Congressional Record: May 22, 2002 (House)
Page H2891-H2902
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST
ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 428 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 428
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. 4775) making supplemental appropriations for
further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on
the United States for the fiscal year
[[Page H2892]]
ending September 30, 2002, 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. The amendments printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived except as
follows: page 4, lines 18 through 23; page 57, line 6,
through page 58, line 22; page 92, lines 3 through 5. 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. During consideration of the bill, points of order
against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of
rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
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. (a) Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2003, the provisions of House
Concurrent Resolution 353, as adopted by the House, shall
have force and effect in the House as though Congress has
adopted such concurrent resolution.
(b) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
submit for printing in the Congressional Record--
(1) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which shall be considered
to be such allocations under a concurrent resolution on the
budget;
(2) "Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations,"
which shall be considered to be the programs, projects,
activities, or accounts referred to section 301(b) of House
Concurrent Resolution 353; and
(3) an estimated unified surplus, which shall be considered
to be the estimated unified surplus set forth in the report
of the Committee on the Budget accompanying House Concurrent
Resolution 353 referred to in section 211 of such concurrent
resolution.
(c) The allocation referred to in section 231(d) of House
Concurrent Resolution 353 shall be considered to be the
corresponding allocation among those submitted by the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget under subsection
(b)(1).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is an open rule that provides
for consideration of H.R. 4775, the Supplemental Appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2002. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate,
and it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
Additionally, amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report shall
be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the
Whole.
This rule also contains a very important deeming provision as we move
into the appropriations season, and it is important that we address
this. Upon passage of this resolution, the rule provides that House
Concurrent Resolution 353, as adopted by the House, shall have force
and effect as though adopted by Congress. Finally, the rule provides
for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This wartime supplemental
comes 8 months after the September 11 attacks against our Nation. While
Americans have begun the process of healing and recovery, we must be
mindful of the threats that continue to face our Nation. The alerts and
intelligence reports that we receive are constant reminders that the
war against terrorism is far from over.
After last September, America responded by fortifying our homeland
and launching an aggressive global war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, this
wartime supplemental is absolutely critical to our continued ability to
fight and win this war.
There are a number of important provisions in this bill, but none
more important than the funds that will go towards helping America win
this war on terrorism, both abroad and at home. The bill provides
$15.77 billion for the Department of Defense. This money will go
towards ongoing military operation costs, personnel costs, and costs
associated with forced mobilization. Fighting the war is expensive, and
this effort is no exception. However, I believe that the American
people are united in their support for making sure that our military
has the necessary resources to carry out its mission of insuring our
national security. In short, we need to help our President to make sure
that our military and the men and women who are dealing not only in law
enforcement, but also our military, have the necessary elements to win.
Mr. Speaker, with the frequent announcement of possible terrorist
attacks, many Americans are dealing with a sense of fear about our
future. I want to emphasize that this bill addresses this uncertainty
about the future and will hopefully help to instill confidence in
people.
Priorities and funding have been given to allow our intelligence
operations to track, analyze, and prosecute global terrorist threats
against the United States and our allies. With the $1.5 billion
included in the supplemental, intelligence funding has increased to
record levels since September 11. This bill also provides funds to
improve the Federal Bureau of Investigation's technology systems. These
additional funds will enhance the FBI's overall counterterrorism and
intelligence processing capabilities, allowing for better electronic
sharing of information between Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies.
In addition to protecting our national security, this wartime
supplemental also provides funds to help secure our homeland.
One area of particular attention since September 11 has been
Immigration and Naturalization, the INS Service, and its operations. In
March 2002, the INS mailed a letter to a Florida flight school
informing them that Mohammed Atta and another hijacker had been
approved for student visas. Needless to say, many still-shaken
Americans were very concerned when this news came out.
The supplemental builds on what Congress has already done to address
this issue, and provides additional money to the INS to help them
better account for individuals who have committed immigration
violations and who have not followed orders to leave this country.
Since last September, a number of changes have been implemented to
improve safety at our airports. For those of us who fly frequently,
these changes can take some getting used to. I must confess that I too
have been pulled out of the line and searched from head to toe on more
than one occasion.
However, these safety changes are necessary to restore confidence in
our airlines. Americans should be further assured because this bill
provides additional funds for checking baggage, explosive inspection
systems, as well as baggage screening and security enhancement at
United States commercial ports. Other initiatives targeted at improving
our homeland security include funds for secure transportation of
nuclear weapons and materials, as well as money for the increased
security at nuclear weapons facilities.
After the September 11 attacks, this Congress acted with expediency
to pass a $40 billion emergency supplemental for recovery and to fight
the war on terror. Today, we build upon our past efforts and continue
to remember those who lost their lives in New York, Pennsylvania, and
here in Washington, D.C. As our President has committed, and I quote
our President, "We will direct every resource at our command, every
means of diplomacy, every instrument of law enforcement, every
financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war to the
destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network."
This shared commitment means that we will continue to provide and
fund whatever is necessary to winning the war on terrorism.
Yet this bill also advocates for fiscal discipline and restraint in
other areas. On March 20 of this year, the House passed its budget
resolution, H. Con.
[[Page H2893]]
Res. 353. However, the absence of a budget resolution conference report
makes it necessary for us to consider language that would deem the
House-passed budget resolution to be a conference report. In effect,
this language would bind the House to the spending and revenue levels
established in the budget resolution, and the corresponding 302(a)
allocations, and any related rulemaking provisions.
This language is necessary both to establish parameters on
discretionary spending and to implement such mandatory initiatives
accommodated in the budget resolution such as a prescription drug
benefit under Medicare, concurrent receipt of military retirement and
veterans disability benefits, and a new tax benefit for charitable
giving.
I want to take a minute to remind my colleagues that this House-
passed budget was a carefully crafted bill that balanced our priorities
of winning the war and securing our economic and personal security.
From providing the largest increase in 20 years to the national defense
to growing our economy and paying down the debt, this wartime budget
makes America safer, the economy stronger, and secures the future for
every single American.
I am pleased that the measure that is before us today recognizes the
critical needs associated with our continued war effort, while
maintaining our commitment to fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues
to support this open rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week, congressional Republicans were caught using a
September 11 Presidential photo as a fund-raising prop for their
political campaigns. It was a particularly shameless sparing of
political war profiteering, one that did an immense disservice to the
President, as well as to the country. Unfortunately, Republican leaders
have not learned their lesson, and they are trying to do it again today
by confusing the public with this rule.
So let me speak very plainly about the question posed by the vote on
the rule today. If we want to increase America's national debt and
write a blank check to keep raiding the Social Security trust fund,
then vote "yes" on this rule. If, on the other hand, we believe we
should be honest with the American people and sit down together to work
out a bipartisan plan to stop raiding Social Security, then vote "no"
on this rule. That will force the Republican leaders to stop playing
politics with the war, and then we can overwhelmingly pass a bipartisan
emergency spending bill crafted by the Committee on Appropriations.
Under this rule, the Republican leadership attempts to sneak through
a provision paving the way for raising the debt ceiling, without a
straight up-or-down vote on the issue. They are attempting to shield
their weak-kneed Members from having to vote on putting us deep in
debt. They want to put billions of dollars on the national credit card,
without each putting the credit card through the credit card reader.
They do not want a telltale receipt for their spending spree.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Appropriations has
written a good bill that reflects our bipartisan support for national
defense and homeland security. It is true that many Democrats believe
we should do a lot more for homeland security, but the bill does
provide substantial resources for priorities like safeguarding nuclear
facilities in airports. Additionally, it provides more than the
President requested for the Department of Defense, most of it for
Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Committee on Appropriations has
provided $200 million for antiterrorism aid to Israel in its time of
need.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, deserve credit for
their good work. Unfortunately, the Republican leaders do not hold in
high regard such work, so they have overruled the Committee on
Appropriations chairman and have crafted a rule that shatters the
spirit of bipartisanship and the underlying bill. It is a rule that
uses the war on terrorism as cover to take care of as many Republican
political problems as they can think of.
For example, last year some Republican Members were criticized at
home for siding with the Republican leadership on the fast track trade
authority bill, despite the fact that it was harmful to people in their
districts. So today, the Republican leadership is using this rule to
provide them a textile provision that they can claim is their reward.
Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. A couple of Republican Members
would benefit from a provision in the rule that would increase Medicare
reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in their particular
districts. That might be a good thing, but it would cost doctors and
hospitals in every other district in the country. In other words, it
helps only a very small fraction of the country and does it at the
expense of everyone else. So it requires careful consideration in the
light of day, not a procedural trick on a wartime appropriations bill.
As I explained at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, the most important
issues hidden in this bill are Social Security and the national debt.
The economic plan Republicans passed last year created massive, long-
term deficits that threatened Social Security; and now, not even 18
months after President Bush inherited historic budget surpluses, this
administration says the Federal Government has to borrow hundreds of
billions of dollars more and put our children deeper into debt.
Democrats have repeatedly tried to sit down with the Republicans to
work out a bipartisan solution to this threat to Social Security.
Instead, just last night, in the Committee on Rules, four of the most
fiscally conservative Members of the House, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), offered yet another approach to restore fiscal responsibility,
but were denied by the Republican leadership.
That is because the Republican leadership is deathly afraid that
Americans will notice how much of the Social Security trust fund they
are squandering under the programs. After all, the key to the secret
Republican plan to privatize Social Security is to keep it sacred until
after the elections. So instead of allowing a vote on the Bush
administration's request to go deeper into debt, Republican leaders
have hidden in this rule legislative language that will allow them to
do it in the secrecy of a conference committee without a straight up-
or-down vote on the floor of the House.
{time} 1645
This is just plain dishonest, Mr. Speaker. But it makes the vote on
the rule very simple, because it means that Republican leaders have
made the vote on this rule a vote to increase America's national debts
and keep raiding Social Security.
So if Members believe that the American people deserve an open debate
and a straight up-or-down vote on the future of Social Security, vote
against the rule. Then we can give the underlying supplemental
appropriations bill the overwhelming bipartisan vote it deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest parts about the rule that we are
doing here today, is it is an open rule. We can stand up on the floor
of the House and talk about whatever we want to talk about. We are not
trying to sneak anything through. We are doing it right out in the
open.
The light of day will be the best disinfectant, and that is why this
debate is so powerful, because the truth can be told. We are going to
tell the truth about this supplemental, because it is all about helping
the United States and our military and men and women who are in law
enforcement get the money that they need to keep this country going,
and to make sure that we win this war. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mobile, Alabama
(Mr. Callahan).
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
[[Page H2894]]
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is a great
American, especially since he knew in advance that I was rising in
opposition for the first time in my 18 years in Congress against a
Republican rule before this House.
I do it out of principle and I do it in all good faith, not to be
critical of the Committee on Rules, not to be critical of their goals,
but to express some concerns that I have that I think are very
important, and that is aid to Israel.
For Israel in this bill, suddenly, in the middle of the night, in the
Committee on Appropriations, without any encouragement from Prime
Minister Sharon, without any encouragement from Chairman Arafat, within
the Beltway some decided that we ought to give Israel $200 million in
economic support, and give Mr. Arafat's area $50 million in economic
support.
But to bring some history to the House, to ask Members to reflect
back to 1997 when Prime Minister Netanyahu came before this very body,
stood right in front of the Speaker and told this body that it was time
for Israel to wean themselves of American economic support because
their economy was better than ours. When Mr. Netanyahu said that, I
immediately arranged a trip. I sat down with Mr. Netanyahu. I sat down
with him, just the 2 of us. We worked out a process to wean Israel of
all economic support, because they said it was no longer needed.
Along with that, at the same time we were giving Mr. Mubarak in Egypt
a proportional sum of money. Two-thirds of whatever Israel got, Egypt
got; not necessarily good foreign policy, but that was the policy that
has been in effect since Camp David.
So I went to Cairo and I talked to President Mubarak, and he, too,
agreed that Egypt would be reduced, just as Israel was, provided that
Israel did not come in the back door and try to bump up their economic
support without considering Egypt.
So I went before the Committee on Rules and asked for an opportunity
to present this amendment to this body, on this bill, to give the
proportional amount of money to Egypt, but I was for some reason
denied.
But at the same time, some of the other areas Members of Congress
wanted to be considered, such as the wage indexing problem in
Pennsylvania with respect to Medicare reimbursement. It is also a
problem in another 30 States. Yet, somehow or another, in this bill a
self-executing rule says that Pennsylvania's problems will be resolved,
but no other State will be resolved, so we will be left out in the cold
on the indexing of Medicare payments to hospitals in the State of
Alabama. Why they would give them that and not give me this simple
opportunity to present an amendment for an up-or-down vote is beyond
comprehension.
I also am upset about the deeming resolution, an unnecessary
provision that is placed in this bill for the first time that I can
ever recollect since the Republicans have been in charge, an
unnecessary provision that is going to cause havoc and chaos as we go
through the appropriation process in the next several months.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, I think I am going to
have to vote against this rule. I am not lobbying people to vote
against it, but I am just expressing my own consternation, my own
fears, my own principles.
I am going to offer amendments as we go through the bill to strike
all of the aid to Israel that was included here without any request
from Israel, without any request from the administration, without any
requests from anybody. But someone within this beltway decided since we
were going to have a supplemental bill, they were going to get some
pork in it for Israel.
It is wrong to do that in this bill at this time. We will have a
foreign operations bill on this floor in the next couple of weeks. That
would be the appropriate time to address any economic support increase
for Israel, not in an emergency supplemental bill. It was not included
in the President's request, and it was not even requested by the
government of Israel. It is the wrong thing to be doing.
Many Members know in their hearts that I am right, but they feel
politically they cannot vote for it. I know in my heart that I am not
going to win my amendments, but I am going to give people an
opportunity to at least vote to see whether or not we ought to be
doling out foreign aid in this emergency supplemental bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, we all come here individually as politicians, and as we
are assigned committees, as we develop expertise on substance, we
become legislators, rather than mere politicians.
On the Committee on Appropriations, I think it is safe to say that we
can take people with the most extreme ideological differences, and if
we send them out in the field to examine a problem, when they come back
to this Chamber, 8 times out of 10 they will probably have the same
ideas about how to deal with the problem. That is what happens in a
legislative body when we have the normal course of give-and-take and
the normal willingness to compromise.
That is not just true of the Committee on Appropriations; it is
supposed to happen on every other committee in the Congress. That is
what is supposed to turn us into what we have been called when we have
been called "the greatest legislative, deliberative body in the
world."
But we have fallen a far, far pace from that on this bill. At least 6
times on major legislation, on patients' protection, the energy bill,
the Airline Security Act, the Patriot Act, the pension reform, and
welfare-to-work, each time, rather than running these bills through the
committee process and accepting the committee result, we have seen the
majority party leadership instead dictate a different result and
dictate that a different package be brought to the floor. We are seeing
the same thing here.
We had a bipartisan bill which was the product of 6 weeks of hard
work between the 2 parties on the Committee on Appropriations. Then
when the committee went into full committee, a number of amendments
were adopted. Some of them I did not like, but with the exception of
the DeLay amendment, which gave the President the authority to engage
in a military attack on The Netherlands, I basically had no real
problem with what the committee did.
But then it went to the Committee on Rules, and the instructions came
down from on high that a number of extraneous items should be added to
the bill. The first was that the House would deem that the budget
resolution brought out by the Committee on the Budget months ago would
be deemed now in effect.
That produces for discretionary funding in the next fiscal year a
level $10 billion below the level being spent this fiscal year.
In the end, any knowledgeable Member of this House on either side of
the aisle, and most especially knowledgeable Members on the Committee
on Appropriations, understands that that is not deliverable.
I do not believe that we will find a majority of votes on either side
of the aisle for the education bill, for instance, that would be
produced as a result of those limitations because I do not believe
either party is going to cut President Bush's education budget. But
that is what it requires.
But the biggest outrage of all is this: We have in this rule a
proposition which will allow seemingly innocuous language to be added,
which is really the door-opener in order to raise the national debt,
the limit on the national indebtedness, the limit on the Nation's
credit card, by $750 billion.
The plan is to have the Senate insert increased debt, and then have
it come back here wrapped in a package so that no Member ever has to
actually vote on that freestanding item. Yet they will force an
increase in the Nation's credit card debt.
{time} 1700
And this proposition is being brought to us by a lot of the same
people for the last year that have been parading all over this floor,
talking about how they were going to support a constitutional
amendment. This is a copy of H.J. Res. 86. There are 110 Republican
sponsors on this resolution to require that not a dime of additional
debt could be added without having a three-
[[Page H2895]]
fifths vote of this House. Yet today this would facilitate raising the
debt without individual Members having to stand up and take the heat
for that vote. And if you take a look at the people who are listed on
it, I would ask all of them how they can justify putting their names on
this resolution and telling their constituents that they are against
raising the debt without a full firm vote on it and then engaging in
this sleight of hand.
This resolution is sponsored by people like the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); the gentlewoman
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan),
my own State; and a variety of others. I would ask each and every one
of them, how can you justify going to your constituents and saying you
are going pass this constitutional amendment and then you flip-flop and
come back here and do this?
I do not think this process does a credit to the House, and I do not
think it is a real process. I think it delays delivering money to the
Pentagon that we need to get to the Pentagon in order to reimburse them
for the costs of the war.
This day, if we proceed to pass this rule, will not go down as one of
the glory days in the history of the House.
Bill Summary and Status for the 107th Congress
COSPONSORS, ALPHABETICAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bachus, Spencer Akin, W. Todd
Barr, Bob Baker, Richard H.
Barton, Joe Bartlett, Roscoe G.
Bilirakis, Michael Bass, Charles F.
Blunt, Roy
Bono, Mary Boehner, John A.
Brady, Kevin Boozman, John
Bryant, Ed Brown, Henry E., Jr.
Calvert, Ken Burton, Dan
Cantor, Eric Cannon, Chris
Chabot, Steve Castle, Michael N.
Combest, Larry Chambliss, Saxby
Crane, Philip M.
Culberson, John Abney Crenshaw, Ander
Davis, Jo Ann Deal, Nathan
Dunn, Jennifer DeMint, Jim
English, Phil Duncan, John J., Jr.
Forbes, J. Randy
Gekas, George W. Fletcher, Ernest L.
Goodlatte, Bob Ganske, Greg
Graves, Sam Graham, Lindsey O.
Gutknecht, Gil
Hart, Melissa A. Hansen, James V.
Hayworth, J.D. Hastings, Doc
Herger, Wally Hefley, Joel
Hoekstra, Peter Hilleary, Van
Isakson, Johnny Horn, Stephen
Jenkins, William L. Issa, Darrell E.
Johnson, Sam
Keller, Ric Jones, Walter B., Jr.
Kerns, Brian D. Kennedy Mark R.
Kirk, Mark Steven LaTourette, Steve C.
Lewis, Ron Linder, John
Lucas, Frank D. Manzullo, Donald A.
McCrey, Jim McKeon, Howard P. (Buck)
Myrick, Sue Miller, Jeff
Nussle, Jim Norwood, Charlie
Ose, Doug Osborne, Tom
Pence, Mike Otter, C. L. (Butch)
Pitts, Joseph R. Platts, Todd Russell
Pombo, Richard W. Pryce, Deborah
Radanovich, George P. Rohrabacher, Dana
Rehberg, Dennis R. Ryan, Paul
Royce, Edward R. Schaffer, Bob
Ryun, Jim Sessions, Pete
Schrock, Edward L. Shuster, Bill
Shimkus, John Simpson, Michael K.
Simmons, Rob
Stearns, Cliff Terry, Lee
Sullivan, John R. Tiberi, Patrick J.
Tancredo, Thomas G. Walden, Greg
Thune, John R. Weller, Jerry
Toomey, Patrick J. Wilson, Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from San Dimas, California, (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and
I congratulate him on his management of this rule.
This is obviously a great challenge. It is important to note that
this rule is for consideration of a wartime supplemental appropriations
bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) described this before our
Republican conference yesterday very appropriately as a wartime
supplemental appropriations bill.
What has happened in the last 24 hours? We have seen an increased
threat of terrorism. We have seen instability in a wide range of areas
in the world; and this administration is, I believe, doing the best job
possible to deal with this. The President months ago asked for a
supplemental appropriations bill that would provide Israel with the
resources necessary.
Now, a number of people who have been speaking against this have
talked about some other issues. Let us remember, 99 percent, Mr.
Speaker, of this legislation deals with supplemental appropriations for
our war efforts. Now, we have heard talk about what some have said is
an unprecedented use of the deeming process. Well, my Democratic
colleagues had something known as the Gephardt amendment which
regularly deemed an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. We, in the
past several years, have had three occasions, had a deeming of the
budget, of parts of the budget before. So I think it is very important
to note that this is a very challenging time.
We are dealing with a situation which will begin here and then move
to a joint House/Senate conference. My friend, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), raised the issue of Egypt. We know that this
administration is determined to do everything that it possibly can to
bring about peace and stability in the Middle East. It is a challenge.
Administrations in the past have tried and failed. But we know under
the stellar leadership of President Bush, Vice President Chaney, the
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice and Colin Powell and Donald
Rumsfeld, that we have a wonderful team working on this. That is why I
believe it is important for us to provide the support the
administration wants. And, yes, he is right that the administration did
not make the additional request for aid to Israel, but there is no
indication that the President would not be supportive of what is taking
place here, because we clearly stand by our ally, the State of Israel,
the one democratically elected government in the region.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe we need to realize
that our number one priority is to win the war on terrorism. And to do
that, as the President and others have said, we have to have the
resources necessary to win that war. And that is why every Member of
this House should vote in favor of this rule and in favor of the
supplemental appropriations bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). If we
really wanted to help the war effort, strip all this extraneous
nonsense out of the bill, strip all of these baubles that they are
trying to use to buy votes on the other side on Medicare and trade and
all this other stuff and just do a supplemental that provides the money
to fight the war. That is all you need to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) said is that we are at war and the Committee on Rules has now
usurped all the responsibilities of the standing committee. It really
makes no difference what the Committee on Appropriations wants to do,
what the Committee on International Relations wants to do, the
Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Ways and Means. The President
of the United States and the chairman of the Committee on Rules, they
will decide what is the best for this great country and for the
Congress.
Imagine that in this appropriation we have issues that we hold sacred
in the Committee on Ways and Means. That is the budget ceiling where we
debate among each other as to what it is going to be. But instead of
just coming out and saying that the Committee on Rules has decided that
we have got to raise the debt ceiling, instead of doing that, what do
you put in here?
Again, you wave the flag and say that the Committee on Rules has
dictated that the Government of the United States will take all steps
necessary to guarantee the full faith and credit of the government.
Is this gobbledygook? Is this patriotism or is this stealing the
jurisdiction of another committee? What you mean to say is we will find
some sneaky way to get the debt ceiling increase by passing a nothing
rule over here and allowing the Senate to take our jurisdiction and to
bring it back, wrap it up in the flag and dare someone during wartime
to vote against it.
What is the next thing he is going to do? Oh, the Committee on Rules
now knows how to handle Medicare. Not the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, not the Committee on Ways and Means, not the House. What you
have decided is there are certain hospitals in
[[Page H2896]]
Republican districts that are in trouble, and you are going to give
them assistance at the expense of other hospitals. Is it in here? Yes.
Lastly, you are going to violate trade agreements in the rule. Shame
on you.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his strong leadership on this rule which will bring before the
Congress today a critical piece of legislation, a supplemental
appropriations bill for a Nation that is at war.
The President of the United States comes to this Congress and asks
for supplemental assistance, and this Congress provides it today: $15.7
billion in national defense, $5.8 billion in homeland security. And,
Mr. Speaker, we commit ourselves in this rule and in this measure to
live within our means as a Congress. In the months ahead as we consider
appropriations, we commit ourselves to the budget resolution that has
been passed by the so-named deeming elements of this rule.
These are the priorities of the Nation, Mr. Speaker: a national
defense and prosecuting the war, homeland defense as we hear
recriminations and discussions of what was done and what not done prior
to September 11. The American people want us to respond in this
Congress to these needs, and they want us to live within our means and
to practice the fiscal discipline for which this majority is so rightly
celebrated.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there has been talk about the $200 million for
Israel. I, being one of the Members who have called upon the leadership
and urged the leadership despite the lack of the call for the
administration to add to these funds, I see them as perfectly
appropriate to a defense supplemental bill: 493 Israelis have been
killed since September of 2000; 3,955 wounded. Israel has spent $255
million in their front in this war on terrorism in the third and fourth
week of Operation Defensive Shield alone.
America must stand by Israel in her darkest hour. Let us do no less
than those we remember on this Memorial Day. Let us do our duty.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote "no"
against this rule.
Over 1 year ago, Republicans passed an economic plan. They said at
the time that their plan would generate economic growth, protect the
surplus that we built up in the 1990s, and safeguard Social Security.
Republicans enacted a giant tax bill for the wealthy, while promising
that there would be enough room in the budget for Social Security,
education, Medicare prescription drugs, and the defense of the United
States of America.
Today, Republicans are making it clear that they are refusing to
confront the consequences of their economic plan.
This rule is an outrage. It places full faith and credit language in
the bill to avoid a desperate request by the President's Secretary of
the Treasury to bail the administration out of the economic folly of
their own making. It hides the fact that Republicans took a record
surplus, turned it into a huge and mounting deficit, and put Social
Security in jeopardy. It makes a mockery of the Republican rhetoric to
safeguard the trust fund. It makes a mockery of the Republican votes to
create a lockbox. It ignores and it weakens our intergenerational
contract and commitment in the 21st century.
Instead, Republicans refuse to work with Democrats. They deny debate
on a plan the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) sought to offer. That plan provides a way
out of spending the Social Security surplus. It puts Social Security
first, not last. It is sensible. It is responsible. It is the right
thing to do for the American people.
Republicans did not give it one second of time on this floor today.
They are silencing the voices of the American people on the future of
Social Security. Now is not the time to give the Federal Government
carte blanche to run up the debt. Our economic future is at stake.
People's retirement security is on the line. We ought to be talking
today about a 1-month extension of the debt limit. We ought to be
coming back here in the next month to talk about how to fix this
problem. We ought to have a budget summit between the President and the
bipartisan Congress to find out how we can write a budget that is in
tune with the changed circumstances that we have faced since September
11. We need to bring both parties and the President to the table, and
we need the parties to work together. We need communication. We need
collaboration to put our fiscal house back in order, to save Social
Security first and today.
The American people deserve a comprehensive, fair debate on Social
Security. So I hope Members will vote "no" on this rule, and I hope
Members in both parties would decide to vote "no" on this rule.
I can tell you that every family who lost somebody on September 11
has been around the dining room table trying to figure out a new budget
because of their changed circumstances. Well, America had a tragedy on
September 11, and, as a family, we ought to be sitting around the table
in respect and honesty to work out a new budget for this country. We
cannot do that through gag rules that silence the voices of the
American people on this side of the aisle. Vote "no" against this
rule.
{time} 1715
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Evidently we have failed to communicate this openly to all Members.
This is an open rule. This is an open rule for any Member of Congress,
including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), to offer any sort
of amendment that he would like to. This is no gag rule. This is no
sham. This is no trick. By presenting an open rule, it means that both
sides are presented an equal opportunity to present their case.
There has been a lot said today about Social Security. The fact of
the matter is that there is a part of this rule that says, "The United
States Government shall take all steps necessary to guarantee the full
faith and credit of the government." That is what we are trying to do.
We are trying to make sure that this supplemental bill has an
opportunity to be debated under an open rule today to where we have an
opportunity to pass this bill and to where we can engage the other
body, the Senate, which is controlled by the other party, the other
body who controls that, to where we can work together as Republicans,
as Democrats, with the President of the United States.
The fact of the matter is the song is always the same. The bottom
line is that for years a clear majority of Democrats have been opposed
to funding the military, and that is exactly the same way it is today.
This is about funding our military. This is about a wartime budget.
This is about trying to make sure that we win the war.
I know where the opposition comes from. We hear it over and over and
over again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Does the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression
that the Chair has to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) has been recognized for 2 minutes.
Point of Order
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on
that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi will state
his point of order.
[[Page H2897]]
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, that I believe a
parliamentary inquiry has precedence over that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond to the gentleman
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) had yielded 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). The gentleman from
California had the floor. The gentleman from Mississippi was not
yielded to for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry. The floor
belonged to the gentleman from California who has been recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on speaking but the
minority leader came to the floor, and he talked about Social Security
trust fund safeguards, tax breaks for the rich, Social Security,
Medicare, prescription drugs.
Let me remind my colleagues that not a single Democrat economic
package went forward when President Clinton was President. None of my
colleagues' policies went forward. We passed them to create a surplus
by welfare reform, by tax relief, by stimulus packages, whatsoever.
Matter of fact, in 1993, the Democrats, when they had the entire
majority of the House, the Senate and the White House, increased the
tax on the middle class. They took every dime out of the Social
Security trust fund. They increased Social Security taxes. They cut
military COLAs and veterans' COLAs. So do not tell me about saving
Social Security.
I have been waiting for this debate. I have in my office the
leadership of the Democrat party, since every one of them have been
here, the number of times that they have voted to cut the Social
Security trust fund, which I am going to submit. So do not talk to us
about cutting the Social Security trust fund. It is just rhetoric.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry,
would the open rule the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) makes
reference to allow me to offer an amendment that would remove the
language that allows this bill to raise the debt limit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to deliver an
anticipatory ruling on what may later occur in Committee of the Whole
if the gentleman were to attempt or any Member would attempt to offer
certain amendments.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it would be my understanding
that an open rule would allow me to offer any amendment that I wish to
keep the Republican majority from raising the debt limit and plunging
us more than $6 trillion in debt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to construe the
resolution which the House is debating at this time. That is a proper
subject for debate among Members.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, when the Chair is construing
whether or not a Member can offer an amendment, is that in itself
limiting the rules of the House and, therefore, not an open rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is a difference in the Chair
interpreting or construing a resolution which the House has already
adopted and the Chair giving an interpretation of a resolution which is
currently under consideration and the subject of debate in the House.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, if I may understand, the
passage of this rule would indeed prohibit me or any other Member of
this House from offering an amendment that would keep us from raising
the debt limit. Does that not in itself constitute a restrictive rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond that the Chair has
already answered the gentleman's question. The Chair is not in a
position to construe or characterize resolutions which are currently
pending before the body.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, who would be in a position to
construe that?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously stated, that is
a proper subject of debate when debating the resolution.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Under the rule pending, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) would not have the opportunity to
offer their amendment that has previously been described on the debt
ceiling. That is fact. This is not an open rule. They would be
prevented from offering their amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it takes
another giant step, a big step in the Republican march toward fiscal
recklessness that has characterized their performance in the 107th
Congress. The majority has done everything possible to hide, hide from
the American people the fact that this rule allows the second largest
increase in the Nation's debt limit ever.
The Republican tax cut has already driven the Nation back into
deficit spending. As a result, every penny of this back-door increase
in the debt limit will come from the Social Security and Medicare trust
funds.
We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that additional resources are needed to
meet our Nation's defense and homeland security needs. We all support
that, Democrat and Republican alike.
As the senior Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, I understand full well the investments that are necessary
for a strong response to the ongoing terrorist threat must be met.
However, I must say shame on the Republican majority for hiding their
raising of the debt limit and their raid on Social Security and
Medicare behind our legitimate need to protect our forces and to
protect our country.
It is possible to fight terrorism and put forth a fiscally
responsible budget, but the Republican leadership has failed to do so.
Again and again we have heard excuses from the majority that they
attempt to explain the dramatic shift from surpluses to deficits and
the raid on Social Security and Medicare trust funds that has resulted.
A wartime budget, a recession, forecast errors, the list goes on. The
question remains, where is the plan to get us out of this mess? Why
should we sign a blank check to pay for the Republican tax cut by
raiding Social Security and Medicare?
Last year, the majority said they had an economic plan that would pay
down the maximum amount of debt possible and promise to protect the
entire Social Security surplus. Today, they are requesting the second
largest increase in the debt limit in our Nation's history to continue
their raid on Social Security and Medicare. We have to have an up-or-
down vote on their stealth plan to mortgage our children's future.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The song is always the same. The bottom line is that for years a
clear majority of Democrats have been opposed to funding the military,
and today is no different.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has
12\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has
7 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have heard any
number of reasons why this is a bad rule. Let me give my colleagues
another one.
[[Page H2898]]
If this rule passes, one of our premier airlines is liable to go out
of business because this rule specifically protects language that
terminates the airline loan guarantee program. After the events of
September 11, we passed legislation knowing that the airlines were
hurting, knowing that some of them could go into insolvency.
One airline in particular, U.S. Air, is headquartered at Washington's
National Airport. Washington National Airport was closed down for an
entire month, and for 8 months it has only had partial service. So
understandably U.S. Airways has not had the revenue to stay afloat.
That is what this loan guarantee program was for, but this rule
protects $1.3 billion in savings by terminating the program because it
knows that that is the amount of money that U.S. Airways needs to stay
afloat.
So we are forcing an airline into bankruptcy, 40,000 jobs, 204 cities
served. Now, this is not what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
wanted. This is not what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)
wanted. They have been trying to work it out along with the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Davis). They have been trying to do the right thing,
but this rule does the wrong thing. It is outrageous to try to save
money through this kind of a budget gimmick and cause the loss of
40,000 jobs, and think of what it is going to do to the economy of 204
cities that are served by U.S. Air. Unbelievable.
This rule needs to get defeated. It is one of the worst rules to come
before the House of Representatives.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I could, engage with
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and let him know that the time
appears to be unbalanced at this point, and I would like to see if he
would like to get us to more of an even stance.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to yield additional time at
this point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for many
reasons, and not because I am opposed to defense funding. If this were
a clean increase for the war in Afghanistan, it would be passed
unanimously.
First of all, this rule deems what the House could not do directly.
It deems the budget resolution and sets the discretionary spending
ceiling at $759 billion. That is $9 billion less than the other body.
Mark my word, that $9 billion discrepancy will cause us problems before
this fiscal year is out.
The second reason to get the votes necessary for passage, the rule
claims $1.2 billion in savings to offset the amendments that the
committee added in the supplemental over and above the President's
request. The largest amount of these comes from obligational delays.
They are not saying they are obligational delays.
The rule would prevent the Air Transportation Stabilization Board
from guaranteeing any more airline loans for the rest of this fiscal
year, but beginning the next fiscal year, they could make those loans.
Someone may say that is harmless. Not for U.S. Air. It is a matter of
life and death for U.S. Air because they told us they need funding by
August 1. So it saves no money, but it does not do U.S. Air any good at
all.
Most of all, I am really upset with this rule because it gets too
clever by half, much too coy when it comes to something that is gravely
serious, and that is the debt owed by the United States of America. We
are creeping up on our statutory debt limits, and rather than face up
to this issue squarely, this rule makes passing reference to the
statutory debt ceiling just enough to have this matter originate in the
House and leaves the heavy lifting to the other body.
{time} 1730
What it seeks to avoid most of all is a direct vote on this very
important issue, and our constituents need to know where we stand.
Now, we would have offered, if the committee had made it in order, an
amendment that would have offered a suitable procedure for undertaking
something this serious. It simply would have provided that if we take
up the debt ceiling, we can increase it by $250 billion, but if we
increase it by any more we must have in place a budget resolution that
will put the budget in balance in 5 fiscal years.
That amendment was not made in order, which is another reason to vote
against the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, why can we not just for once be honest
with the American people?
Every single Member of this body is in favor of supporting our troops
in Afghanistan. And any rhetoric notwithstanding is not being honest.
Everyone that makes statements like my friend from Texas made a moment
ago knows better than that. The war on terrorism is too serious to play
political games with.
To call this rule an open rule is laughable. The answer to the
question of my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Speaker, is no, he will
be held out of order when he offers an amendment to pay for this war
and not charge it to our grandchildren.
I cannot imagine how anybody that purports to be a conservative would
support this resolution and this rule if they look at the scoring that
is being applied, and then saying to their colleagues it is being paid
for, when my colleagues know better.
Back in 1994, I joined with 321 of my colleagues, including 166
Republicans that are still here, that said we ought to put a stop to
emergency spending bills having nonemergency issues being added to
them. It passed 322 to 99. There were only four Republicans that
opposed it in 1994. Then in 1995, when the Republicans took over the
majority, they thought it was a darned good rule and they put it in
saying when we have emergency spending, we ought to confine the issues
and the spending to emergencies. Yet this rule waives any amendment
that strikes any of those spending bills that are not emergency,
because suddenly my Republican colleagues have seen the light and they
believe that spending for any purpose is okay; but yet they are going
to call themselves conservatives.
A vote for this rule is a vote for using parliamentary tricks to
sneak an increase in the debt limit into law without addressing the
fiscal problems highlighted by the need to increase the debt limit.
That is my opposition to this rule. That is my opposition to this bill.
My colleagues should be open and honest and come out and say they are
in favor of increasing the debt of this country $750 billion. But they
choose to hide it. That is wrong and it is not honest.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats had proposed this rule, I
would be up here speaking against it. This rule is, I think I will put
it this way, if I were doing business with someone who devised or ran
their business like this rule, I would quit doing business with them
immediately; and I think the American people ought to as well.
What my Republican colleagues have done with this rule is they have
made passing reference to the statutory assurance that the United
States take all necessary means to protect our credit, which is the
debt ceiling, and then they have provided that the amendments printed
in the Committee on Rules shall be considered as adopted. That is not
an open rule and they know it.
No one can call that an open rule. We cannot get at striking section
1403 because it will be held out of order. So when my colleagues say it
is an open rule, it is not and my colleagues know it. It is crystal
clear that it is wrong. It is dead wrong.
We are engaged in a generational mugging of the next generation here
because we will not face up to what we are trying to do to pay for
this. It is wrong.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who is a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
[[Page H2899]]
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I just want to say that I support this rule, and I will
support the supplemental bill as well. I am supporting the rule and the
bill because of three things, three important things that it does.
Number one, it continues the war internationally against terrorism;
number two, it protects our homeland; and, number three, it helps
complete the job of rebuilding New York City.
Just to go through some of these things. This wartime supplemental
provides $15.7 billion to aid the troops in the ongoing war. I have
visited Afghanistan and Central Asia and the countries of Tajikistan,
Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. They need our support. It is not time to turn
our back on them.
This bill secures our homeland as well with $850 million for checking
baggage for explosive devices, $630 million for baggage screening and
$75 million for security enhancements at commercial ports.
Just to give one statistic, Savannah, Georgia, which I represent,
last year brought in one million containers. Of those containers, only
1 percent were checked. This bill helps address that problem.
This bill also, in the name of homeland security, provides local law
enforcement the tools that they need to track down terrorism. How often
do my colleagues get these calls, which I know I have been getting
since 9-11, from the local police officers and the sheriff departments:
they have seen something suspicious, but they do not know who to call
or what to do. This helps them hook in with the national tracking
system.
It also helps our communities in terms of disaster preparation. One
of the issues we have to deal with is the EMS folks, training them and
getting them up to speed on what is needed. I think that it is very
important that we continue to work with our local law enforcement
training people.
Then, finally, our $5.5 billion to help build New York City, that
great city which we in America all love and like to talk about.
This bill is about making sure we never forget what happened to our
Nation on 9-11, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we all want to take care of
the troops. What a lot of us do not want to do is to lie to the
American people and mislead them and tell them we are not borrowing
money to do it.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) misspoke, and I am going to
leave it at that, when he said they are paying down the national debt.
In the past 1 year, the national debt has risen by $323,329,559,211.21.
Now that is straight off the Treasury report. Do not tell the people
that we are balancing the budget. My colleagues are suggesting that we
vote to increase the debt limit by $750 billion. That is a thousand
times a thousand times a thousand times 750.
If we have to pay for this war, and we should, then let us cut
spending someplace else, like the American people do.
I would tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) that on the day
my daughter was born our Nation was less than $1 trillion in debt. The
gentleman is proposing that we go over $6 trillion in debt, and she is
not yet 24 years old. Where does it stop? Where is the shame?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What the majority party, my Republican Party, is trying to do is to
make sure that our President, that our law enforcement, that our
military has the money that is necessary to fight this war. It is not a
war we wanted to get into; it was a war that was thrust on America on
September 11. It was a war that America was thrust in and now our
President and our Vice President are leading our Nation.
We all saw the destruction and the damage that happened. We stood up
with pride and in awe of the men and women of the New York City Fire
Department and Police Department as they battled these terrorists and
then looked after the people of New York. We, as Members of this body,
responded within days. We are now trying to respond again.
We believe it is honest and forthright that we follow procedures that
people out in Dallas, Texas, and all across this country understand,
not just in my congressional district but all the Members, when we say
that we are trying to do the things that the President has asked for
and that are in the best interest of this country to fund our military
and law enforcement and the men and women who protect not only our
borders but our parameters well out, including Afghanistan and our
allies.
What we have said is very plain and simple. We are following a
constitutional process where we have to go and negotiate with another
body called the United States Senate. We are trying to make sure that
while this negotiation is going on that we can say that the United
States Government shall take all steps necessary to guarantee the full
faith and credit of the government. I think to do anything different
would be irresponsible.
I cannot say what the debt is going to do between now and the time we
reach an agreement with the United States Senate and the President
signs this bill. But what I can say is that we are responsible enough
to say that the United States Government will stand up for what it
should.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, in the previous comments, the majority
manager of the bill has referred to this as an open rule. Therefore,
under this open rule, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) be made in
order in the ensuing debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would respond
that the gentleman's request is out of order. The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) has yielded to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for
the purposes of debate only, not for the purposes of amending the rule,
even under unanimous consent.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over and over that
this is a rule about the war. What the majority party has done is
wrapped this rule in the flag and wrapped this rule in the war and is
trying to hide the fact from the American people that they are trying
to increase the credit card debt of this Nation by $750 billion, three-
quarters of a trillion dollars.
We all are Americans, we all stand together against terrorism, and we
will all provide whatever resources and money are necessary to win this
war on terrorism. But at the very least we should be, we should be, and
we must be honest with the American people and tell them what it is we
are doing. What the Republicans are attempting to do is to sneak
through a $750 billion increase in the debt limit here without a stand-
alone vote.
That is absolutely wrong, because what my colleagues are going to do
is to pass that debt on to our children and grandchildren. Shame.
Shame.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that 1 year ago we were having
a debate in this House about how much of the debt we could pay down.
Today, the House is being asked to pass in this rule, having nothing to
do with the underlying bill, a measure that will allow for the public
debt of the Nation to increase by three-quarters of a trillion dollars
without debating it in the light of day.
We have soldiers abroad who are fighting to defend the Constitution,
yet we have the majority party which does not even want to allow the
public to see the debate of whether or not we want to raise the
national debt to pay for the war.
All of us support the war effort. There is not a Member on either
side, that I am aware of, who is not in favor of the war effort.
{time} 1745
But what is a shame is the fact that the Republicans want to slide a
fast
[[Page H2900]]
one past the American people so they can have it both ways and say we
can cut taxes and we are not going to increase the debt when in fact
that is what they are doing. They are raising the national debt with
this vote.
We should defeat this rule and start over and bring a clean
supplemental up that every Member will vote for.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman will state
it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, having listened to the comments of the
gentleman from Tennessee, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Would it
take an amendment to change an open rule in order to make it open?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry which is appropriate for the Chair to answer.
Does the gentleman have a further parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. EDWARDS. It is my understanding that this has been described by
the majority as an open rule. Yet a few minutes ago, the Speaker said
in response to the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee that it
would require a change in the rule in order to make it an open rule.
My parliamentary inquiry is if this is an open rule, why would it
require a change in the rule to make it an open rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would simply respond to the
gentleman, the House has a mechanism to amend a pending rule if the
House sees fit. The Chair responded in such a fashion earlier on
several occasions.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has
3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the money that we are spending in this bill is for the
national defense, and it is for men and women who protect us. Tonight
when Americans go to sleep after hearing this great and vigorous
debate, they can go to sleep knowing that this House is talking about
the things that are important to make sure that our sons and brothers
and fathers and aunts and uncles, the freedoms that we enjoy as a
result of this House talking about the debate that will get our
military and law enforcement the money that is necessary to make sure
that we win this war.
That is what this debate is simply about. I am proud of what we are
doing here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, in 2000, Congress passed the CBI bill. In the
most sensitive area of apparel and textiles, the bill endeavored to
build on the strengths and complementarities of Caribbean countries.
CBI nations were provided enhanced access to the U.S. market with some
important requirements as to use of American fabric, and within these
requirements the ability to dye and finish this material in their
nation. Included was enhanced implementation of core labor standards.
In order to obtain a few votes to pass their fast-track bill, the
administration cut a deal that turns its back on CBI. The attempt in
this bill to carry out that deal is antithetical to the
administration's rhetoric about the importance of expanded trade and
about the needs of evolving economies. It is another troubling result
of the decision of the administration and House Republicans to pass
fast track on a partisan basis, refusing to address concerns of
Democrats who have worked hard to craft constructive trade legislation
these last years. The administration has missed an historic opportunity
to build a viable, strong, bipartisan foundation for trade policy and
the consequence is the attempt to ratify in this bill an act of
expediency. It has zero to do with the war against terrorism.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas has now three times
made a very impassioned speech regarding that this is for the troops,
and I want to again say, every single person over here supports our
troops. In addition to that, I will say I support our President 110
percent. In fact, I believe in our opposition to this rule that I am
supporting the President more than you are.
Here is why. The President asked for $27.1 billion. This bill is
$29.4 billion. You made reference to the Senate, in having a package to
go to the Senate. The Senate is proposing to spend $31 billion. That
means we are going to compromise somewhere between 29.4 and 31. That is
not what the President asked for.
This is more than just supporting our troops. We all support the
troops. This is about fiscal responsibility and the debt limit.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized
for 1 minute.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, the House is in the business of taking votes to decide
things. This week we took a vote on whether to congratulate the people
of East Timor, as we should have. We took a vote on naming a Federal
building, as we should have.
The majority has a plan to borrow $750 billion and pass along the
bill to our children. But they do not want to put that up for a vote.
The choice that is before the House on this rule is very simple. Should
we or should we not take a recorded vote on borrowing $750 billion? Our
only chance to cast a vote on that, if the majority has its way, is on
this rule vote.
Defeat the rule, bring this question, like the question of
congratulating the people of East Timor, before the American people so
they can see where we as their elected representatives stand. Defeat
this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois, the Speaker of the House, for 2 minutes.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate on this bill
today. This bill has been on the docket for about 6 weeks trying to
bring it together. In this bill is $14 billion-plus for our men and
women who fight the war in Afghanistan and around the world. In this
bill is $5 billion for New York so that they can recoup and rebuild
their city for the losses they got on September 11. In this bill is $7
billion for defense against terrorism in this country, air marshals,
police, things to make this country safer so that we can travel, so
that we can live our lives.
There is a lot of debate and a lot of demagoguery that goes on in a
place like this. But there are times when you need to move forward,
pass legislation, get it done and do the right thing. I have heard a
lot of, again, conversation from the other side of the aisle. Do we
need eventually to raise the debt ceiling in this country? You know we
have to do that. There is not one person in the room who will deny that
that has to be done. Do we do it in this bill? No. Do we give ourselves
a possibility that we can do it at a later date? Yes. Do we have to
make sure that there is some discipline in the budget as opposed to the
other side of the Rotunda where there is no discipline? Yes. We need to
do that. We need to do it for our own good. We also need to do it on
mandatory and discretionary spending if we want to do the things in
health care and prescription drugs that is right for this country.
You can vote no against this. If you vote no, you ought to know that
you are voting against our military, you are voting against the people
in New York. You need to know that you are
[[Page H2901]]
also voting against the ability for us to solve the problems that we
have in this country. If you want to vote against trying to solve the
problems in health care and prescription drugs, vote no for this bill.
If you want to move forward and have the Congress do the things that
the American people expect us to do, then you want to vote yes for this
rule and vote yes for the bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule,
because it robs the Department of Defense of $13.2 billion that was
requested by the President. I must say that I am surprised and frankly
feel let down by my colleagues and good friends on the other side of
the aisle, many of whom have in the past stood shoulder to shoulder
with me in calling for more defense spending.
This rule includes a so-called "deeming" provision which says that
the House shall consider the Budget Resolution to have passed a
conference committee just as it passed the House. Doing so weakens
national security because the budget resolution made two incredible
raids on the Defense budget, reducing the money available to be
appropriated for Defense by $13.2 billion.
First, the Budget Resolution reduced the Budget Authority available
for defense by $10 billion by eliminating the contingency fund
requested by the Department of Defense. I share some of the Budget
Committee's concerns that this request was vague, but Congress is more
than capable of working with the Department to determine how that
funding can best be used, and no serious defense observer believes that
the Department of Defense will not need this $10 billion, and even
more, for its operations in FY03. This rule today puts that funding off
limits.
Second, the Budget Resolution reduced the Budget Authority available
for Defense by $3.2 billion which had been set aside by the Department
of Defense for civilian health care accrual. The Budget Committee
doesn't support doing this accrual accounting change, but taking the
money away from the Department of Defense is the wrong answer. We have
seen a consistent pattern in recent years of underestimating the costs
in the Defense Health Program and many Operations and Maintenance
accounts. The $3.2 billion included for civilian accrual costs should
be maintained as a hedge against cost escalations in these accounts.
In addition to being $13.2 billion below the President's Request for
defense, this resolution puts us as much as $6.9 billion under the
Defense Authorization bill the House approved just a few weeks ago.
That bill maintained the $3.2 billion originally requested for civilian
accrual and it allocated $3.7 billion of the contingency fund to high
priority operational items.
We should reject this rule Mr. Speaker, and allow the Appropriations
Committee to bring to the floor a Defense Appropriations bill that is
at least equal to the President's request, a request which is already
$40 billion below what is required in procurement alone. That's not
just according to me, that is the testimony given by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, before the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee this year.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, is including $10 million in
this bill to assist in State efforts to prevent and control
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, including bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, chronic wasting disease, and scrapie, in farmed and
free-ranging animals, does that constitute a vital defense need?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman from Texas moved the previous question on the
resolution.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 209, answered "present" 3, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 194]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
[[Page H2902]]
Waxman
Weiner
Wicker
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED "PRESENT"--3
Bonilla
Nethercutt
Wamp
NOT VOTING--7
Burton
Deutsch
Emerson
Lipinski
Mascara
Traficant
Wexler
{time} 1823
Ms. CARSON of Indiana, and Messrs. SANDERS, LARSEN of Washington,
BAIRD and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."
Mr. STEARNS changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
