[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8437-8446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1559, EMERGENCY WARTIME 
                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003.

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 172 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 172

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Last night, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule to 
H.R. 1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a very important bill. 
It cannot get any better than that.
  The rule allows any Member to offer any amendment to the bill as long 
as their amendment complies with the normal Rules of the House.
  I am very pleased the House is trying to move H.R. 1559 quickly, 
because I know the importance of this bill to the men and women in our 
military. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for resisting 
most efforts to add extraneous provisions.
  This bill is too important for our troops for it to get bogged down 
with nonappropriations issues.
  I agree with the President that the United States has been at war 
since September 11, 2001. After our Nation was attacked, America made a 
decision: We will not wait for our enemies to strike before we act 
against them. We are not going to permit terrorists and terrorist 
states to plot and plan and grow in strength while we do nothing.
  This emergency wartime supplemental appropriations provides the tools 
and the resources for our military to wage an aggressive war against 
Saddam Hussein while at the same time preparing our homeland.
  Over the past 15 days we have seen the brutal and cruel nature of a 
dying regime. In areas still under its control, the regime continues 
its rule by terror. Prisoners of war have been brutalized and executed. 
Iraqis who refuse to fight for the regime are being murdered. Some in 
the Iraqi military have pretended to surrender and then opened fire on 
coalition forces that were willing to show them mercy.
  We owe a great deal of gratitude and respect to our servicemen and 
women who are currently in harm's way. My thoughts and prayers are with 
them and their families during this time of war, and I want to thank 
them for their courage and bravery on the battlefield.
  This war budget will meet America's needs directly arising from 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and our ongoing war against terror, including 
$63 billion for military operations. This funding will provide fuel for 
our ships, for our aircraft and tanks, supplies for our troops in the 
theater of operations, new high-tech munitions to replace the ones that 
we have used so far in this war. The supplemental will also provide 
funds to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, Mr. Speaker; $5 billion 
to help our brave coalition partners.
  In order to protect the American homeland in this time of high alert, 
it also includes $4 billion for the Departments of Justice and Homeland 
Security to address the immediate and emerging threats on American 
soil.
  This legislation accomplishes this goal by providing $2.2 billion for 
grants to first responders. Within that amount, $1.5 billion is 
provided for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, their basic grant 
program to the States, and $700 million is provided to address the 
security requirements in high-threat, high-density urban areas with 
critical infrastructure like my city of Charlotte.

[[Page 8438]]

  H.R. 1559 also allocates these funds for several other high priority 
activities: $498 million for border and port security, and $85 million 
for reimbursements to State and local law enforcement officers and 
National Guardsmen for increasing security measures at airports and 
other critical transportation sites.
  Our Nation must give our military and our law enforcement officers 
the weapons that they need to meet future threats. If the war against 
terror means that we must find terror wherever it exists and pull it 
out by its roots and bring people to justice, then our military and our 
law enforcement officers must have the means to achieve it.
  To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support 
the underlying bill. We need to rapidly approve the core funding for 
the Pentagon so supplies continue to flow to our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just listened to my friend, the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and she said oh, well, this is a great open 
rule.
  Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This is not an 
open rule in the true sense. The Republicans waived all the Rules of 
the House that they could possibly waive: the Budget Act, every rule 
that they could waive for their own bill, for the committee bill, and 
then they refused to waive those same rules for the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to bring up an amendment to the 
committee bill. So this is not an open process, and let us be serious 
about what is going on here today.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, the brave men and women of the U.S. military 
are, once again, proving themselves to be the finest fighting force in 
history. On the ground, in the seas, and in the skies over Iraq, our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are risking their lives to 
protect America and the world from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's 
murderous regime.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops have the strong bipartisan support of this 
Congress and of the American people. We are all deeply proud of the 
courage, skill, and professionalism they are displaying under very 
difficult conditions, and we are committed, Republicans as well as 
Democrats, to ensuring that our troops have all the resources they need 
to complete their mission as quickly and as safely as possible.
  So I am pleased that this emergency spending bill is on the House 
floor today. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each deserve credit for a bill that is generally 
quite strong.
  This bill supports our troops in the field, it protects the foreign 
policy prerogatives of the President, and it respects the Congress's 
constitutional duty to maintain responsibility for the tax dollars of 
the American people. Additionally, this emergency supplemental includes 
desperately needed assistance for the struggling airline industry.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. airlines are critical to the American economy, but 
they were hurt severely by the September 11 attacks and by subsequent 
security expenses. I know this firsthand because American Airlines, 
which employs thousands of hardworking people in my north Texas 
district, has been struggling mightily, and I want to congratulate the 
employee unions at American for voluntarily agreeing to benefit 
reductions to help keep the company out of bankruptcy. But they, like 
the rest of the airline industry, need additional relief from the 
government. So I am glad that this bill provides it, and I urge the 
President to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I expect to support this bill.
  But make no mistake: This bill as it is currently written still 
leaves America unnecessarily vulnerable to another terrorist attack. 
That is because Republicans continue to block critical homeland 
security resources for key targets like ports and nuclear facilities. 
Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand why Republicans refuse to 
address so many vital homeland defense needs. After all, there is no 
disputing the importance of these unmet homeland security requirements.
  The Coast Guard reports that it needs $1 billion this year alone to 
secure America's ports. The U.S. Fire Service found that between one-
third and one-half of firefighters lack critical pieces of basic 
emergency equipment. And each of the armed services has submitted 
detailed lists of military construction projects required to ensure the 
security of American troops at bases here in the United States.
  But while Republicans ignore these vital homeland security needs, 
they have proven time and again that they are willing to spend money on 
their priorities. Unfortunately, those priorities too often turn out to 
be tax breaks for those who need them the least.
  Just last month, House Republicans voted to spend nearly $800 billion 
on tax breaks, but they refused to spend less than one-half of 1 
percent of that amount, $250 million, for a critical program to protect 
our ports against terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have repeatedly tried to force Republicans to 
address America's homeland defense. In the Committee on Rules last 
night, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to 
provide $2.5 billion for homeland security requirements that 
Republicans have refused to address.

                              {time}  1030

  But Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked the amendment of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The Republican leadership is tempted, as we have already heard, to 
tell us that they did not block the amendment of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They may be tempted to say again that this is an 
open rule, and the problem is that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin violates the House rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the Republican leadership does not make that 
argument again, because that argument is dangerously disingenuous. 
After all, Republican leaders routinely waive the House rules for their 
priorities. Just last month, they were willing to waive the Budget Act 
to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to special 
interests. In this very rule, the same one that refuses to provide the 
amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) with waivers, 
Republicans have waived the rules for the underlying bill.
  All in all, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leaders have waived the House 
rules on 14 of 15 rules this year. In other words, Republicans are 
happy to waive the House rules for special interest tax breaks and 
other Republican priorities, but Republican priorities do not seem to 
include additional money for homeland defense.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just unfair and undemocratic, it is an 
arrogant abuse of power. Most importantly, it is an abuse of power that 
leaves Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks here at home.
  For that reason, Members of the House have only one way to pass the 
amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) today: by 
defeating the previous question on this rule. Let me be clear: by 
voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will simply be voting 
to allow the House to provide critical homeland security resources. 
They will not delay or defeat the underlying bill.
  We will support the troops, and I am sure that this wartime spending 
bill will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But by voting 
``yes'' on the previous question, Members will be voting to block 
critical homeland security resources. There is no way around that fact, 
so I urge Members not to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, protecting America's homeland should not be a bipartisan 
issue. I hope my Republican friends will join Democrats in opposing the 
previous question so we can strengthen our defenses here at home while 
we provide for our troops in the field.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey),

[[Page 8439]]

the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me personally. Thirty-four years 
ago today, I was sworn in as a new Member of this body. I was inspired 
by the idea that this institution was supposed to represent. This 
institution is supposed to be the people's House. This institution, 
more than any other, is supposed to reflect the public will. This 
institution has been known through the years as the greatest 
parliamentary body in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the rule that is bringing this crucial piece of 
legislation to the floor today represents a fundamental corruption of 
the democratic processes of this House and this country. I want to 
explain why.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a $70 billion bill to try to pay for the 
cost of a war which, it is hoped, will bring ``democracy'' to Iraq. 
Yet, democracy is being fundamentally denied on this House floor this 
morning.
  Now, we hear all of this meaningless blather about how this is an 
open rule and we can offer any amendment that is within the rules, but 
that obscures the truth. The truth is that this bill has been brought 
to the floor under a rule which allows this bill to avoid the rules of 
the House, and it does so in three fundamental ways. That enables the 
majority to bring a bill to the House floor which, among other things, 
will supplement the process by which our government intends to provide 
basic health care to 25 million Iraqis; our government plans to provide 
for the modernization of 6,000 schools in Iraq; and it plans to rebuild 
100 hospitals in Iraq.
  I begrudge the President none of that in his efforts to win the 
hearts and minds of that country. However, this rule blocks our effort 
to provide $2.5 billion in additional homeland security protection by 
protecting our ports, giving our first responders more assistance, and 
doing a variety of other things to keep this country safe from 
terrorist attack.
  The way it does that is that it allows the bill itself, brought by 
the Republican majority, to obliterate the normal rules of the House 
under which bills are considered; but then it requires us to abide by 
the very rules that the majority party ignores in constructing its 
bill.
  Members may call that democracy; I call it a sham. I call it a 
shameful sham. I do not for a moment understand why we are even having 
this disagreement. On a subject like homeland security there should be 
no ``Ds'' behind our name, there should be no ``Rs'' behind our name; 
there should only be an ``A'' after our name. In discussing a bill like 
this, we should not be Democrats or Republicans, we should be 
Americans.
  I would ask every Member of this House whether or not anything that 
we are trying to propose in this amendment is not worthy of support. We 
are being blocked today from funding a new program that would enable us 
to protect America from nuclear material loaded onto ships and brought 
into American ports. We are being denied the opportunity to install 
equipment in nine ports around the world so that for at least 50 
percent of the cargo which comes into this country we will know it does 
not have nuclear material which could cause the explosion of dirty 
bombs in our ports and harbors. We are being denied the right to try to 
fix that problem.
  We are being denied the right to offer additional funds to protect 
the security of our own nuclear material here at home. We are being 
denied funds to upgrade the quality of State labs so they can detect 
what we are hit with if we are hit by a chemical attack. We are being 
denied $108 million to protect Federal dams and waterways from 
terrorist attacks. We are being denied $75 million so that we can 
conduct vulnerability assessments for chemical plants in this country. 
We are being denied several hundred million dollars in additional help 
that we want to provide to our local first responders, our police, and 
our firemen.
  Additionally, we are being denied an effort to provide additional 
funds so that our Guard and Reserve forces can see to it that in every 
State in the Union we have backup units to help first responders 
respond to chemical and biological attacks. We are being denied the 
ability to put additional port security requirements into effect in 
Charleston, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Honolulu, San 
Francisco, Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, San Juan, and Wilmington in 
order to protect this country, again, from deadly material that is 
brought into our harbors. We are being denied many other things.
  So in my view, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace. We intend to 
vote against the previous question on the rule, and I would urge 
Members of the leadership of this House to recognize that on this, 
above all issues, we ought to be dealing with this in a bipartisan 
give-and-take manner so we can provide far more protection to each and 
every citizen of this country than we are providing to date.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to a 
legislative process which has allowed a critical wartime supplemental 
appropriation package to become a vehicle for billions of dollars in 
nonrelated war spending.
  As a veteran of both Vietnam and the Persian Gulf wars, I know all 
too well how imperative adequate funding is to the success of any 
modern military campaign. When I hear our President and the Secretary 
of Defense rally behind a package of funding for military, I do not 
flinch in offering my sincere and strong support, no matter how great 
that price may be. Our brave men and women in uniform are making great 
sacrifices in the deserts of the Middle East every day and they deserve 
our support and the funding to help them achieve their mission and a 
victory.
  However, when I learn of last-minute deals between Members of 
Congress and certain special interests which bog down this crucial 
defense spending package with non-war related gifts at the expense of 
my constituents' hard-earned tax dollars, I cannot help but question 
the entire process.
  Today the airline industry will get billions more dollars in Federal 
aid without a full debate on the financial problems still plaguing that 
critical industry, even after this Congress gave them over $15 billion 
in aid in 2001.
  Now, tourism in Nevada is the number one industry for us, and I work 
hard every day to see that certain economic reforms are enacted to 
benefit the hardworking Nevadans who rely on a healthy travel and 
tourism industry. However, I strongly disagree that an emergency 
supplemental spending package intended to fund our Nation's Armed 
Forces and provide necessary humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people 
suffering under Saddam Hussein's regime of tyranny is the proper 
vehicle for another Federal funding crutch for the airline industry 
without a full debate on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, while I will vote ``yes'' to support the overall bill, I 
want to register my strong opposition to the process which creates any 
delay in the expedient delivery of necessary funding to our Nation's 
brave servicemen and servicewomen fighting for freedom around the 
world.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
time to me, and I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern in this rule. That pattern is to gag 
approximately 140 million Americans, to not allow their Representatives 
to offer amendments which the majority has made in order for 
themselves, but not for the 140 million Americans represented by the 
minority.
  There appears to be no shame in that. It appears to be the arrogant 
exercise of pure political power. They can laugh if they will; but the 
American

[[Page 8440]]

public will, over time, recognize that half of America is being shut 
out.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seeks to offer an amendment. 
That amendment is to invest in homeland security, the safety of our 
cities, the safety of our ports, the safety of our railroads, the 
continuing safety of our airlines, and the safety of our neighborhoods.
  What this rule says is, we will have points of order. That is 
esoteric. What does that mean? The American public does not know. 
Essentially, what it means is we will allow ourselves, we Republicans 
who are in charge, the ability to offer an amendment like the gentleman 
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey).
  Now, somebody on the Committee on Rules is shaking their heads. It is 
their bill that I refer to. It is their bill that is not consistent 
with the rules. In the rule, they say it does not matter for them, they 
can exercise the power to jam it; but we will not give to Democrats the 
ability to offer an amendment to adequately fund the security of New 
York City; of Baltimore, Maryland; of each and every community in our 
country.
  I regret that. It is a bad rule, and I join the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in urging Members to vote against the previous 
question so that we can provide a rule which will allow for fair and 
full consideration, and let that proposal, if it is deemed by those in 
the majority not to be consistent with the security of the American 
public, vote against it; but at least have the courage, have the 
courage and good sense and consideration for the 140 million people 
represented by this side of the aisle to allow them to be heard. Allow 
them to have an amendment to be considered on this floor. That is 
democracy. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seeks.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill was reported out of 
the committee 59 to zero. I also wanted to make the point that between 
1999 and 2002, States and localities have been awarded over $492 
million in domestic preparedness funding.

                              {time}  1045

  And only a third of those funds have been used. And the gentleman 
mentioned Maryland and New York, and I would just like to say that 
Maryland was awarded $9.2 million and they still have $9.2 million that 
has not been spent. New York was awarded $25.7 million and there is 
still $25.7 million in the pipeline that has not been spent, so there 
is money there currently.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MYRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentlewoman's argument. It may be a good 
argument. Why does your rule not allow us to debate that on the floor?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that allows anybody to 
offer an amendment that is within the rules of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman's bill is not within the 
rules. The gentlewoman waived the rules.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a canard. The charge has 
been made by the Republicans for the last 3 days that there are $19 
billion in unspent homeland security funds. Let me tell you how they 
get to that ridiculous statement.
  They count all of the money that is proposed for that program for the 
next fiscal year. We have not even passed that bill out of the Congress 
yet. That is 34 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money. 
This supplemental contains another 10 percent. You cannot spend money 
in localities the Congress has not yet appropriated. That accounts for 
another 10 percent. Then the omnibus appropriations bill that was 
passed in February of this year, that accounts for the other 30 percent 
of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money. Only 2 weeks ago, the 
agency made available to States the ability to apply for that money. 
The application period has not even been closed. That leaves 26 percent 
left; and of that 26 percent left, only 4 percent has been unobligated. 
So let us keep the facts straight.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  The simple fact is the rule waives House rules for the majority's 
bill, but it does not allow for Democratic amendments, and what we are 
saying is that is unfair. It is just that simple.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate is as much about context as it is about 
content. It is as much about politics as it is about patriotism. In 
September 2002, I introduced a resolution calling on the President to 
transmit to Congress a comprehensive plan for the long-term cultural, 
economic, and political stabilization in a free Iraq. Now, 7 months 
later and only after the war has begun, has the President presented a 
war supplemental, albeit still missing a long-term plan and definite 
end to the conflict.
  Repeatedly when asked how long it expects United States forces to 
remain in Iraq, the administration has answered with a glib, ``Not one 
day longer than we have to.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, until the President can provide a plan on how this 
$78 billion, the largest supplemental in the history of our country, 
will be spent, my answer is ``Not one dollar more than I have to.''
  Now, I want to make it very clear, I along with 435 Members of this 
House of Representatives that can vote, support fully the troops. I 
supported them when I voted on March 21 for the resolution honoring 
them, and I will support them again today when I vote for this 
supplemental.
  I have a new resolution, H. Con. Res. 121, that supports our 
warfighters, contemplates the casualties, looks towards trying to avoid 
the circumstances of POWS and MIAs. And all of us support the troops. 
We are patriotic Americans, Democrat and Republican, liberal and 
conservative. But patriotism means stand by your country. It does not 
mean, as Theodore Roosevelt said, that you must stand by your 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand proudly and patriotically for the American 
values that cause every one of us to support our troops. But let me 
make it very clear, I do not stand nor am I required to stand by our 
President and the misguided policies entrenched in this supplemental. 
Republican fiscal irresponsibility of the last 2 years has sent the 
United States' economy into a downward spiral of unemployment and 
homelessness as the number of uneducated and uninsured increase every 
day.
  Today's supplemental, while funding in part the war and homeland 
security, does nothing to fix the majority of the emergencies facing 
this Nation.
  What pains me, Mr. Speaker, is that I have cities in my district--
Belle Glade, South Bay, and Pahokee--where the unemployment rate is 17 
percent and the poverty rate is 3 to 4 times greater than anywhere else 
in South Florida. congress can't find the money for rural development 
in the Glades, yet we have $2.5 billion to rebuild Iraq and another 
$5.5 billion in foreign assistance because the President's diplomatic 
efforts to shore up support for this war failed.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any speakers at 
this time?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any speakers at this time. I 
have somebody coming.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.

[[Page 8441]]

  Mr. Speaker, the issues of war in Iraq and homeland security are 
among the most important issues that Members of this House will ever 
have to deal with. They are incredibly important to our constituents 
and, indeed, have implications worldwide. It is vitally important that 
every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, freshman and 
committee chair, have an opportunity to be heard and have an 
opportunity to play a constructive and positive role in this process.
  It is of great frustration to me, for example, that we have not 
formally debated the war on Iraq since last October when Congress gave 
the President the authorization to go to war; this, notwithstanding the 
fact that American men and women are in harm's way and American 
citizens are paying for the war. I oppose the war and I still have 
great reservations about our policy, but the decision has been made and 
the brave men and women of our armed services are now in the field of 
battle. They deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our support. And 
whether you are for or against the war, these issues are too important 
not to be front and center in almost every discussion that we have in 
this Chamber.
  Today we are debating a supplemental appropriations bill to provide 
support for our troops, some money for reconstruction in Iraq, money 
for the airline industry, and some money for homeland security. Now, 
the majority trumpets that this is an open rule and everybody should be 
happy; but as you have heard, there is a hitch. Things that are 
important to the Republicans have received protections from points of 
order. All the Democratic amendments that were offered in the Committee 
on Rules last night were denied such protections.
  The ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), presented a very thoughtful and 
well-considered amendment to protect ports, provide additional funds to 
first responders and help our veterans. The priorities he outlined are 
priorities for all Americans. Yet he was denied the opportunity to 
offer his amendment in any meaningful way.
  Our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) had an amendment to 
increase funding for American families just as the supplemental bill 
increases funding for Iraqi families. He was not urging that we not 
invest in Iraq, only that we also invest in America as well. He argued 
that while the supplemental with regard to Iraq provides 13 million 
people access to basic health care services, one hospital in every 
major city, and maternity care for 100 percent of the population, the 
supplemental with regard to America provides not one new dollar for 42 
million working uninsured.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the types of things we should not only be 
discussing and debating, but voting on. And while the supplemental does 
include some welcome modest funding for first responders, I am sad to 
say that under this bill you are better off being a police officer in 
Bogota, Colombia than in Boylston, Massachusetts. Why? Because this 
bill gives more aid to Colombia than 49 States of the Union receive for 
first responders.
  In my city of Worcester, Massachusetts, 20 firefighters and 20 police 
officers are about to be laid off. So we can hold all the press 
conferences we want about how important homeland security is, and we 
can pose for all the pictures with our first responders, but it is 
clear our hometown security is being short-changed.
  I would say to the leadership on the other side of the aisle that 
this process should and can be much better. This bill should and can be 
much better. Because of your unwillingness to listen and debate and 
vote, it will not be.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, this rule is deceptive. It does not allow us 
to vote on important issues of homeland security. So I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against the previous question in order to allow this 
House to vote on important and critical homeland security protections 
for the American people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me time. I appreciate the time and a chance to 
speak this morning.
  It is now our duty to make sure that we finance the war that 
presently is waging in Iraq. Many of our young soldiers, men and women, 
they are facing dangers every day. We have to finance the military 
operations of these men and these women, but our duty to the soldiers 
extends beyond the duration of the war in Iraq. Our duty requires us to 
increase funding to the Veterans Administration for there are veterans 
in the making right this very moment; and for the current veterans, we 
have let them down.
  It is a terrible statistic to know that nationwide in the year 2002, 
almost 300,000 veterans were either placed on waiting lists or forced 
to wait for over 6 months in order to receive an appointment for 
necessary care. In New York State, 130,000 veterans could be denied the 
VA benefits or drop out of the system, including 30,000 veterans in 
western New York which I represent alone.
  Now, as we have cut the budget already for the Veterans 
Administration, as we already have 300,000 veterans a year waiting just 
to get an appointment, what will happen when the veterans from Iraq 
come home? What will we say to them? We really appreciate your service. 
It was wonderful of you to go. I am sorry we have no way to give you 
medical treatment. Take a number and wait your turn.
  We cannot as a Nation forget our obligation to these men and women 
and our promise always to care for them.
  The rule passed by the Committee on Rules prohibits any amendments to 
increase funding for the Veterans Administration. In addition to that, 
the war has also greatly increased the threat of terrorism here at 
home. Our cities and towns must be prepared to act immediately should 
we have another terrorist threat or act. And our local police officers, 
firefighters, public health officials, medical professionals, and 
volunteers will be the first to respond. But we have not included 
sufficient funding for the local governments, the States, and the first 
responders.
  The war has greatly increased the financial burden on local and State 
governments during a period of economic troubles when local and State 
governments are challenged by a budget crisis. It is our solemn duty to 
provide the financial support that these first responders require if we 
expect them to protect our constituents back home.
  It is shameful that first responders and local governments have to 
beg for funding. The bill provides some funds for first responders but 
they need so much more than this bill provides, and the rule bars any 
amendment to increase the funding to the first responders.
  Now, as I said, there is some money there, but not nearly enough to 
protect the ports that are critical to the United States' economy and 
to provide the necessary level of security in our borders. We must 
increase the funding of activities at our northern borders. Our friends 
in Canada are not the threat, Mr. Speaker.
  In summary, let me say that this rule leaves a great deal to be 
desired and certainly does not do very much for the people fighting 
this war today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Every once in a while you have to connect the dots around here or it 
gets a little confusing. Let us connect the dots right now.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants an amendment to add 
$2.5 billion for homeland security. The other side does not want to let 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) add $2.5 billion for homeland 
security.

                              {time}  1100

  Why is that? That is because the deficit goes up by another $2.5 
billion, and it becomes harder and harder to justify their tax cut for 
the rich. This is not very complicated. The dots are connected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page 8442]]

  I rise in opposition to this rule. While the Republicans will claim 
that this war supplemental is being offered on an open rule, meaning 
anyone may amend or improve the bill, parliamentary trickery proves 
this not to be the case at all. That is why I recommend a ``no'' vote 
on the rule so Democrats have an opportunity to offer an amendment to 
increase the homeland security portion of this war budget by $2.5 
billion.
  What are the Republicans afraid of? Voting against our domestic 
protection forces, our police and firefighters? Or maybe they stand 
quietly supportive of remarks of a prominent Republican Member of 
Congress, an appropriator, who said that the FDNY and the NYPD should 
work overtime for free. The rules of the House do not allow me to name 
the individual. Obviously he believes the loss of 23 police officers in 
New York City and 343 members of the FDNY was not sacrifice enough.
  Congress needs to support our first line of defense abroad, our 
military; and we cannot forget our first line of defense at home, our 
police and firefighters.
  Vote down this rule and allow for a vote on a real aid package to 
defend Americans right here in America.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding time to me.
  I cannot help but say to the House that later in the day I expect 
that I will have a lot of exchange with my very good friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I express my appreciation for the 
magnificent work that he and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
have done together regarding this bill.
  It is a war supplemental for the 2003 year. It is a process that will 
go forward today in a very, very positive way with both sides of the 
aisle expressing their support for our troops, both sides of the aisle 
responding I think positively to the need to make sure that funding 
goes forward effectively.
  I cannot help, however, as I sit and listen to this discussion 
regarding open rules to share with my colleagues a conversation I had a 
moment ago with my colleague, the chairman, who was not really wringing 
his hands but he was saying to me, ``I cannot help but remember a 
decade I spent in the minority in the Florida Senate. I cannot help but 
remember all the time I spent as a Member of the House.'' Some, not 
all, of 40 years in this House, but a very big hunk of time, when the 
other side controlled, the other side of the aisle. And indeed, they 
are constantly talking about open rules the way they saw them, and 
beauty does lie in the eyes of the genuflector around this place.
  I was reminded a moment ago of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) in a parade that she participates in regularly, I 
understand, and as she came down the roadway in that parade that day, 
one of our fine staffers over here happened to flash up a sign that 
said ``Louise, more open rules, please.''
  It is fascinating when one majority controls a place for more than 4 
decades, and indeed, now comes here to the floor and complains so 
rather effectively about our learning so much from them, during the 
years they controlled it with such an iron fist.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. My 
friend from California, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, who has overseen most of 
the very important work that is in this package, has really, I think, 
put it very well.
  I listen to the speeches from the other side of the aisle. This is a 
bipartisan measure that we are moving forward. We know that it passed 
by a vote of 59 to zero from the Committee on Appropriations. There is 
going to be strong support from both Democrats and Republicans in this 
House for this measure.
  I do not know how anyone can describe our stating that this is an 
open rule as chicanery, but we have to live with the rules of this 
House. Yes, the Committee on Rules does, in fact, have a job of 
providing waivers, and we have protected the bipartisan, and I keep 
hearing it described as the majority bill, the bipartisan 59 to zero 
package. We have, in fact, provided protection for that measure that 
has been reported from the Committee on Appropriations.
  Democrats and Republicans alike realize that it is very important for 
us to provide the $74.7 billion to pay for this war and all of the 
issues that are surrounding that, and I believe that the Committee on 
Appropriations has done a terrific job on this.
  I praise the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); I, of course, 
praise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I followed the markup as 
it proceeded in the Committee on Appropriations, and when the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) began talking about article 1, section 7 of 
the U.S. Constitution and the fact that we had the responsibility to 
make sure that the power of the purse lies right here, and he also 
talked about the issue of accountability, and I heard my friend the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in that markup talk about the fact 
that Democrats and Republicans alike, when they are down at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue want to do what they can to place more power in 
article 2, the executive branch, than in article 1, the first branch of 
government, the legislative branch, and I totally agree with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  We have seen that, and that is why I praise his work and the work of 
the full committee in ensuring that there will be a greater degree of 
accountability and that the administration does not get the blank check 
that some of them may have wanted. That is why I say that this bill, 
which we are going to proceed with when we pass this rule, is a 
bipartisan measure. Again, a 59 to zero vote.
  Say what you want, I really do not care what it is that they say, 
this is an open rule. I am going to say it again: this is an open rule. 
What it means is that members of the majority and members of the 
minority will have an equal opportunity to offer amendments that comply 
with the rules of the House.
  The only waiver protection that we provided, Mr. Speaker, was 
protection for the bipartisan 59 to zero, $74.7 billion supplemental 
appropriation bill that came forward; and after having provided 
protection for that unanimously passed package, we proceed with an open 
rule. That is why this is a very fair measure. It addresses so many 
important issues.
  One thing I am particularly pleased to have been able to play a role 
in, which I worked on right after September 11 as we looked at that 
supplemental, was to try and ensure that resources get to our first 
responders.
  Mr. Speaker, we know full well that throughout our Nation's history, 
when we have talked about men and women in uniform and international 
conflicts, they are men and women who are like those who are over, 
moving into Baghdad right now, men and women in the military, but the 
tragic thing that we found following September 11 is that men and women 
in uniform, who are firefighters and policemen and -women, those people 
are now on the front line in an international conflict because of the 
war on terrorism. We need to make sure that we provide resources 
directly to them, and we know that some States have made an attempt to 
keep some of those resources, and that is why the language in here, 
which requires within 45 days that 80 percent of those resources that 
are to get to the first responders will, in fact, go there; and I am 
pleased to have played a role in encouraging that, from my State of 
California, the State of New York, realizing that there are areas that 
are really of greater threat than others, and there needs to be a 
particular emphasis on homeland security in those areas that face the 
greatest risk and the greatest threat, and we need to get those 
resources to those first responders.

[[Page 8443]]

  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I believe is 
important to offer as a caution is the fact that because States and 
localities are dealing with fiscal crises, just as we are dealing with 
our fiscal challenges here in Washington, D.C., I find that many States 
will want to, under the rubric of homeland security, try to address 
basically every fiscal challenge that they have, and so that is why we 
again have the responsibility to, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) puts it so well, deal with the question of accountability as 
those resources do get out to ensure that we do not, under the name of 
homeland security, have Governors all over this country claiming that 
they should have a blank check from Washington, D.C.
  We have got, I believe, a very good bipartisan package here, Mr. 
Speaker. We have a challenge that does need to be addressed, and I hope 
very much we can move ahead. We can pass this open rule, this open 
rule, Mr. Speaker, and then move ahead with the important debate to 
which we will see many, many amendments offered that lots of our 
colleagues will have, and we will have a good exchange.
  I do want to mention one issue since I am here before I sit down and 
that is the question of Turkey, which I know will come up in the debate 
itself. Like every American, I was very disappointed when we found the 
challenge of dealing with Turkey when it came to the issue of 
stationing our 68,000 troops for a movement through the northern part 
of Iraq. I was saddened when I saw that vote of 261 to 254 in the 
Turkish parliament that refused to allow us to station our troops 
there.
  I do know this, Mr. Speaker. I had the chance a few months ago, along 
with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), to go and travel 
throughout Turkey. We met with then-Prime Minister Gul and talked with 
him about the challenge of our prospect of our going to war with Iraq. 
We met with men and women who are based at Incirlik, our air base in 
the southern part of Turkey; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have 
an alliance with Turkey which is very, very important to recognize.
  Prime Minister Gul was prime minister at that time. He had not been 
elected, but he was selected because due to some problems with 
something that the man who was elected, who is now prime minister, 
Prime Minister Erdogan, he was unable to be seated at that point. We 
also know that there was a huge turnover in the parliament; and for 
that reason, even though we have strong support from Prime Minister 
Gul, Prime Minister-now Erdogan, we unfortunately did not have the 
votes in the parliament.
  Why did we not have the votes in the parliament? Mr. Speaker, Turkey 
has suffered greatly going all the way back 12 years to the liberation 
of the war of Kuwait. They have suffered because of the economic 
sanctions and the inability to see the movement of goods and services 
across borders, a downturn there.
  We also found that, of course, because of the Kurdish population in 
the northern part of Iraq and also in Turkey, it has created a huge 
upheaval. Those domestic challenges led the parliament by that 261 to 
254 vote cast to make a decision to not allow us to station our troops 
there.
  Having said that, we know that Secretary of State Powell has been in 
Turkey over the last couple of days, and he has been in meetings; and 
we have just gotten word that has not yet been confirmed this morning 
that some equipment is moving from Turkey into our operation in 
northern Iraq.
  While I was disappointed at the decision that was made by the 
parliament, I do know that the leadership there, and I have met on 
several occasions with the Turkish ambassador here in the United States 
about this issue, and there has been a desire to try and establish a 
mechanism that would allow us to deal with our needs in Turkey.
  I know some are looking at the prospect of offering an amendment that 
would cut the assistance that is very important to Turkey. I believe 
that would be wrong, Mr. Speaker. We need to do what we can to help 
Turkey stabilize itself economically; and we need to realize again that 
they have been a very, very important ally, strongly supporting the 
interests of the United States of America around the world.
  I would implore my colleagues as we do move ahead to oppose any 
attempts that would bring about a reduction there.
  I will just say again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for her stellar leadership on the 
Committee on Rules, her leadership as chairman of the very important 
Republican Study Committee, and I will encourage Members to support her 
in her quest to pass this open rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, one of the sad side 
effects of this unfair rule is that we will not be able to consider the 
Obey amendment to provide additional money for homeland security, and 
specifically, we will not be allowed to consider additional money for 
the protection of our sea ports of this Nation.

                              {time}  1115

  According to the CIA, it is more likely for a terrorist to sneak 
nuclear material into our ports than for a missile to reach our shores.
  According to the prestigious task force headed by Senators Rudman and 
Hart, port security is a critical mandate which needs adequate funding.
  And according to Steve Flynn, a highly respected security expert at 
the Council on Foreign Relations, an explosion from nuclear material 
smuggled into any American port would not only inflict devastating 
casualties, it would bring America to a grinding halt. Our economy 
would simply shut down.
  We cannot check every container that comes to our ports every day, 
but there is much more that we can do. The Obey amendment would have 
allowed us to start to put in place security provisions overseas before 
the containers come to the United States, before they present a risk to 
our citizens, before they present a risk to our economy, before they 
present a risk to our national security. But we will not be allowed to 
consider that amendment because this closed rule would not allow a 
Democratic debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to oppose the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule. The amendment will allow Members an opportunity to vote on the 
Obey homeland security amendment. Yesterday, Republicans on the 
Committee on Rules blocked this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides desperately needed funding for 
the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our 
national security. The amendment would add $2.5 billion, an increase of 
about 3 percent to the bill. The money would be used for port security, 
for Coast Guard activities, for infrastructure security, for water and 
chemical plant security, and for rail tunnel security. It provides 
funding for State and local response activities, including civil 
defense, first responders, firefighters and military Guard and 
Reserves. It also addresses one of our gravest security risks, nuclear 
security.
  My colleagues may remember that the President not only requested no 
funds for nuclear security but rejected legislation in August of 2002 
that would have provided $260 million for that purpose. It is very 
disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House would deny 
Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to protect this Nation 
from the risk of terrorism. This should not be a partisan issue, but 
they have made it that way.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to 
vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from 
voting on the

[[Page 8444]]

wartime supplemental, but it will allow us to vote to protect our 
Nation and our citizens here and abroad. A ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question will block critical homeland security resources.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the unfair 
rule for the FY-03 Supplemental Appropriations bill because it blocks 
members on my side from offering the Democratic Homeland Security 
Amendment to add $2.5 billion in needed, additional investments in 
homeland security to the supplemental bill.
   Mr. Speaker, about half of the funds in the Democratic Homeland 
Security amendment go to improving first response. This includes $300 
million in additional funding for First Responders Grants. These funds 
would be used to pay for such important needs as training for police 
officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel, as well as 
purchasing protective gear. The Democratic amendment also includes $197 
million to protect military facilities; $241 million for nuclear 
security; and $722 million for port and infrastructure security.
  As a member of the Select Homeland Committee on Homeland Security, I 
am keenly aware of the deficiencies that exist in funding for First 
Responders. Indeed, the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors a week ago 
released a report which showed that cities would have to pay more than 
$21.4 million per week in additional security costs to close the $2 
billion over 6 months during the increased security alert status 
brought on by the war with Iraq.
  In my own area, the Virgin Islands, the local government frankly 
can't afford to contribute any additional dollars to strengthen our 
security because local economy continues to spiral downward. Moreover, 
we have additional needs in port security defense, as well as training 
and equipment for our police and firefighters.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this unfair rule and give our local 
communities a chance to receive the first responder funding that they 
badly need.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of 
the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to 
the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The material previously referred to is as follows:

    Previous Question Statement H.Res. 172--Rule for H.R. 1559 FY03 
                 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1559) making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution, which 
     may be offered only by Representative Obey or his designee, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendment are waived. During consideration of the bill 
     for further amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:
       In chapter 1 of title I, insert at the end the following:

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For additional amount for ``Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service'', $13,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for activities authorized under section 332 of the Public 
     Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 
     2002 (Pub. L. 107-188).

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $17,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND 
     MAINTENANCE'', in the item replating to ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army National Guard'' insert after the dollar 
     amount the following: ``(increased by $160,200,000)''.
       In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND 
     MAINTENANCE'', insert at the end the following:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $66,000,000.
       In title I, after chapter 3, insert the following new 
     chapter:

                               CHAPTER 3A

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps Of Engineers--Civil

                  Operations and Maintenance, General

       For an additional amount for ``Operations and Maintenance, 
     General'' for safeguards and security activities, 
     $108,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      water and related resources

       For an additional amount for ``Water and Related 
     Resources'' for safeguards and security activities, 
     $24,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                                Science

       For an additional amount for ``Science'' to support 
     additional safeguards and security activities, $7,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' to 
     support additional safeguards and security activities, 
     $68,200,000, to remain available until expended.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'' for various domestic and international 
     nonproliferation activities, $175,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Environmental 
     Restoration and Waste Management'' to support additional 
     safeguards and security activities, $11,300,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Other Defense Activities'' 
     to support increased Office of Intelligence mission 
     requirements resulting from the conflict in Iraq, $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

      International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting

       Sec. 1351. (a) Definition.--As used in this section, 
     ``sensitive material'' means nuclear weapons or components 
     thereof, nuclear materials, radioactive materials, and 
     related technology and sources that pose a risk of 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
       (b) International Materials, Protection, Control, and 
     Accounting Program.--The Secretary of Energy may expand the 
     International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting 
     program outside the Russian Federation, and the independent 
     states of the former Soviet Union. The program may include, 
     but is not limited to, assisting countries to--
       (1) reduce the risk of theft of sensitive material or of 
     diversion of sensitive material to terrorists or terrorist 
     organizations;
       (2) store securely sensitive material;
       (3) establish procedures, such as inspections, audits, and 
     systematic background checks, to improve the security of the 
     use, transportation, and storage of sensitive material; and
       (4) improve their domestic export control and border 
     security programs for sensitive material.
       (c) Applicability.--This section shall only apply with 
     respect to amounts appropriated by this Act and any previous 
     appropriations Act enacted before the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       In title I, after chapter 4, insert the following new 
     chapter:

[[Page 8445]]



                               Chapter 4A

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         National Park Service

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $18,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                        Departmental Management

                         Salaries and expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     extraordinary costs to provide for the security of 
     departmental facilities: Provided, That the Secretary of the 
     Interior may transfer such funds to other accounts of the 
     Department of the Interior, as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, for use by the agencies or bureaus of the 
     Department to offset such homeland security costs.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND 
     TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', in the item relating to ``Office 
     for Domestic Preparedness'', insert after the first and 
     second dollar amounts the following: ``(increased by 
     $300,000,000)''.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND 
     TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', insert at the end the following:

                     Firefighter Assistance Grants

       For an additional amount for ``Firefighter Assistance 
     Grants'' for programs as authorized by section 33 of the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), $150,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003.

              Emergency Management Planning and Assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management 
     Planning and Assistance'' for grants for interoperable 
     communications equipment, $350,000,000, to remain available 
     until December 31, 2003.

                Transportation Security, Administration

                       maritime and land security

       For an additional amount for ``Maritime and Land 
     Security'', $250,000,000, for making port security grants to 
     be distributed under the same term and conditions as provided 
     for under Public Law 107-117, to remain until December 31, 
     2003.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``Coast Guard'', 
     in the item relating to ``Operating Expenses'', insert after 
     the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $100,000,000)''.
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``COAST GUARD'', 
     insert at the end the following:

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements'', $90,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003.
       In chapter 6 of title I, in the item relating to ``Public 
     Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', insert at the 
     end the following:
       For an additional amount for ``Public Health and Social 
     Services Emergency Fund'', for the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, to be used to improve Federal, State, 
     and local preparedness against potential chemical terrorism, 
     $75,000,000.
       In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY 
     CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military 
     Construction, Navy'', insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $92,579,300)''.
       In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY 
     CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military 
     Construction, Air Force'', insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $28,160,000)''.
       In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY 
     CONSTRUCTION'', insert at the end the following:

                      Military Construction, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Army'', $65,340,000, to remain available until expended.

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air 
     National Guard'', $8,800,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Army 
     Reserve'', $2,200,000, to remain available until expended.
       In the Transportation and Treasury chapter of title I, 
     insert after the chapter heading the following:

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    federal railroad administration

                National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       For necessary life/safety capital improvements of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24101(a), $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert after the heading 
     for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'' the following:

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              medical care

       For an additional amount for ``Medical Care'', for 
     enhancement of emergency preparedness, $70,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2004.
       In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert at the end the 
     following:

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Environmental Protection Agency

                         science and technology

       For an additional amount for ``Science and Technology,'' 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $25,000,000 is for water systems vulnerability analysis and 
     $75,000,000 is for chemical plant vulnerability assessments.

                     hazardous substances superfund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Hazardous Substances 
     Superfund'', $75,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for carrying out homeland security activities authorized by 
     law related to the agency's counter-terrorism programs 
     including radiological, biological, and chemical attacks: 
     Provided, That these activities include, but are not limited 
     to, (1) support of State and local responders to plan for 
     emergencies, (2) coordination with federal partners, (3) 
     training of first responders, and (4) providing resources 
     including federal personnel in the event of any attack: 
     Provided further, That the Administrator may transfer such 
     portion of these funds as she deems appropriate to other 
     agencies of the Federal government with expertise in 
     radiological, biological, and chemical attack related 
     counter-terrorism programs: Provided further, That the 
     Administrator is authorized to make grants to states for 
     radiological, biological, and chemical attack related to 
     counter-terrorism.
                                  ____

       Democrats are strongly urged to vote ``no'' on the Previous 
     Question on the Rule to allow the consideration of the Obey 
     Amendment that would increase funding by $2.5 billion to 
     Homeland Security programs.
       These increases would include: $197 million to protect 
     military facilities; $241 million for nuclear security 
     (nuclear cargo detection, nuclear detection equipment, 
     securing nuclear materials abroad and in the U.S.); $722 
     million for port and infrastructure security (Coast Guard 
     personnel, port security grants, dams and bridge security, 
     water and chemical plant security, rail tunnel security); and 
     $1.2 billion for state and local first responders (state and 
     local civil defense teams, first responder equipment, 
     firefighter grants, state and local bio-chemical response, 
     military guard and reserves).
       Office of the Democratic Whip--Steny H. Hoyer

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 103]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson

[[Page 8446]]


     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ballance
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Jones (NC)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Rangel
     Sweeney
     Walden (OR)
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake) (during the vote). The Chair 
reminds Members that there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1137

  Mr. ALEXANDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WALSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________