[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3798-3913]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 3799]]

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 3800]]



[[Page 3801]]



[[Page 3802]]



[[Page 3803]]



[[Page 3804]]



[[Page 3805]]



[[Page 3806]]



[[Page 3807]]



[[Page 3808]]



[[Page 3809]]



[[Page 3810]]



[[Page 3811]]



[[Page 3812]]



[[Page 3813]]



[[Page 3814]]



[[Page 3815]]



[[Page 3816]]



[[Page 3817]]



[[Page 3818]]



[[Page 3819]]



[[Page 3820]]



[[Page 3821]]



[[Page 3822]]



[[Page 3823]]



[[Page 3824]]



[[Page 3825]]



[[Page 3826]]



[[Page 3827]]



[[Page 3828]]



[[Page 3829]]



[[Page 3830]]



[[Page 3831]]



[[Page 3832]]



[[Page 3833]]



[[Page 3834]]



[[Page 3835]]



[[Page 3836]]



[[Page 3837]]



[[Page 3838]]



[[Page 3839]]



[[Page 3840]]



[[Page 3841]]



[[Page 3842]]



[[Page 3843]]



[[Page 3844]]



[[Page 3845]]



[[Page 3846]]



[[Page 3847]]



[[Page 3848]]



[[Page 3849]]



[[Page 3850]]



[[Page 3851]]



[[Page 3852]]



[[Page 3853]]



[[Page 3854]]



[[Page 3855]]



[[Page 3856]]



[[Page 3857]]



[[Page 3858]]



[[Page 3859]]



[[Page 3860]]



[[Page 3861]]



[[Page 3862]]



[[Page 3863]]



[[Page 3864]]



[[Page 3865]]



[[Page 3866]]



[[Page 3867]]



[[Page 3868]]



[[Page 3869]]



[[Page 3870]]



[[Page 3871]]



[[Page 3872]]



[[Page 3873]]



[[Page 3874]]



[[Page 3875]]



[[Page 3876]]



[[Page 3877]]



[[Page 3878]]



[[Page 3879]]



[[Page 3880]]



[[Page 3881]]



[[Page 3882]]



[[Page 3883]]



[[Page 3884]]



[[Page 3885]]



[[Page 3886]]



[[Page 3887]]



[[Page 3888]]



[[Page 3889]]



[[Page 3890]]



[[Page 3891]]



[[Page 3892]]



[[Page 3893]]



[[Page 3894]]



[[Page 3895]]



[[Page 3896]]



[[Page 3897]]



[[Page 3898]]



[[Page 3899]]

  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 anti-
environmental 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.

[[Page 3900]]

  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 
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.

[[Page 3901]]

  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 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 antienvir-
onmental 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,

[[Page 3902]]

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.
  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. 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. 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.

[[Page 3903]]

  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.
  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. 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. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this 
omnibus

[[Page 3904]]

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 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

[[Page 3905]]

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 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. 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.

[[Page 3906]]

  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 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

[[Page 3907]]

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 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

[[Page 3908]]

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 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

[[Page 3909]]

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 
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.

[[Page 3910]]

  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 
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

[[Page 3911]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3912]]

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
     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)

[[Page 3913]]


     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
     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.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, 
February, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation in my 
district.
  I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been 
present and voting. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 
27,``yea'' on rollcall No. 28, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 29, ``no'' on 
rollcall No. 30, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 31, and ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 32.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I will be unable to vote during the 
following rollcall votes this afternoon because I am departing on the 
Speaker's CODEL to visit our troops in the Middle East. However, if I 
had been present, I would have voted as indicated below.
  Rollcall No. 29 (Motion to recommit H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003, with 
instructions)--``nay''; rollcall No. 30 (Final Passage of H.R. 4)--
``yea''; rollcall No. 31 (Motion to recommit H.J. Res. 2, Making 
Further Continuing Appropriations For The Fiscal Year 2003)--``nay''; 
rollcall No. 32 (Final Passage of H.J. Res. 2)--``yea''.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, for security reasons our delegation trip 
departed prior to the conclusion of legislative business. Had I been 
present for the conclusion of legislative business, I would have voted 
``nay'' on the Motion to Recommit (rollcall No. 29), and ``yea'' on 
Final Passage (rollcall No. 30) of H.R. 4--Personal Responsibility, 
Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion to 
Recommit (rollcall No. 31), and ``yea'' on Final Passage (rollcall No. 
32) of H.J. Res. 2--the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations Conference 
Report.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, due to an official congressional delegation 
trip to Afghanistan, I was unable to cast votes on rollcall Votes 29, 
30, 31, and 32. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on 
rollcall 29, ``nay'' on rollcall 30, and ``yea'' on rollcall 31, and 
``nay'' on rollcall 32.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 71, the House is considered to have adopted House Concurrent 
Resolution 35.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 35 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 35

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of the joint resolution 
     (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing appropriations for 
     the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives shall make the following 
     correction:
       Amend the title so as to read: ``Joint Resolution making 
     consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.''.

                          ____________________