 million
more than last year and $31 million less than the request. The
conference report includes a permissive transfer of $31 million from
the regular International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account
from this or previous Acts, therefore if the authority is exercised,
the Andean Counterdrug Initiative will be fully funded.
While I am a strong advocate of properly managed United States
foreign assistance programs, the Committee learned last year that some
foreign governments have assessed taxes against our aid programs. This
is unacceptable, and we owe it to the American people to ensure that
tax dollars intended for programs to help people are not transferred to
the treasuries of foreign governments. Therefore, we include language
from the House bill mandating that the Department of State take
definite action to halt this practice. We further require that any tax
that is collected and not properly reimbursed to the United States
government will be deducted at a level of 200 percent from the aid that
would be provided to that country in fiscal year 2004. Half of these
funds will be returned in a rebate to the Treasury, thereby providing
the first ``tax relief'' Congress will consider this year.

Finally, we have recommended language for the U.N. Population Fund
that almost no one likes, but which almost everyone is prepared to live
with. This bill respects the concerns of the majority in the House who
insist that U.S. funds going to the UNFPA are contingent on that
organization's commitment, action, and adherence to a policy of
opposing coercive abortions in China in compliance with the so-called
``Kemp-Kasten'' amendment. I have also tried to recognize our common
belief that it is imperative that U.S. maintain and continue to project
positive leadership in international affairs in a way that helps us
secure our very broad foreign policy interests. That is why both the
fiscal year 2002 funds of $34 million, and $34 million in fiscal year
2003 will be available to UNFPA if they are in compliance with Kemp-
Kasten.
Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted only the most important provisions of
the foreign operations appropriations act. I think we have done a good
job responding to the President's needs in this area while protecting
programs important to the Congress. I strongly support this conference
report and urge its adoption.
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that we were
given less than twenty-four hours to evaluate this critical and massive
omnibus appropriations bill. I object to this flawed process.
This bill includes a number of anti-environmental provisions that
significantly endanger our nation's public lands, forests, wildlife,
clean water, endangered species and other national treasures. These are
environmentally harmful and fiscally wasteful projects. H.J. Res. 2
makes deep cuts to the Conservation Trust Fund. Congress established
this fund to address the chronic underfunding of our nation's parks,
refuges, wildlife protections, open space, and historic and cultural
resources. The Conservation Trust Fund has responded to the concerns of
thousands of conservation, environmental, preservation and recreation
interests and a broad array of state and local interests. This proposal
cuts this funding by more than $200 million. This proposal will also
authorize unlimited private contracts for logging in national forests.
This will open the doors of our nation's forests to the timber
industry, allowing widespread logging under the guise of forest
management.
H.J. Res. 2 will allow the Department of the Interior to conduct
preleasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even
though Congress recently rejected oil and gas leasing in the Refuge.
This will potentially open up the area to environmentally hazardous oil
exploration. H.J. Res. 2 does not provide adequate funds to our
homeland security which is needed to protect our nation from potential
threats. The safety of individuals within our nation is a high priority
and we must do everything we can to adequately fund projects that
protect our citizens, as well as uphold our democratic principles.
Representative Obey's motion to recommit will strike the anti-
environmental riders. It will exempt the Tongass National Forest Plan
from administrative or judicial review. His motion to recommit will add
funding for critical conservation resource programs at not less than
2002 levels; and add up to $500 million above the current conference
levels to fund training, equipment, and assistance for first
responders. I will support Representative Obey's motion to recommit
because it will protect our environment while addressing concerns over
our homeland security.
Not only do we need to protect our nation from potential threats from
outside nations but we must also protect our citizens from
environmental damage that will impact our health, land, and natural
resources. The environment and health of our nation is not something I
am willing to gamble with. I strongly urge my colleagues to support
Representative Obey's Motion to Recommit.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003
Omnibus Appropriations Bill has included language relating to the
funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under
the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch,
Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not
Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that
installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the

[[Page H670]]

intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and
Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to pay such
installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of
the Peck judgment installment is ``not otherwise provided for'' as that
phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States Code.
Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for payment
of such installment, and it is intended that such appropriations be so
utilized.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, today, the House considered the Omnibus
appropriations measure for Fiscal Year 2003. It is the legal duty of
the Congress to fund the government, and the time to vote on this
funding was long overdue.
As is often the case, the majority decided to use this desperately-
need bill as a vehicle to insert ``riders'' and other language that
would be unlikely to pass on its own. In this bill, there was language
that would open the way to preliminary studies of the feasibility of
oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There was language
that would increase logging in national forests. There was a cut to
conservation programs, and a severe underfunding of border security and
first responders money.
I object to these provisions in the strongest terms. This is a
sneaky, underhanded way of creating policy. At a time when funding for
so many valuable programs in Maine and across the country is
desperately needed, it is wrong to extort the Members of Congress into
voting on these highly controversial measures. The majority is saying:
vote in favor of this bill, with these odious measures included, or
lose the entire bill.
So when the Motion to Recommit was offered, I gladly voted in favor
of it. This motion would have instructed the Appropriations Committee
to remove this offensive language, and pass a clean bill to fund the
government. I would welcome the idea of a short delay in passing the
omnibus if it were to mean removing these environmental sneak-attacks.
However, when that motion failed, I felt that the remainder of the
bill was too important for Maine to be allowed to fail. The omnibus
includes millions of dollars in direct aid to Maine. I have worked hard
to obtain funding for projects in agriculture, health, transportation,
construction, science, and labor. This includes $900,000 that I was
able to convince my colleagues to include to help the workers in
Millinocket and East Millinocket who have lost their health care in the
wake of the Great Northern Paper Bankruptcy. This includes language
that I was able to insert prohibiting the Department of Labor from
consolidating the Bangor and Portland OSHA offices without further
consultation with Congress. This includes Medicare payments to
physicians and support to rural hospitals in Maine, money to develop
the East-West Highways, money for education, federal housing loans, and
small business loans.
I voted in favor of the omnibus so that Maine would not be deprived
of all of these vital resources. I am extremely disappointed that this
bill contained such detrimental, misguided environmental policy as
well. I will continue to oppose measures such as these. I have already
worked hard in my first month in Congress to oppose drilling in ANWR,
to safeguard our environment, and to promote energy efficiency and
alternative fuel sources. I have written letters, cosponsored bills,
and worked with my colleagues already on these issues, and my
determination to advance these causes will not diminish.
I am pleased that we could pass this bill, and bring important
funding to programs in Maine and around the nation, and I wish that the
majority party had not exacted such a high price.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Committee for setting
an obligation limit of $31.6 billion for the federal highway program in
2003. As we are facing a struggling economy and overwhelming
transportation challenges, it is essential that we continue to invest
now to preserve jobs, save lives, and provide the basic infrastructure
we need to get back on the road to economic growth. The Trust Fund can
support this spending as we have a $16 billion balance and, at a time
when we are looking at an economic stimulus package, it does not make
sense to shortchange a program that helps grow the economy and provide
good, well-paying jobs.
That being said, I am disappointed that once again the Committee has
changed the way the program functions and, in essence, amended TEA 21
in the process. Once again funds--$269 million worth--which would
otherwise go to the states are held back in order to expand earmarking
opportunities, and at a 100% federal share. In addition, $285 million
is appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund and $90 million is
appropriated from the General Fund for further earmarking. And it
appears that obligation authority is distributed in a way that favors
program earmarked by appropriators at the expense of other apportioned
or allocated programs. As last year, contract authority distributed to
the states under the core programs is rescinded. It is only in the last
two years that these types of activities have been approved by the
appropriators, and it is a trend that should end with this bill.
I again want to praise the overall level of highway spending provided
in this conference report. Now that we are finally finished with fiscal
year 2003, and begin the 2004 appropriations process, I hope we can
return to a process that respects the jurisdiction of the authorizing
committees, that does not take funds away from the states, and that we
can work together to advance the transportation agenda of our nation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Leadership and Members
of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation to the
House floor and in concluding the FY 2003 funding process.
This bill provides critical resources for essential and much needed
scientific, research and advanced technology initiatives.
As a member of the Research Subcommittee of the House Science
Committee, I would like to express appreciation for the continued
funding of many valuable research programs, both within the government
and for the commercial sector.
Funding continues for the many federal research programs, including
NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST).
Within NIST, funding for the Advanced Technology Program is provided.
ATP assists in the commercialization of promising technologies and
provides federal resources that are much needed and scarce in the
current economy and investment climate.
I would like to recommend an additional category for consideration in
the use and awards of ATP funds for FY 2002-03 grants. Important
advances in digital holographic technology are being developed, with
broad applications for commercial as well as governmental uses, both
defense and non-defense.
This important scientific work by mostly small companies has been
funded through private capital, which is now largely unavailable at
this critical period of technology development. With uses of this
three-dimensional visualization technology pending in a number of
critical areas, capital is needed to accelerate the R&D programs.
I urge NIST to include within the areas under consideration for ATP
funding this emerging field of digital holographic technology and its
great commercial potential.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this House Joint
Resolution 2, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for Fiscal 2003.
At the outset, I'd like to recognize the valiant efforts of the
Chairman of our full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Young. The Chairman has provided energetic and stalwart
leadership throughout this unusually long appropriations cycle and this
House owes him a debt of gratitude. The Conference Report before us is
a better piece of legislation today for his efforts and those of the
rest of the Subcommittee Chairmen. I want to thank our House Conferees
and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I will support this Conference Report. In doing so, I
echo the comments of many of my Colleagues. There is much to be proud
of in this bill.
We provide:
Another $10 billion for intelligence and defense activities, the
immediate need of which is self-evident;
$825 million for our first-responders--those on the homefront we task
to help our citizens in time of need;
An additional $3.1 billion over the President's request for
education--to keep our commitment to the No Child Left Behind Act;
And the single largest program increase in the bill goes to NIH--the
agency on the cutting edge of medical research and thus better support
he collaborative efforts for basic research with our colleges and
universities;.
No, this bill is not perfect. Given sole responsibility to draft this
$397 billion package, we all would have rearranged priorities a bit,
taken out some of the legislative riders and redrafted others.
But, my colleagues, we cannot let ``the perfect'' be the enemy of
``the good.''
We have a responsibility to govern. We have a responsibility to lead.
And at a time when this nation is waging a war on terror, defending
our homeland and possibly preparing to send our young soldiers into
harm's way, we should pass this bill and get on with the business of
governing and reviewing the President's new proposal for FY 2004.
Once again, I thank Chairman Young for his leadership. I urge
adoption of the Conference Report.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the conference
report on H.J. Res. 2, which includes the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2003.

[[Page H671]]

We were able to work out the differences between the House and Senate
bills in such a way that the critical priorities of the House and
Senate were protected. The product of our deliberations is a package
that will help strengthen our defense, rebuild our critical
infrastructure, and increase our scientific knowledge.
The total amount included in the conference agreement for energy and
water programs is $26 billion. This is $858 million over fiscal year
2002 and about $287 million over the budget request.
I am pleased with the level of funding we have recommended for the
Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At $4.6
billion, the recommended funding is $456 million higher than the
Administration's inadequate budget request. While that may sound like a
large increase, the amount we have recommended is actually $27 million
less than the Corps spent in fiscal year 2002. If we had funded the
Corps' program at the level requested by the Administration, the result
would have been schedule delays, increased project costs, and the loss
of project benefits. In addition to providing more funds for ongoing
projects, the conference agreement includes funding for a number of new
construction starts.
For the Bureau of Reclamation, we have provided $953 million, which
is $72 million above the budget request. This includes $23 million for
the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program in California.
For the non-defense programs of the Department of Energy, we were
able to provide modest increases over last year for several programs.
The basic research performed by the Department of Energy has led to
many of the technological breakthroughs that have helped our economy
grow. These programs will be even more important as we move into the
21st Century.
For the atomic energy defense programs of the Department of Energy,
the conference agreement includes $15.7 billion, a slight increase of
$33 million over the budget request. These funds will ensure that we
have a reliable and safe nuclear weapons stockpile, continue to fund
important nuclear nonproliferation programs to secure nuclear materials
in Russia, and meet our commitments to communities throughout the
United States to clean up the damage done to the environment over the
past forty years.
I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Pete Domenici, and
his Ranking Minority Member, Senator Harry Reid, for their cooperation
and hard work. I am especially grateful to my good friend and the
Ranking Minority Member of the House subcommittee, the Honorable Pete
Visclosky, for his tremendous efforts on behalf of this conference
report. I also want to thank our full committee chairman, Mr. Young,
and the full committee ranking member, Mr. Obey.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee
staff for Energy and Water Development--Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson,
Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Tracey LaTurner, Dave Kilian, Rich Kaelin, and
Chris Altendorf. Their expertise, knowledge, and negotiating skills
have been invaluable throughout this process.
I urge the unanimous support of the House for adoption of this
conference report. I would hope we could quickly conclude action on
this conference report so that we can get this bill to the White House
for signature.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate on the
conference report has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.

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 conference
report?
Mr. OBEY. At this stage, I certainly am, 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 conference report on the
joint resolution, H.J. Res. 2, to the committee of conference
with instructions to the managers on the part of the House
to:
(1) disagree to section 323 in Division F of the conference
report (expanding logging in Federal forests);
(2) disagree to section 335 in Division F of the conference
report (preventing any administrative or judicial review of
the Tongass Land Management Plan);
(3) reconsider its decisions on the Bureau of Land
Management, Energy and Minerals program;
(4) fund, within the scope of conference, conservation
spending category items in Division F (including National
Park Service grants to States and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service programs) at no less than current rate; and
(5) increasing funding for training, equipment, and
assistance for first responders provided through the Office
of Domestic Preparedness to levels as close to the levels
requested by the President as is possible within the scope of
conference.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against a provision in
the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that weakens the organic label
standards related to livestock production. This 11th hour provision
weakens national organic standards by no longer requiring organic
poultry producers to feed their birds only organically raised feed
grains. This language, hidden in the Congressional Appropriations Bill,
is contrary to the intent of organic livestock production and would
severely undermine the organic standards that we currently have in
place.
Organic foods have been one of the fastest growing components of the
agriculture consumer marketplace, a market that is built upon trust.
Millions of American consumers have growth to trust the quality,
wholesomeness and integrity of organically labeled meats and
vegetables. Should this provision prevail, the American consumers will
no longer be able to trust organic labeled meat as truly organic. This
provision will undermine both consumer confidence in organic labeling
and the existing USDA standards.
Select livestock producers, specifically chicken and poultry product
farmers in Georgia, would be able to market their products as organic
without raising the birds on organically grown feeds. This provision is
inconsistent with organic consumers perceptions of the origin of
organic poultry and the intent and regulations of organic producers.
The recently enacted organic standards was the result of many years
of careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic
producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this
outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no
longer have confidence in the organic labeling process.
I strongly urge you to vote for the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 226, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 31]

YEAS--193

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
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
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
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
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin

[[Page H672]]

Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--226

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
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
Feeney
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
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
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
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Allen
Capuano
Collins
Combest
Cubin
Everett
Ferguson
Linder
Lipinski
Pascrell
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Tiberi
Wilson (SC)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). The Chair
reminds Members there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1839

Messrs. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, TURNER of Texas, and HALL changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall
vote 31. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall
vote 31.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 338,
noes 83, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 32]

AYES--338

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Fattah
Feeney
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--83

Ackerman
Akin
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Chabot
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Doggett
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gephardt
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hensarling
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jones (NC)
Kind
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
McDermott
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Musgrave
Oxley
Paul
Petri
Pitts
Ramstad
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanders
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--14

Allen
Capuano
Collins
Combest
Cubin
Everett
Ferguson
Linder

[[Page H673]]

Lipinski
Pascrell
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Tiberi
Wilson (SC)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1900

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________