[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 54 (Thursday, April 3, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2709-H2718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1559, EMERGENCY WARTIME
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 172 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 172
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Last night, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule to
H.R. 1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2003.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a very important bill.
It cannot get any better than that.
The rule allows any Member to offer any amendment to the bill as long
as their amendment complies with the normal Rules of the House.
I am very pleased the House is trying to move H.R. 1559 quickly,
because I know the importance of this bill to the men and women in our
military. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for resisting
most efforts to add extraneous provisions.
This bill is too important for our troops for it to get bogged down
with nonappropriations issues.
I agree with the President that the United States has been at war
since September 11, 2001. After our Nation was attacked, America made a
decision: We will not wait for our enemies to strike before we act
against them. We are not going to permit terrorists and terrorist
states to plot and plan and grow in strength while we do nothing.
This emergency wartime supplemental appropriations provides the tools
and the resources for our military to wage an aggressive war against
Saddam Hussein while at the same time preparing our homeland.
Over the past 15 days we have seen the brutal and cruel nature of a
dying regime. In areas still under its control, the regime continues
its rule by terror. Prisoners of war have been brutalized and executed.
Iraqis who refuse to fight for the regime are being murdered. Some in
the Iraqi military have pretended to surrender and then opened fire on
coalition forces that were willing to show them mercy.
We owe a great deal of gratitude and respect to our servicemen and
women who are currently in harm's way. My thoughts and prayers are with
them and their families during this time of war, and I want to thank
them for their courage and bravery on the battlefield.
This war budget will meet America's needs directly arising from
Operation Iraqi Freedom and our ongoing war
[[Page H2710]]
against terror, including $63 billion for military operations. This
funding will provide fuel for our ships, for our aircraft and tanks,
supplies for our troops in the theater of operations, new high-tech
munitions to replace the ones that we have used so far in this war. The
supplemental will also provide funds to assist in the reconstruction of
Iraq, Mr. Speaker; $5 billion to help our brave coalition partners.
In order to protect the American homeland in this time of high alert,
it also includes $4 billion for the Departments of Justice and Homeland
Security to address the immediate and emerging threats on American
soil.
This legislation accomplishes this goal by providing $2.2 billion for
grants to first responders. Within that amount, $1.5 billion is
provided for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, their basic grant
program to the States, and $700 million is provided to address the
security requirements in high-threat, high-density urban areas with
critical infrastructure like my city of Charlotte.
H.R. 1559 also allocates these funds for several other high priority
activities: $498 million for border and port security, and $85 million
for reimbursements to State and local law enforcement officers and
National Guardsmen for increasing security measures at airports and
other critical transportation sites.
Our Nation must give our military and our law enforcement officers
the weapons that they need to meet future threats. If the war against
terror means that we must find terror wherever it exists and pull it
out by its roots and bring people to justice, then our military and our
law enforcement officers must have the means to achieve it.
To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support
the underlying bill. We need to rapidly approve the core funding for
the Pentagon so supplies continue to flow to our troops.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to my friend, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and she said oh, well, this is a great open
rule.
Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This is not an
open rule in the true sense. The Republicans waived all the Rules of
the House that they could possibly waive: the Budget Act, every rule
that they could waive for their own bill, for the committee bill, and
then they refused to waive those same rules for the ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to bring up an amendment to the
committee bill. So this is not an open process, and let us be serious
about what is going on here today.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, the brave men and women of the U.S. military
are, once again, proving themselves to be the finest fighting force in
history. On the ground, in the seas, and in the skies over Iraq, our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are risking their lives to
protect America and the world from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
murderous regime.
Mr. Speaker, our troops have the strong bipartisan support of this
Congress and of the American people. We are all deeply proud of the
courage, skill, and professionalism they are displaying under very
difficult conditions, and we are committed, Republicans as well as
Democrats, to ensuring that our troops have all the resources they need
to complete their mission as quickly and as safely as possible.
So I am pleased that this emergency spending bill is on the House
floor today. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each deserve credit for a bill that is generally
quite strong.
This bill supports our troops in the field, it protects the foreign
policy prerogatives of the President, and it respects the Congress's
constitutional duty to maintain responsibility for the tax dollars of
the American people. Additionally, this emergency supplemental includes
desperately needed assistance for the struggling airline industry.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. airlines are critical to the American economy, but
they were hurt severely by the September 11 attacks and by subsequent
security expenses. I know this firsthand because American Airlines,
which employs thousands of hardworking people in my north Texas
district, has been struggling mightily, and I want to congratulate the
employee unions at American for voluntarily agreeing to benefit
reductions to help keep the company out of bankruptcy. But they, like
the rest of the airline industry, need additional relief from the
government. So I am glad that this bill provides it, and I urge the
President to support it.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I expect to support this bill.
But make no mistake: This bill as it is currently written still
leaves America unnecessarily vulnerable to another terrorist attack.
That is because Republicans continue to block critical homeland
security resources for key targets like ports and nuclear facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand why Republicans refuse to
address so many vital homeland defense needs. After all, there is no
disputing the importance of these unmet homeland security requirements.
The Coast Guard reports that it needs $1 billion this year alone to
secure America's ports. The U.S. Fire Service found that between one-
third and one-half of firefighters lack critical pieces of basic
emergency equipment. And each of the armed services has submitted
detailed lists of military construction projects required to ensure the
security of American troops at bases here in the United States.
But while Republicans ignore these vital homeland security needs,
they have proven time and again that they are willing to spend money on
their priorities. Unfortunately, those priorities too often turn out to
be tax breaks for those who need them the least.
Just last month, House Republicans voted to spend nearly $800 billion
on tax breaks, but they refused to spend less than one-half of 1
percent of that amount, $250 million, for a critical program to protect
our ports against terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats have repeatedly tried to force Republicans to
address America's homeland defense. In the Committee on Rules last
night, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to
provide $2.5 billion for homeland security requirements that
Republicans have refused to address.
{time} 1030
But Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked the amendment of
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The Republican leadership is tempted, as we have already heard, to
tell us that they did not block the amendment of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They may be tempted to say again that this is an
open rule, and the problem is that the amendment of the gentleman from
Wisconsin violates the House rules.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Republican leadership does not make that
argument again, because that argument is dangerously disingenuous.
After all, Republican leaders routinely waive the House rules for their
priorities. Just last month, they were willing to waive the Budget Act
to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to special
interests. In this very rule, the same one that refuses to provide the
amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) with waivers,
Republicans have waived the rules for the underlying bill.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leaders have waived the House
rules on 14 of 15 rules this year. In other words, Republicans are
happy to waive the House rules for special interest tax breaks and
other Republican priorities, but Republican priorities do not seem to
include additional money for homeland defense.
Mr. Speaker, this is not just unfair and undemocratic, it is an
arrogant abuse of power. Most importantly, it is an abuse of power that
leaves Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks here at home.
For that reason, Members of the House have only one way to pass the
amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) today: by
defeating the previous question on this rule. Let me be clear: by
voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will simply be voting
to allow the House to
[[Page H2711]]
provide critical homeland security resources. They will not delay or
defeat the underlying bill.
We will support the troops, and I am sure that this wartime spending
bill will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But by voting
``yes'' on the previous question, Members will be voting to block
critical homeland security resources. There is no way around that fact,
so I urge Members not to do it.
Mr. Speaker, protecting America's homeland should not be a bipartisan
issue. I hope my Republican friends will join Democrats in opposing the
previous question so we can strengthen our defenses here at home while
we provide for our troops in the field.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me personally. Thirty-four years
ago today, I was sworn in as a new Member of this body. I was inspired
by the idea that this institution was supposed to represent. This
institution is supposed to be the people's House. This institution,
more than any other, is supposed to reflect the public will. This
institution has been known through the years as the greatest
parliamentary body in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I think the rule that is bringing this crucial piece of
legislation to the floor today represents a fundamental corruption of
the democratic processes of this House and this country. I want to
explain why.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a $70 billion bill to try to pay for the
cost of a war which, it is hoped, will bring ``democracy'' to Iraq.
Yet, democracy is being fundamentally denied on this House floor this
morning.
Now, we hear all of this meaningless blather about how this is an
open rule and we can offer any amendment that is within the rules, but
that obscures the truth. The truth is that this bill has been brought
to the floor under a rule which allows this bill to avoid the rules of
the House, and it does so in three fundamental ways. That enables the
majority to bring a bill to the House floor which, among other things,
will supplement the process by which our government intends to provide
basic health care to 25 million Iraqis; our government plans to provide
for the modernization of 6,000 schools in Iraq; and it plans to rebuild
100 hospitals in Iraq.
I begrudge the President none of that in his efforts to win the
hearts and minds of that country. However, this rule blocks our effort
to provide $2.5 billion in additional homeland security protection by
protecting our ports, giving our first responders more assistance, and
doing a variety of other things to keep this country safe from
terrorist attack.
The way it does that is that it allows the bill itself, brought by
the Republican majority, to obliterate the normal rules of the House
under which bills are considered; but then it requires us to abide by
the very rules that the majority party ignores in constructing its
bill.
Members may call that democracy; I call it a sham. I call it a
shameful sham. I do not for a moment understand why we are even having
this disagreement. On a subject like homeland security there should be
no ``Ds'' behind our name, there should be no ``Rs'' behind our name;
there should only be an ``A'' after our name. In discussing a bill like
this, we should not be Democrats or Republicans, we should be
Americans.
I would ask every Member of this House whether or not anything that
we are trying to propose in this amendment is not worthy of support. We
are being blocked today from funding a new program that would enable us
to protect America from nuclear material loaded onto ships and brought
into American ports. We are being denied the opportunity to install
equipment in nine ports around the world so that for at least 50
percent of the cargo which comes into this country we will know it does
not have nuclear material which could cause the explosion of dirty
bombs in our ports and harbors. We are being denied the right to try to
fix that problem.
We are being denied the right to offer additional funds to protect
the security of our own nuclear material here at home. We are being
denied funds to upgrade the quality of State labs so they can detect
what we are hit with if we are hit by a chemical attack. We are being
denied $108 million to protect Federal dams and waterways from
terrorist attacks. We are being denied $75 million so that we can
conduct vulnerability assessments for chemical plants in this country.
We are being denied several hundred million dollars in additional help
that we want to provide to our local first responders, our police, and
our firemen.
Additionally, we are being denied an effort to provide additional
funds so that our Guard and Reserve forces can see to it that in every
State in the Union we have backup units to help first responders
respond to chemical and biological attacks. We are being denied the
ability to put additional port security requirements into effect in
Charleston, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Honolulu, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, San Juan, and Wilmington in
order to protect this country, again, from deadly material that is
brought into our harbors. We are being denied many other things.
So in my view, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace. We intend to
vote against the previous question on the rule, and I would urge
Members of the leadership of this House to recognize that on this,
above all issues, we ought to be dealing with this in a bipartisan
give-and-take manner so we can provide far more protection to each and
every citizen of this country than we are providing to date.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from
North Carolina, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to a
legislative process which has allowed a critical wartime supplemental
appropriation package to become a vehicle for billions of dollars in
nonrelated war spending.
As a veteran of both Vietnam and the Persian Gulf wars, I know all
too well how imperative adequate funding is to the success of any
modern military campaign. When I hear our President and the Secretary
of Defense rally behind a package of funding for military, I do not
flinch in offering my sincere and strong support, no matter how great
that price may be. Our brave men and women in uniform are making great
sacrifices in the deserts of the Middle East every day and they deserve
our support and the funding to help them achieve their mission and a
victory.
However, when I learn of last-minute deals between Members of
Congress and certain special interests which bog down this crucial
defense spending package with non-war related gifts at the expense of
my constituents' hard-earned tax dollars, I cannot help but question
the entire process.
Today the airline industry will get billions more dollars in Federal
aid without a full debate on the financial problems still plaguing that
critical industry, even after this Congress gave them over $15 billion
in aid in 2001.
Now, tourism in Nevada is the number one industry for us, and I work
hard every day to see that certain economic reforms are enacted to
benefit the hardworking Nevadans who rely on a healthy travel and
tourism industry. However, I strongly disagree that an emergency
supplemental spending package intended to fund our Nation's Armed
Forces and provide necessary humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people
suffering under Saddam Hussein's regime of tyranny is the proper
vehicle for another Federal funding crutch for the airline industry
without a full debate on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, while I will vote ``yes'' to support the overall bill, I
want to register my strong opposition to the process which creates any
delay in the expedient delivery of necessary funding to our Nation's
brave servicemen and servicewomen fighting for freedom around the
world.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
time to me, and I rise in opposition to this rule.
[[Page H2712]]
Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern in this rule. That pattern is to gag
approximately 140 million Americans, to not allow their Representatives
to offer amendments which the majority has made in order for
themselves, but not for the 140 million Americans represented by the
minority.
There appears to be no shame in that. It appears to be the arrogant
exercise of pure political power. They can laugh if they will; but the
American public will, over time, recognize that half of America is
being shut out.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seeks to offer an amendment.
That amendment is to invest in homeland security, the safety of our
cities, the safety of our ports, the safety of our railroads, the
continuing safety of our airlines, and the safety of our neighborhoods.
What this rule says is, we will have points of order. That is
esoteric. What does that mean? The American public does not know.
Essentially, what it means is we will allow ourselves, we Republicans
who are in charge, the ability to offer an amendment like the gentleman
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey).
Now, somebody on the Committee on Rules is shaking their heads. It is
their bill that I refer to. It is their bill that is not consistent
with the rules. In the rule, they say it does not matter for them, they
can exercise the power to jam it; but we will not give to Democrats the
ability to offer an amendment to adequately fund the security of New
York City; of Baltimore, Maryland; of each and every community in our
country.
I regret that. It is a bad rule, and I join the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in urging Members to vote against the previous
question so that we can provide a rule which will allow for fair and
full consideration, and let that proposal, if it is deemed by those in
the majority not to be consistent with the security of the American
public, vote against it; but at least have the courage, have the
courage and good sense and consideration for the 140 million people
represented by this side of the aisle to allow them to be heard. Allow
them to have an amendment to be considered on this floor. That is
democracy. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seeks.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill was reported out of
the committee 59 to zero. I also wanted to make the point that between
1999 and 2002, States and localities have been awarded over $492
million in domestic preparedness funding.
{time} 1045
And only a third of those funds have been used. And the gentleman
mentioned Maryland and New York, and I would just like to say that
Maryland was awarded $9.2 million and they still have $9.2 million that
has not been spent. New York was awarded $25.7 million and there is
still $25.7 million in the pipeline that has not been spent, so there
is money there currently.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MYRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentlewoman's argument. It may be a good
argument. Why does your rule not allow us to debate that on the floor?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that allows anybody to
offer an amendment that is within the rules of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman's bill is not within the
rules. The gentlewoman waived the rules.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a canard. The charge has
been made by the Republicans for the last 3 days that there are $19
billion in unspent homeland security funds. Let me tell you how they
get to that ridiculous statement.
They count all of the money that is proposed for that program for the
next fiscal year. We have not even passed that bill out of the Congress
yet. That is 34 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money.
This supplemental contains another 10 percent. You cannot spend money
in localities the Congress has not yet appropriated. That accounts for
another 10 percent. Then the omnibus appropriations bill that was
passed in February of this year, that accounts for the other 30 percent
of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money. Only 2 weeks ago, the
agency made available to States the ability to apply for that money.
The application period has not even been closed. That leaves 26 percent
left; and of that 26 percent left, only 4 percent has been unobligated.
So let us keep the facts straight.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
The simple fact is the rule waives House rules for the majority's
bill, but it does not allow for Democratic amendments, and what we are
saying is that is unfair. It is just that simple.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is as much about context as it is about
content. It is as much about politics as it is about patriotism. In
September 2002, I introduced a resolution calling on the President to
transmit to Congress a comprehensive plan for the long-term cultural,
economic, and political stabilization in a free Iraq. Now, 7 months
later and only after the war has begun, has the President presented a
war supplemental, albeit still missing a long-term plan and definite
end to the conflict.
Repeatedly when asked how long it expects United States forces to
remain in Iraq, the administration has answered with a glib, ``Not one
day longer than we have to.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, until the President can provide a plan on how this
$78 billion, the largest supplemental in the history of our country,
will be spent, my answer is ``Not one dollar more than I have to.''
Now, I want to make it very clear, I along with 435 Members of this
House of Representatives that can vote, support fully the troops. I
supported them when I voted on March 21 for the resolution honoring
them, and I will support them again today when I vote for this
supplemental.
I have a new resolution, H. Con. Res. 121, that supports our
warfighters, contemplates the casualties, looks towards trying to avoid
the circumstances of POWS and MIAs. And all of us support the troops.
We are patriotic Americans, Democrat and Republican, liberal and
conservative. But patriotism means stand by your country. It does not
mean, as Theodore Roosevelt said, that you must stand by your
President.
Mr. Speaker, I stand proudly and patriotically for the American
values that cause every one of us to support our troops. But let me
make it very clear, I do not stand nor am I required to stand by our
President and the misguided policies entrenched in this supplemental.
Republican fiscal irresponsibility of the last 2 years has sent the
United States' economy into a downward spiral of unemployment and
homelessness as the number of uneducated and uninsured increase every
day.
Today's supplemental, while funding in part the war and homeland
security, does nothing to fix the majority of the emergencies facing
this Nation.
What pains me, Mr. Speaker, is that I have cities in my district--
Belle Glade, South Bay, and Pahokee--where the unemployment rate is 17
percent and the poverty rate is 3 to 4 times greater than anywhere else
in South Florida. congress can't find the money for rural development
in the Glades, yet we have $2.5 billion to rebuild Iraq and another
$5.5 billion in foreign assistance because the President's diplomatic
efforts to shore up support for this war failed.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any speakers at
this time?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any speakers at this time. I
have somebody coming.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
[[Page H2713]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, the issues of war in Iraq and homeland security are
among the most important issues that Members of this House will ever
have to deal with. They are incredibly important to our constituents
and, indeed, have implications worldwide. It is vitally important that
every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, freshman and
committee chair, have an opportunity to be heard and have an
opportunity to play a constructive and positive role in this process.
It is of great frustration to me, for example, that we have not
formally debated the war on Iraq since last October when Congress gave
the President the authorization to go to war; this, notwithstanding the
fact that American men and women are in harm's way and American
citizens are paying for the war. I oppose the war and I still have
great reservations about our policy, but the decision has been made and
the brave men and women of our armed services are now in the field of
battle. They deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our support. And
whether you are for or against the war, these issues are too important
not to be front and center in almost every discussion that we have in
this Chamber.
Today we are debating a supplemental appropriations bill to provide
support for our troops, some money for reconstruction in Iraq, money
for the airline industry, and some money for homeland security. Now,
the majority trumpets that this is an open rule and everybody should be
happy; but as you have heard, there is a hitch. Things that are
important to the Republicans have received protections from points of
order. All the Democratic amendments that were offered in the Committee
on Rules last night were denied such protections.
The ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), presented a very thoughtful and
well-considered amendment to protect ports, provide additional funds to
first responders and help our veterans. The priorities he outlined are
priorities for all Americans. Yet he was denied the opportunity to
offer his amendment in any meaningful way.
Our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) had an amendment to
increase funding for American families just as the supplemental bill
increases funding for Iraqi families. He was not urging that we not
invest in Iraq, only that we also invest in America as well. He argued
that while the supplemental with regard to Iraq provides 13 million
people access to basic health care services, one hospital in every
major city, and maternity care for 100 percent of the population, the
supplemental with regard to America provides not one new dollar for 42
million working uninsured.
Mr. Speaker, these are the types of things we should not only be
discussing and debating, but voting on. And while the supplemental does
include some welcome modest funding for first responders, I am sad to
say that under this bill you are better off being a police officer in
Bogota, Colombia than in Boylston, Massachusetts. Why? Because this
bill gives more aid to Colombia than 49 States of the Union receive for
first responders.
In my city of Worcester, Massachusetts, 20 firefighters and 20 police
officers are about to be laid off. So we can hold all the press
conferences we want about how important homeland security is, and we
can pose for all the pictures with our first responders, but it is
clear our hometown security is being short-changed.
I would say to the leadership on the other side of the aisle that
this process should and can be much better. This bill should and can be
much better. Because of your unwillingness to listen and debate and
vote, it will not be.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this rule is deceptive. It does not allow us
to vote on important issues of homeland security. So I would urge my
colleagues to vote against the previous question in order to allow this
House to vote on important and critical homeland security protections
for the American people.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) for yielding me time. I appreciate the time and a chance to
speak this morning.
It is now our duty to make sure that we finance the war that
presently is waging in Iraq. Many of our young soldiers, men and women,
they are facing dangers every day. We have to finance the military
operations of these men and these women, but our duty to the soldiers
extends beyond the duration of the war in Iraq. Our duty requires us to
increase funding to the Veterans Administration for there are veterans
in the making right this very moment; and for the current veterans, we
have let them down.
It is a terrible statistic to know that nationwide in the year 2002,
almost 300,000 veterans were either placed on waiting lists or forced
to wait for over 6 months in order to receive an appointment for
necessary care. In New York State, 130,000 veterans could be denied the
VA benefits or drop out of the system, including 30,000 veterans in
western New York which I represent alone.
Now, as we have cut the budget already for the Veterans
Administration, as we already have 300,000 veterans a year waiting just
to get an appointment, what will happen when the veterans from Iraq
come home? What will we say to them? We really appreciate your service.
It was wonderful of you to go. I am sorry we have no way to give you
medical treatment. Take a number and wait your turn.
We cannot as a Nation forget our obligation to these men and women
and our promise always to care for them.
The rule passed by the Committee on Rules prohibits any amendments to
increase funding for the Veterans Administration. In addition to that,
the war has also greatly increased the threat of terrorism here at
home. Our cities and towns must be prepared to act immediately should
we have another terrorist threat or act. And our local police officers,
firefighters, public health officials, medical professionals, and
volunteers will be the first to respond. But we have not included
sufficient funding for the local governments, the States, and the first
responders.
The war has greatly increased the financial burden on local and State
governments during a period of economic troubles when local and State
governments are challenged by a budget crisis. It is our solemn duty to
provide the financial support that these first responders require if we
expect them to protect our constituents back home.
It is shameful that first responders and local governments have to
beg for funding. The bill provides some funds for first responders but
they need so much more than this bill provides, and the rule bars any
amendment to increase the funding to the first responders.
Now, as I said, there is some money there, but not nearly enough to
protect the ports that are critical to the United States' economy and
to provide the necessary level of security in our borders. We must
increase the funding of activities at our northern borders. Our friends
in Canada are not the threat, Mr. Speaker.
In summary, let me say that this rule leaves a great deal to be
desired and certainly does not do very much for the people fighting
this war today.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Every once in a while you have to connect the dots around here or it
gets a little confusing. Let us connect the dots right now.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants an amendment to add
$2.5 billion for homeland security. The other side does not want to let
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) add $2.5 billion for homeland
security.
{time} 1100
Why is that? That is because the deficit goes up by another $2.5
billion, and it becomes harder and harder to justify their tax cut for
the rich. This is not very complicated. The dots are connected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise in opposition to this rule. While the Republicans will claim
that this war supplemental is being offered on an open rule, meaning
anyone may amend or improve the bill, parliamentary
[[Page H2714]]
trickery proves this not to be the case at all. That is why I recommend
a ``no'' vote on the rule so Democrats have an opportunity to offer an
amendment to increase the homeland security portion of this war budget
by $2.5 billion.
What are the Republicans afraid of? Voting against our domestic
protection forces, our police and firefighters? Or maybe they stand
quietly supportive of remarks of a prominent Republican Member of
Congress, an appropriator, who said that the FDNY and the NYPD should
work overtime for free. The rules of the House do not allow me to name
the individual. Obviously he believes the loss of 23 police officers in
New York City and 343 members of the FDNY was not sacrifice enough.
Congress needs to support our first line of defense abroad, our
military; and we cannot forget our first line of defense at home, our
police and firefighters.
Vote down this rule and allow for a vote on a real aid package to
defend Americans right here in America.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my
colleague yielding time to me.
I cannot help but say to the House that later in the day I expect
that I will have a lot of exchange with my very good friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I express my appreciation for the
magnificent work that he and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
have done together regarding this bill.
It is a war supplemental for the 2003 year. It is a process that will
go forward today in a very, very positive way with both sides of the
aisle expressing their support for our troops, both sides of the aisle
responding I think positively to the need to make sure that funding
goes forward effectively.
I cannot help, however, as I sit and listen to this discussion
regarding open rules to share with my colleagues a conversation I had a
moment ago with my colleague, the chairman, who was not really wringing
his hands but he was saying to me, ``I cannot help but remember a
decade I spent in the minority in the Florida Senate. I cannot help but
remember all the time I spent as a Member of the House.'' Some, not
all, of 40 years in this House, but a very big hunk of time, when the
other side controlled, the other side of the aisle. And indeed, they
are constantly talking about open rules the way they saw them, and
beauty does lie in the eyes of the genuflector around this place.
I was reminded a moment ago of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) in a parade that she participates in regularly, I
understand, and as she came down the roadway in that parade that day,
one of our fine staffers over here happened to flash up a sign that
said ``Louise, more open rules, please.''
It is fascinating when one majority controls a place for more than 4
decades, and indeed, now comes here to the floor and complains so
rather effectively about our learning so much from them, during the
years they controlled it with such an iron fist.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. My
friend from California, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, who has overseen most of
the very important work that is in this package, has really, I think,
put it very well.
I listen to the speeches from the other side of the aisle. This is a
bipartisan measure that we are moving forward. We know that it passed
by a vote of 59 to zero from the Committee on Appropriations. There is
going to be strong support from both Democrats and Republicans in this
House for this measure.
I do not know how anyone can describe our stating that this is an
open rule as chicanery, but we have to live with the rules of this
House. Yes, the Committee on Rules does, in fact, have a job of
providing waivers, and we have protected the bipartisan, and I keep
hearing it described as the majority bill, the bipartisan 59 to zero
package. We have, in fact, provided protection for that measure that
has been reported from the Committee on Appropriations.
Democrats and Republicans alike realize that it is very important for
us to provide the $74.7 billion to pay for this war and all of the
issues that are surrounding that, and I believe that the Committee on
Appropriations has done a terrific job on this.
I praise the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); I, of course,
praise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I followed the markup as
it proceeded in the Committee on Appropriations, and when the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) began talking about article 1, section 7 of
the U.S. Constitution and the fact that we had the responsibility to
make sure that the power of the purse lies right here, and he also
talked about the issue of accountability, and I heard my friend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in that markup talk about the fact
that Democrats and Republicans alike, when they are down at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue want to do what they can to place more power in
article 2, the executive branch, than in article 1, the first branch of
government, the legislative branch, and I totally agree with the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
We have seen that, and that is why I praise his work and the work of
the full committee in ensuring that there will be a greater degree of
accountability and that the administration does not get the blank check
that some of them may have wanted. That is why I say that this bill,
which we are going to proceed with when we pass this rule, is a
bipartisan measure. Again, a 59 to zero vote.
Say what you want, I really do not care what it is that they say,
this is an open rule. I am going to say it again: this is an open rule.
What it means is that members of the majority and members of the
minority will have an equal opportunity to offer amendments that comply
with the rules of the House.
The only waiver protection that we provided, Mr. Speaker, was
protection for the bipartisan 59 to zero, $74.7 billion supplemental
appropriation bill that came forward; and after having provided
protection for that unanimously passed package, we proceed with an open
rule. That is why this is a very fair measure. It addresses so many
important issues.
One thing I am particularly pleased to have been able to play a role
in, which I worked on right after September 11 as we looked at that
supplemental, was to try and ensure that resources get to our first
responders.
Mr. Speaker, we know full well that throughout our Nation's history,
when we have talked about men and women in uniform and international
conflicts, they are men and women who are like those who are over,
moving into Baghdad right now, men and women in the military, but the
tragic thing that we found following September 11 is that men and women
in uniform, who are firefighters and policemen and -women, those people
are now on the front line in an international conflict because of the
war on terrorism. We need to make sure that we provide resources
directly to them, and we know that some States have made an attempt to
keep some of those resources, and that is why the language in here,
which requires within 45 days that 80 percent of those resources that
are to get to the first responders will, in fact, go there; and I am
pleased to have played a role in encouraging that, from my State of
California, the State of New York, realizing that there are areas that
are really of greater threat than others, and there needs to be a
particular emphasis on homeland security in those areas that face the
greatest risk and the greatest threat, and we need to get those
resources to those first responders.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I believe is
important to offer as a caution is the fact that because States and
localities are dealing with fiscal crises, just as we are dealing with
our fiscal challenges here in Washington, D.C., I find that many States
will want to, under the rubric of homeland security, try to address
basically every fiscal challenge that they have, and so that is why we
again have
[[Page H2715]]
the responsibility to, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) puts
it so well, deal with the question of accountability as those resources
do get out to ensure that we do not, under the name of homeland
security, have Governors all over this country claiming that they
should have a blank check from Washington, D.C.
We have got, I believe, a very good bipartisan package here, Mr.
Speaker. We have a challenge that does need to be addressed, and I hope
very much we can move ahead. We can pass this open rule, this open
rule, Mr. Speaker, and then move ahead with the important debate to
which we will see many, many amendments offered that lots of our
colleagues will have, and we will have a good exchange.
I do want to mention one issue since I am here before I sit down and
that is the question of Turkey, which I know will come up in the debate
itself. Like every American, I was very disappointed when we found the
challenge of dealing with Turkey when it came to the issue of
stationing our 68,000 troops for a movement through the northern part
of Iraq. I was saddened when I saw that vote of 261 to 254 in the
Turkish parliament that refused to allow us to station our troops
there.
I do know this, Mr. Speaker. I had the chance a few months ago, along
with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), to go and travel
throughout Turkey. We met with then-Prime Minister Gul and talked with
him about the challenge of our prospect of our going to war with Iraq.
We met with men and women who are based at Incirlik, our air base in
the southern part of Turkey; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have
an alliance with Turkey which is very, very important to recognize.
Prime Minister Gul was prime minister at that time. He had not been
elected, but he was selected because due to some problems with
something that the man who was elected, who is now prime minister,
Prime Minister Erdogan, he was unable to be seated at that point. We
also know that there was a huge turnover in the parliament; and for
that reason, even though we have strong support from Prime Minister
Gul, Prime Minister-now Erdogan, we unfortunately did not have the
votes in the parliament.
Why did we not have the votes in the parliament? Mr. Speaker, Turkey
has suffered greatly going all the way back 12 years to the liberation
of the war of Kuwait. They have suffered because of the economic
sanctions and the inability to see the movement of goods and services
across borders, a downturn there.
We also found that, of course, because of the Kurdish population in
the northern part of Iraq and also in Turkey, it has created a huge
upheaval. Those domestic challenges led the parliament by that 261 to
254 vote cast to make a decision to not allow us to station our troops
there.
Having said that, we know that Secretary of State Powell has been in
Turkey over the last couple of days, and he has been in meetings; and
we have just gotten word that has not yet been confirmed this morning
that some equipment is moving from Turkey into our operation in
northern Iraq.
While I was disappointed at the decision that was made by the
parliament, I do know that the leadership there, and I have met on
several occasions with the Turkish ambassador here in the United States
about this issue, and there has been a desire to try and establish a
mechanism that would allow us to deal with our needs in Turkey.
I know some are looking at the prospect of offering an amendment that
would cut the assistance that is very important to Turkey. I believe
that would be wrong, Mr. Speaker. We need to do what we can to help
Turkey stabilize itself economically; and we need to realize again that
they have been a very, very important ally, strongly supporting the
interests of the United States of America around the world.
I would implore my colleagues as we do move ahead to oppose any
attempts that would bring about a reduction there.
I will just say again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for her stellar leadership on the
Committee on Rules, her leadership as chairman of the very important
Republican Study Committee, and I will encourage Members to support her
in her quest to pass this open rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the sad side
effects of this unfair rule is that we will not be able to consider the
Obey amendment to provide additional money for homeland security, and
specifically, we will not be allowed to consider additional money for
the protection of our sea ports of this Nation.
{time} 1115
According to the CIA, it is more likely for a terrorist to sneak
nuclear material into our ports than for a missile to reach our shores.
According to the prestigious task force headed by Senators Rudman and
Hart, port security is a critical mandate which needs adequate funding.
And according to Steve Flynn, a highly respected security expert at
the Council on Foreign Relations, an explosion from nuclear material
smuggled into any American port would not only inflict devastating
casualties, it would bring America to a grinding halt. Our economy
would simply shut down.
We cannot check every container that comes to our ports every day,
but there is much more that we can do. The Obey amendment would have
allowed us to start to put in place security provisions overseas before
the containers come to the United States, before they present a risk to
our citizens, before they present a risk to our economy, before they
present a risk to our national security. But we will not be allowed to
consider that amendment because this closed rule would not allow a
Democratic debate.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to oppose the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule. The amendment will allow Members an opportunity to vote on the
Obey homeland security amendment. Yesterday, Republicans on the
Committee on Rules blocked this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides desperately needed funding for
the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our
national security. The amendment would add $2.5 billion, an increase of
about 3 percent to the bill. The money would be used for port security,
for Coast Guard activities, for infrastructure security, for water and
chemical plant security, and for rail tunnel security. It provides
funding for State and local response activities, including civil
defense, first responders, firefighters and military Guard and
Reserves. It also addresses one of our gravest security risks, nuclear
security.
My colleagues may remember that the President not only requested no
funds for nuclear security but rejected legislation in August of 2002
that would have provided $260 million for that purpose. It is very
disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House would deny
Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to protect this Nation
from the risk of terrorism. This should not be a partisan issue, but
they have made it that way.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to
vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from
voting on the wartime supplemental, but it will allow us to vote to
protect our Nation and our citizens here and abroad. A ``yes'' vote on
the previous question will block critical homeland security resources.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the unfair
rule for the FY-03 Supplemental Appropriations bill because it blocks
members on my side from offering the Democratic Homeland Security
Amendment to add $2.5 billion in needed, additional investments in
homeland security to the supplemental bill.
Mr. Speaker, about half of the funds in the Democratic Homeland
Security amendment go
[[Page H2716]]
to improving first response. This includes $300 million in additional
funding for First Responders Grants. These funds would be used to pay
for such important needs as training for police officers, firefighters,
and emergency medical personnel, as well as, purchasing protective
gear. The Democratic amendment also includes $197 million to protect
military facilities; $241 million for nuclear security; and $722
million for port and infrastructure security.
As a member of the Select Homeland Committee on Homeland Security, I
am keenly aware of the deficiencies that exist in funding for First
Responders. Indeed, the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors a week ago
released a report which showed that cities would have to pay more than
$21.4 million per week in additional security costs to close the $2
billion over 6 months during the increased security alert status
brought on by the war with Iraq.
In my own area, the Virgin Islands, the local government frankly
can't afford to contribute any additional dollars to strengthen our
security because local economy continues to spiral downward. Moreover,
we have additional needs in port security defense, as well as, training
and equipment for our police and firefighters.
I urge my colleagues to this unfair rule and give our local
communities a chance to receive the first responder funding that they
badly need.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of
the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to
the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The material previously referred to is as follows:
Previous Question Statement H.Res. 172--Rule for H.R. 1559 FY03
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1559) making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Before consideration of
any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the
amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution, which
may be offered only by Representative Obey or his designee,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such amendment are waived. During consideration of the bill
for further amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
In chapter 1 of title I, insert at the end the following:
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For additional amount for ``Food Safety and Inspection
Service'', $13,000,000, to remain available until expended,
for activities authorized under section 332 of the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-188).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$17,000,000, to remain available until expended.
In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE'', in the item replating to ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard'' insert after the dollar
amount the following: ``(increased by $160,200,000)''.
In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE'', insert at the end the following:
Operaiton and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army Reserve'', $66,000,000.
In title I, after chapter 3, insert the following new
chapter:
CHAPTER 3A
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps Of Engineers--Civil
Operations and Maintenance, General
For an additional amount for ``Operations and Maintenance,
General'' for safeguards and security activities,
$108,000,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
water and related resources
For an additional amount for ``Water and Related
Resources'' for safeguards and security activities,
$24,000,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Science
For an additional amount for ``Science'' to support
additional safeguards and security activities, $7,500,000, to
remain available until expended.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities
For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' to
support additional safeguards and security activities,
$68,200,000, to remain available until expended.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
For an additional amount for ``Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation'' for various domestic and international
nonproliferation activities, $175,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
For an additional amount for ``Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management'' to support additional
safeguards and security activities, $11,300,000, to remain
available until expended.
Other Defense Activities
For an additional amount for ``Other Defense Activities''
to support increased Office of Intelligence mission
requirements resulting from the conflict in Iraq, $5,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
Sec. 1351. (a) Definition.--As used in this section,
``sensitive material'' means nuclear weapons or components
thereof, nuclear materials, radioactive materials, and
related technology and sources that pose a risk of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
(b) International Materials, Protection, Control, and
Accounting Program.--The Secretary of Energy may expand the
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
program outside the Russian Federation, and the independent
states of the former Soviet Union. The program may include,
but is not limited to, assisting countries to--
(1) reduce the risk of theft of sensitive material or of
diversion of sensitive material to terrorists or terrorist
organizations;
(2) store securely sensitive material;
(3) establish procedures, such as inspections, audits, and
systematic background checks, to improve the security of the
use, transportation, and storage of sensitive material; and
(4) improve their domestic export control and border
security programs for sensitive material.
(c) Applicability.--This section shall only apply with
respect to amounts appropriated by this Act and any previous
appropriations Act enacted before the date of enactment of
this Act.
In title I, after chapter 4, insert the following new
chapter:
Chapter 4A
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Construction
For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $18,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Departmental Management
Salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended, for
extraordinary costs to provide for the security of
departmental facilities: Provided, That the Secretary of the
Interior may transfer such funds to other accounts of the
Department of the Interior, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, for use by the agencies or bureaus of the
Department to offset such homeland security costs.
In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', in the item relating to ``Office
for Domestic Preparedness'', insert after the
[[Page H2717]]
first and second dollar amounts the following: ``(increased
by $300,000,000)''.
In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', insert at the end the following:
Firefighter Assistance Grants
For an additional amount for ``Firefighter Assistance
Grants'' for programs as authorized by section 33 of the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $150,000,000, to remain available until
December 31, 2003.
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance'' for grants for interoperable
communications equipment, $350,000,000, to remain available
until December 31, 2003.
Transportation Security, Administration
maritime and land security
For an additional amount for ``Maritime and Land
Security'', $250,000,000, for making port security grants to
be distributed under the same term and conditions as provided
for under Public Law 107-117, to remain until December 31,
2003.
In chapter 5 of title I, under he heading ``Coast Guard'',
in the item relating to ``Operating Expenses'', insert after
the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by
$100,000,000)''.
In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``COAST GUARD'',
insert at the end the following:
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements'', $90,000,000, to remain available until
December 31, 2003.
In chapter 6 of title I, in the item relating to ``Public
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', insert at the
end the following:
For an additional amount for ``Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund'', for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, to be used to improve Federal, State,
and local preparedness against potential chemical terrorism,
$75,000,000.
In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military
Construction, Navy'', insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $92,579,300)''.
In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military
Construction, Air Force'', insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $28,160,000)''.
In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION'', insert at the end the following:
Military Construction, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Army'', $65,340,000, to remain available until expended.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air
National Guard'', $8,800,000, to remain available until
expended.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Army
Reserve'', $2,200,000, to remain available until expended.
In the Transportation and Treasury chapter of title I,
insert after the chapter heading the following:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
federal railroad administration
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
For necessary life/safety capital improvements of the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49
U.S.C. 24101(a), $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert after the heading
for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'' the following:
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
For an additional amount for ``Medical Care'', for
enhancement of emergency preparedness, $70,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2004.
In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert at the end the
following:
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency
science and technology
For an additional amount for ``Science and Technology,''
$100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$25,000,000 is for water systems vulnerability analysis and
$75,000,000 is for chemical plant vulnerability assessments.
hazardous substances superfund
(including transfers of funds)
For an additional amount for the ``Hazardous Substances
Superfund'', $75,000,000, to remain available until expended,
for carrying out homeland security activities authorized by
law related to the agency's counter-terrorism programs
including radiological, biological, and chemical attacks:
Provided, That these activities include, but are not limited
to, (1) support of State and local responders to plan for
emergencies, (2) coordination with federal partners, (3)
training of first responders, and (4) providing resources
including federal personnel in the event of any attack:
Provided further, That the Administrator may transfer such
portion of these funds as she deems appropriate to other
agencies of the Federal government with expertise in
radiological, biological, chemical attack related counter-
terrorism programs: Provided further, That the Administrator
is authorized to make grants to states for radiological,
biological, and chemical attack related to counter-terrorism.
____
Democrats are strongly urged to vote ``no'' on the Previous
Question on the Rule to allow the consideration of the Obey
Amendment that would increase funding by $2.5 billion to
Homeland Security programs.
These increases would include: $197 million to protect
military facilities; $241 million for nuclear security
(nuclear cargo detection, nuclear detection equipment,
securing nuclear materials abroad and in the U.S.); $722
million for port and infrastructure security (Coast Guard
personnel, port security grants, dams and bridge security,
water and chemical plant security, rail tunnel security); and
$1.2 billion for state and local first responders (state and
local civil defense teams, first responder equipment,
firefighter grants, state and local bio-chemical response,
military guard and reserves).
Office of the Democratic Whip--Steny H. Hoyer
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. 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 electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 103]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
[[Page H2718]]
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
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)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Ballance
Combest
Gephardt
Jones (NC)
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
McIntyre
Oberstar
Paul
Rangel
Sweeney
Walden (OR)
Weldon (PA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake) (during the vote). The Chair
reminds Members that there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.
{time} 1137
Mr. ALEXANDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WALSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________