[Congressional Record: May 22, 2002 (House)]
[Page H2902-H2926]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr22my02-106]
PERMISSION TO INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL DURING CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE
RESOLUTION 428
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed
to include extraneous material immediately following my remarks on the
rule that has earlier passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
{time} 1845
2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND
RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to House Resolution
428 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 4775.
{time} 1845
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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 ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Thornberry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
[[Page H2903]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the
House the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. This is the first
appropriations bill that we will be considering this year, and it
should prove to be an interesting experience.
The Committee on Appropriations ordered this legislation reported
last week. The bill is extremely important, and I believe it will enjoy
broad bipartisan support. It is extremely important, Mr. Chairman,
because this is a wartime supplemental appropriations bill. This is to
pay for our wartime activities in Afghanistan and other places that our
military troops might be deployed. This is a wartime appropriations
bill to repay our military services for the monies they have already
expended from their fourth quarter accounts.
This is an extremely important bill in that it also, besides
providing money for the Defense Department, provides for our homeland
security. As we get further away from September 11, we may be tempted
to forget what happened on that day in the United States of America.
But, Mr. Chairman, we were attacked. Our people were attacked. We are
going to fight back. We are going to finance our effort to fight back.
The President of the United States is doing an outstanding job in
leading our Nation in the prosecution of the military campaign. He is
doing an outstanding job in leading our Nation in seeking out terrorist
organizations wherever we can locate them and proceeding to bring them
to justice. So it is a very important bill, Mr. Chairman. However, over
the last 5 weeks, some of the focus has gotten lost on this important
bill. It has been sort of like a ship growing barnacles. Everyone knows
this is a must-pass bill, and there are probably 435 ideas of what
should be added to or subtracted from it. But I want to remind everyone
again, the focus of this bill is and must continue to be that this is a
wartime supplemental appropriations bill. It provides money for our
troops. It provides money for our intelligence community. It provides
money for the safety and security of our people and our community. It
provides support for the victims of the attack in New York at the World
Trade Center. And it provides funds to promote the U.S. foreign policy
to prevent future attacks.
The committee reported a bill that provides $29.387 billion and half
of that, or $15.8 billion, is for the Defense Department to continue to
prosecute the war on terrorism. This bill supports the President. It
fully funds his requirements for national security, foreign policy; and
it provides an additional $5.5 billion in support for recovery in New
York. There is $1.77 billion in additional funds for the Defense
Department to pay for costs relating to the mobilization of the Guard
and Reserve forces and to cover their operational expenses.
It provides for our country's biggest concern, securing our homeland,
by providing $5.8 billion. That is $522 million above the President's
request. It ensures that our nuclear assets can be secured and that law
enforcement and our first responders, who are so important in providing
for the safety of our people in our community, have adequate
information to prevent, hopefully, or, if necessary, to respond to acts
of terrorism.
It also gets the Transportation Security Administration up and
running so that the traveling public will be safe. We have all heard
the concerns raised over the past few days that the FBI had information
that somehow was left out of security briefings for the President. The
most important thing we can do to protect our country and our
constituents from future attacks is to ensure that law enforcement and
our intelligence community and the Commander in Chief, the President of
the United States, have timely access to accurate and complete
information.
I have been to the FBI; and my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been to the FBI. We have seen firsthand
their antiquated technology equipment that needs to be enhanced, that
needs to be updated, that needs to be brought into today's world. We
looked at this closely and determined that the President's request did
not provide enough for that purpose. So in the terrorism supplemental
last year we added $132 million above the President's request for the
FBI's information technology, and this supplemental bill contains an
additional $100 million above the President's request for additional
technology enhancement for the FBI.
At this point, there will be some who try to assess the blame. We are
here to find solutions and to provide the funding necessary to put
those solutions in place.
Now, in addition to defense and homeland security, we had a shortfall
in the Pell grant program, an important program for the education of
our young Americans. We added $1 billion to provide funding for the
Pell grant program.
Our leadership, on a bipartisan basis, asked for funding to pay for
the election reforms that we enacted earlier this year. So we added
$450 million for that purpose. We increased the President's budget
request for defense by $1.8 billion. In the committee, added by
amendment, was $250 million for Israel and for humanitarian relief for
the Palestinians. We have added $275 million over the President's
request for veterans health care.
Mr. Chairman, we did not just spend the money. We had offsets. We had
offsets of $1.8 billion more than the President's budget request had
asked for. And so, Mr. Chairman, this is a good supplemental bill. It
is well within the budget limits placed on us by the 2002 budget
resolution.
I hope that we can consider this bill as what it is, a wartime
emergency supplemental. I hope that we are not distracted by the other
issues that were debated heatedly during the consideration of the rule.
Let us focus today on this wartime emergency supplemental for our
troops, for our security agencies, for our intelligence agencies, for
the FBI and for the President of the United States to be able to do the
things that we are demanding that he do, and that is to make America
secure and to seek out those who perpetrate or would perpetrate
terrorist attacks against our Nation.
H.R. 4775--2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with
Budget request Recommended in bill request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service ........................ 2,000 +2,000
(contingent emergency)...........
Food and Nutrition Service: 75,000 75,000 ........................
Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC)...................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection ........................ 10,000 +10,000
Service: Salaries and expenses
(contingent emergency)...........
Natural Resources Conservation -9,000 ........................ +9,000
Service: Watershed Rehabilitation
Program (rescission).............
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration: ........................ 18,000 +18,000
Salaries and expenses (contingent
emergency).......................
General Provisions: Export ........................ -450,000 -450.000
Enhancement Program (limitation)
(sec. 101).......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 1............ 66,000 -345,000 -411,000
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration: Salaries 5,750 5,750 ........................
and expenses (emergency).........
[[Page H2904]]
LEGAL ACTIVITIES
United States Marshals Service: ........................ 1,000 +1,000
Salaries and expenses (contingent
emergency).......................
Federal Bureau of Investigation: 10,000 10,000 ........................
Salaries and expenses (emergency)
Contingent emergency.......... ........................ 102,000 +102,000
Immigration and Naturalization 35,000 35,000 ........................
Service: Enforcement and Border
Affairs: Salaries and expenses
(emergency)......................
Contingent emergency.......... ........................ 40,000 +40,000
Office of Justice Programs: ........................ 175,000 +175,000
Justice assistance (emergency)...
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED
AGENCIES
RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade
Representative:
Salaries and expenses ........................ 1,100 +1,100
(contingent emergency).......
European Communities Music 3,300 ........................ -3,300
Licensing Dispute............
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Export Administration: Operations 8,700 ........................ -8,700
and Administration (emergency)...
National Institute of Standards 4,000 4,000 ........................
and Technology: Scientific and
Technical Research and Services
(emergency)......................
National Oceanic and Atmospheric (24,000) (24,000) ........................
Administration: Fisheries Finance
Program Account (limitation on
direct loans)....................
Negative subsidy.............. -3,000 -3,000 ........................
Departmental Management: Salaries 400 400 ........................
and expenses (emergency).........
THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United 10,000 10,000 ........................
States: Care of the Buildings and
Grounds (emergency)..............
United States Courts of Appeals 857 ........................ -857
for the Federal Circuit: Salaries
and expenses (emergency).........
Courts of Appeals, District 3,143 3,143 ........................
Courts, and Other Judicial
Services: Salaries and expenses
(emergency)......................
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 3,115 +3,115
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED
AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs:
Diplomatic and Consular 51,050 51,050 ........................
Programs (emergency).........
Capital Investment Fund 2,500 ........................ -2,500
(emergency)..................
Educational and Cultural 10,000 10,000 ........................
Exchange Programs (emergency)
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 10,000 +10,000
Embassy Security, 200,516 200,516 ........................
Construction, and Maintenance
(emergency)..................
Emergencies in the Diplomatic 8,000 ........................ -8,000
and Consular Service
(emergency)..................
International Organizations and
Conferences:
Contributions to International 7,000 7,000 ........................
Organizations (emergency)....
Contributions for 43,000 43,000 ........................
International Peacekeeping
Activities (emergency).......
RELATED AGENCY
Broadcasting Board of Governors:
International Broadcasting 7,400 7,400 ........................
Operations (emergency).......
Broadcasting capital ........................ 7,700 +7,700
improvements (contingent
emergency)...................
RELATED AGENCIES
Securities and Exchange 20,000 20,000 ........................
Commission: Salaries and expenses
Contingent emergency............ ........................ 9,300 +9,300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 2............ 427,616 753,474 +325,858
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
Military Personnel: Military 206,000 206,000 ........................
Personnel, Air Force (emergency).
Operation and Maintenance:
Operation and Maintenance, 107,000 107,000 ........................
Army (emergency).............
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 119,000 +119,000
Operation and Maintenance, 36,500 36,500 ........................
Navy (emergency).............
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 17,250 +17,250
Operation and Maintenance, Air 41,000 41,000 ........................
Force (emergency)............
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 19,500 +19,500
Operation and Maintenance, 739,000 739,000 ........................
Defense-Wide (emergency).....
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 12,975 +12,975
Defense Emergency Response 11,300,000 11,300,000 ........................
Fund (emergency).............
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 1,393,972 +1,393,972
Procurement:
Other Procurement, Army 79,200 79,200 ........................
(emergency)..................
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 22,800 22,800 ........................
(emergency)..................
Procurement of Ammunition, 262,000 262,000 ........................
Navy and Marine Corps
(emergency)..................
Other Procurement, Navy 2,500 2,500 ........................
(emergency)..................
Procurement, Marine Corps 3,500 3,500 ........................
(emergency)..................
Aircraft Procurement, Air 93,000 93,000 ........................
Force (emergency)............
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 36,500 +36,500
Procurement of Ammunition, Air 115,000 115,000 ........................
Force (emergency)............
Other Procurement, Air Force 752,300 735,340 -16,960
(emergency)..................
Procurement, Defense-Wide 99,500 99,500 ........................
(emergency)..................
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 4,925 +4,925
Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation:
RDT&E, Army (emergency)....... 8,200 8,200 ........................
RDT&E, Navy (emergency)....... 19,000 9,000 -10,000
RDT&E, Air Force (emergency).. 60,800 60,800 ........................
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 39,000 +39,000
RDT&E, Defense-Wide 74,700 52,000 -22,700
(emergency)..................
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 20,000 +20,000
General Provisions:
General Transfer Authority (1,000,000) ........................ (-1,000,000)
(sec. 305)...................
MH-47 Helicopters (contingent ........................ 93,000 +93,000
emergency) (sec. 308)........
Chemical Demil (contingent ........................ 100,000 +100,000
emergency) (sec. 309)........
Rescissions (sec. 310)........ ........................ -59,000 -59,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 3............ 14,022,000 15,769,462 +1,747,462
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 4
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS
Operating Expenses
Division of Expenses:
Public education system ........................ (-37,000) (-37,000)
(rescission).................
Human Support Services: ........................ ........................ ........................
Child and Family Services ........................ (11,000) (+11,000)
Agency...................
Department of Mental ........................ (26,000) (+26,000)
Health...................
Repayment of loans and ........................ (-7,950) (-7,950)
interest (rescission)........
Certificates of participation. ........................ (7,950) (+7,950)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 4............ ........................ ........................ ........................
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 5
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil: ........................ 128,400 +128,400
Operation and Maintenance,
General (contingent emergency)...
[[Page H2905]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Programs: Science ........................ 29,000 +29,000
(contingent emergency)...........
National Nuclear Security
Administration:
Weapons Activities (emergency) 19,400 19,400 ........................
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 106,000 +106,000
Defense Nuclear ........................ 5,000 +5,000
Nonproliferation (contingent
emergency)...................
Environmental and Other Defense
Activities:
Defense Environmental ........................ 67,000 +67,000
Restoration and Waste
Management (contingent
emergency)...................
Defense Facilities Closure ........................ 16,600 +16,600
Projects (contingent
emergency)...................
Other Defense Activities 7,000 7,000 ........................
(emergency)..................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 5............ 26,400 378,400 +352,000
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 6
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the
President
United States Agency for
International Development:
Child Survival and Health ........................ 200,000 +200,000
Programs Fund (contingent
emergency)...................
International Disaster 40,000 ........................ -40,000
Assistance (emergency).......
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 190,000 +190,000
Operating Expenses of the 7,000 7,000 ........................
United States Agency for
International Development
(emergency)..................
Other Bilateral Economic
Assistance:
Economic Support Fund 525,000 460,000 -65,000
(emergency)..................
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 250,000 +250,000
Assistance for the Independent 110,000 110,000 ........................
States of the Former Soviet
Union (emergency)............
Department of State:
International Narcotics 114,000 120,000 +6,000
Control and Law Enforcement
(emergency)..................
Migration & Refugee Assistance ........................ 10,000 +10,000
(contingent emergency).......
Nonproliferation, Anti- 83,000 83,000 ........................
Terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs (emergency).
MILITARY ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the
President:
Foreign Military Financing 372,500 366,500 -6,000
Program (emergency)..........
Peacekeeping Operations 28,000 20,000 -8,000
(emergency)..................
MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the -157,000 -159,000 -2,000
President: Special Payments to
the International Financial
Institutions (rescission)........
General Provisions: Rescission ........................ -60,000 -60,000
(sec. 602).......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 6............ 1,122,500 1,597,500 +475,000
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 7
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management: ........................ 658 +658
Management of Lands & Resources
(contingent emergency)...........
United States Fish and Wildlife ........................ 1,443 +1,443
Service: Resource Management
(contingent emergency)...........
National Park Service:
Operation of the National Park ........................ 1,173 +1,173
System (contingent emergency)
Construction (contingent ........................ 19,300 +19,300
emergency)...................
United States Geological Survey: ........................ 25,700 +25,700
Surveys, Investigations, and
Research (contignent emergency)..
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Operation of Indian Programs ........................ 134 +134
(contingent emergency).......
Rescission................ -10,000 -5,000 +5,000
Indian trust fund management ........................ ........................ ........................
litigation...................
Departmental Offices: Departmental ........................ 905 +905
Management: Salaries and expenses
(contingent emergency)...........
RELATED AGENCY
Smithsonian Institution:
Salaries and expenses ........................ 11,000 +11,000
(contingent emergency).......
Construction (contingent ........................ 2,000 +2,000
emergency)...................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 7............ -10,000 57,313 +67,313
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 8
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training 750,000 300,000 -450,000
Administration: Training &
Employment Services (contingent
emergency).......................
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Health Resources and Services -20,000 ........................ +20,000
Administration: Health Resources
and Services (rescission)........
Centers for Disease Control and ........................ 1,000 +1,000
Prevention: Disease Control,
Research, and Training
(contingent emergency)...........
National Institutes of Health: -30,000 -30,000
Buildings and facilities
(rescission).....................
Administration for Children and ........................ 500 +500
Families: Children and Families
Services Programs (contingent
emergency).......................
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student Financial Assistance...... 1,276,000 1,000,000 -276,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 8............ 1,976,000 1,271,500 -704,500
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 9
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
House of Representatives
Committee Employees: Standing ........................ 1,600 +1,600
Committees, Special and Select...
Library of Congress: Copyright 7,500 7,500 ........................
Office: Salaries and expenses
(emergency)......................
Joint Items
Capitol Police Board
Capitol Police: General Expenses ........................ 16,100 +16,100
(contingent emergency............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 9............ 7,500 25,200 +17,700
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 10
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military Construction, Air Force ........................ 8,505 +8,505
(contingent emergency............
Military Construction, Defense- ........................ 21,500 +21,500
wide (contingent emergency)......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 10........... ........................ 30,005 +30,005
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary: (128,123) (128,123) ........................
Transportation Administrative
Service Center (obligation
limitation)......................
Transportation Security 2,455,000 2,305,000 -150,000
Administration: Salaries and
expenses (emergency).............
Contingent emergency...... 1,945,000 1,545,000 -400,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,400,000 3,850,000 -550,000
U.S. Coast Guard: Operating 189,000 189,000 ........................
Expenses (emergency).............
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 21,000 +21,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H2906]]
189,000 210,000 +21,000
Acquisition, Construction, & 66,000 66,000 ........................
Improvements (emergency).........
Contingent emergency...... ........................ 12,000 +12,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
66,000 78,000 +12,000
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations (transfer (100,000) (25,000) (-75,000)
authority)...................
Grants-in-aid for airports ........................ 200,000 +200,000
(contingent emergency).......
Federal Highway Administration: 167,000 167,000 ........................
Federal-Aid Highways, Emergency
Relief Program (Highway trust
fund) (emergency)................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration:
Border Enforcement Program 19,300 19,300 ........................
(Highway trust fund)
(emergency)..................
Hazardous materials security ........................ 5,000 +5,000
(Highway trust fund)
(contingent emergency).......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
19,300 24,300 +5,000
Federal Transit Administration: 1,800,000 1,800,000 ........................
Capital Investment Grants
(emergency)......................
Research and Special Programs 3,500 ........................ -3,500
Administration: Research and
Special Programs (emergency).....
General Provisions:
Airline loan program ........................ -393,000 -393,000
limitation (sec. 1103).......
Air carrier compensation (sec. ........................ -250,000 -250,000
1104) (rescission)...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 11........... 6,644,800 5,686,300 -958,500
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Federal Law Enforcement Training ........................ 15,870 +15,870
Center (contingent emergency)....
Financial Management Service (sec. ........................ -14,000 -14,000
1201) (rescission)...............
Internal Revenue Service: Business ........................ 14,000 +14,000
Systems Modernization (sec. 1201)
United States Secret Service ........................ 46,750 +46,750
(contingent emergency)...........
POSTAL SERVICE
Payment to the Postal Service Fund 87,000 87,000 ........................
(emergency)......................
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
AND FUNDS
Appropriated to the President:
Office of Administration 5,000 ........................ -5,000
(emergency)..................
Office of Management and ........................ -750 -750
Budget (rescission)..........
Election Administration Reform ........................ 450,000 +450,000
and Related Expenses.........
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Federal Election Commission....... ........................ 750 +750
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Real Property Activities: Federal 51,800 51,800 ........................
Buildings Fund (emergency).......
General Activities: Policy and 2,500 ........................ -2,500
Operations (emergency)...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 12........... 146,300 651,420 +505,120
=============================================================================
CHAPTER 13
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration:
Medical Care.................. 142,000 417,000 +275,000
Medical and Prosthetic -5,000 ........................ +5,000
Research (rescission)........
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing: Housing ........................ -300,000 -300,000
certificate fund (rescission)....
Community Planning and
Development:
Rural Housing and Economic -20,000 ........................ +20,000
Development (rescission).....
Community Development Fund 750,000 750,000 ........................
(emergency)..................
Housing Programs: Rental Housing ........................ -300,000 -300,000
Assistance (rescission)..........
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
National Institute of Health: ........................ 8,000 +8,000
National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences
(emergency)......................
Agency for Toxic Substances and ........................ 11,300 +11,300
Disease Registry: Salaries and
expenses (emergency).............
Environmental Protection Agency: 12,500 ........................ -12,500
Hazardous Substance Superfund
(emergency)......................
Federal Emergency Management
Agency:
Disaster relief (emergency)... 2,750,000 2,750,000 ........................
Disaster assistance for unmet ........................ 23,320 +23,320
needs (contingent emergency).
Emergency management planning 326,728 151,700 -175,028
& assistance (emergency).....
National Science Foundation: 19,300 ........................ -19,300
Education and Human Resources
(emergency)......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, chapter 13........... 3,975,528 3,511,320 -464,208
=============================================================================
Grand total (net)........... 28,404,644 29,386,894 +982,250
Appropriations.......... (1,513,300) (1,975,350) (+462,050)
Emergency appropriations (24,447,344) (24,091,099) (-356,245)
Contingent emergency (2,695,000) (5,341,195) (+2,646,195)
appropriations.........
Rescissions............. (-251,000) (-1,177,750) (-926,750)
Offsets................. ........................ (-843,000) (-843,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to first of all congratulate the chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for doing his
usual good job in trying to produce a bipartisan bill.
As members of the committee know, our committee worked for 6 weeks
and produced a bipartisan bill. And I want to tell you some of the
things that it did to correct some of the chaos that we see in some of
the agencies that are dealing with counterterrorism.
We found out that the Department of Energy had asked for $380 million
to upgrade security so that weapons of mass destruction and nuclear
material would be less susceptible either to terrorist attack or theft.
OMB only approved 7 percent of that money. The committee provided the
amount that was needed.
We also discovered that the Immigration and Naturalization Service
had asked for $52 million because they had the reasonable idea that we
ought to be able to determine which immigrants, or which persons here
on visas I should say, had overstayed their visas; visas had expired;
they had been asked to leave the country and, yet, had refused to do
so. The INS wanted $52 million to set up a system to stop that
nonsense. The OMB denied it all. The committee put in enough money to
deal with the problem.
The FBI, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has indicated that we
discovered after September 11, the FBI had a great need for computer
modernization. We discovered, for instance, that less than half the
computers at the FBI could be used to send a picture of a suspected
terrorist from one FBI office to another around the country. So last
year, over the threat of a veto by the President of the United States,
[[Page H2907]]
we inserted enough money to see to it that that problem was corrected.
As a result, Operation Trilogy will be up and running by the end of
this summer, and we will have that capacity at the FBI.
In January, the FBI asked for an additional $635 million to secure
their records and to take other actions necessary to protect against
terrorism. OMB denied 625 of the $635 million, and the committee
corrected that. In the last bill last year, we provided enough funds so
that the Corps of Engineers could provide additional security for the
hundred most vulnerable Federal sites in the country. The Corps of
Engineers asked for an additional $128 million to deal with threats to
additional sites. OMB denied it. The committee moved to take care of
it.
We also saw the chaos at the Transportation Security Administration,
very well described in the committee report. That planning has been so
bad that the agency, for instance, suggested that we ought to be paying
the guards who are looking over the shoulders of screeners at airports
up to $84,000 a year, more than local mayors, more than airport
directors would be paid in those same towns. It provided for 650
additional headquarters staff people here in Washington. And yet the
budget request provided no money to house the new screening equipment
that airports are supposed to install. So there would have been no way
that we could have met the deadlines for having that equipment up and
running. And the administration requested insufficient dollars to make
certain that cockpit doors are fully secure by the end of the calendar
year.
{time} 1900
So the committee took actions to correct that.
The OMB also turned down the request from the Department of Defense
for $790 million to avoid the demobilizing of 20 percent of the Guard
and Reserve forces who presently are filling slots on the border, in
ports, on a temporary basis until people can be trained to take their
place, and the committee took action to fix that problem. So I think
that we had a good bipartisan product.
Now, there were problems with the bill after it emerged from the full
committee. We did have an amendment offered by the distinguished
majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), which gave the
President the authority to use our military forces to invade The
Netherlands, if necessary, in order to extract Americans who might be
held by the World Court.
I have a chart here labeled Tom DeLay's Proposed Invasion of The
Netherlands. Gives you some idea of where The Hague is and what will be
required by way of carrier capacity, tanker capacity, if we were to
invade The Netherlands. If somebody wants to take that seriously, feel
free. I think that it leaves us open to considerable ridicule. But in
spite of that I was willing to support this bill. But then we had the
leadership attach this ridiculous rule to this bill which provided a
convenient device by which the Nation's indebtedness could be raised by
$750 billion without any Member ever having voted on it directly, and
they also imposed the House budget resolution, which will mean, I
guarantee you, we will not have enough resources to produce
appropriation bills that the House will pass.
So we have seen again, and this has happened often in this House, we
have seen an original bipartisan piece of legislation emerge from this
committee, and we have seen it fundamentally screwed up by adding
extraneous items that have no business on an appropriations bill.
So I think we are going to be here a long time because some of us
feel that the ability of the House to proceed in an orderly and fair-
minded fashion is worth arguing about, and we will be doing that
through a series of actions that we will be taking and amendments that
we will be offering.
I do ask one additional question. As I said, we have had 116 of our
Republican friends offer a resolution requiring that a three-fifths
vote of this House be required in order to raise the indebtedness of
the United States, and yet we have seen this flip-flop action here
today, and I would ask the following Members, Representatives Aderholt,
Bachus, Barr, Barton, Bilirakis, Blunt, Bono, Brady, Bryant, Calvert,
Cantor, Chabot, Crane, Culberson, DeLay, Doolittle, Dunn, English,
Forbes, Gekas, Goodlatte, Graves, Hayworth, Herger, Baker, Bartlett,
Bass, Boehner, I can't read that signature, Cannon, Castle, Chambliss,
Cunningham, Deal, DeMint, Duncan, and all the others whose names I put
in the Record earlier, I would ask them how they can go home to their
constituents and tell them that they are going to vote to require a new
higher threshold of votes on this House before the Nation can be
plunged into more indebtedness and then engage in the flip-flop that
they engaged in today whereby they have guaranteed that we will see a
huge increase in national indebtedness when this bill comes back from
the Senate?
I find that to be quaint and interesting.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the
committee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) for allowing me to speak tonight and I stand in support of this
bill.
This bill does 3 things, and it all goes back to that horrible day,
9/11. This bill continues the war on terrorism. This bill continues the
battle for homeland security, and it helps rebuild our beloved national
city of New York.
Just remember, the American people will never forget September 11 and
what this Congress has done immediately after 9/11 to start the battle.
We will never forget the brave who died. We committed ourselves almost
immediately to make sure that Osama bin Laden and all the terrorists
around the globe would not be victorious.
This bill tonight is part of that battle. This bill has $15.77
billion to support our troops, and I had the opportunity, with the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the
Committee on Appropriations, to go on a bipartisan basis to
Afghanistan. We went to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan. We visited
4 of our bases, and we met with our troops, we met with Afghan
soldiers, and I can say that they appreciate what the United States of
America is doing. They are happy that we are there.
Their biggest concern is will we stay committed, and this bill
tonight helps show the world that we are committed, not just behind our
troops but behind the people over there so they can have a secure
future. But the battle is not just in central Asia; it is all over the
streets of America.
So the second thing this bill does is help secure our homeland. One
of the things that it does is work with local law enforcement personnel
to track down any potential suspicious terrorists or activities on a
local level. This bill also helps secure everybody who is traveling;
$850 million to help check for baggage, explosives and detection
systems; $630 million for baggage screeners; $75 million for security
enhancements at U.S. ports. And I just want to talk about this.
Not all of us are traveling. Prior to 9/11 there were 1.2 million
Americans in the air at any given day. Nowadays it is about 800,000,
and what this does is it secures our airlines even further, but also
our ports.
I am from Savannah. Last year in Savannah, we had 1 million
containers come in. Of the 1 million, only 1 percent were actually
screened and checked as to what their contents were. This bill helps
expand that so that our ports can be secure.
It also strengthens our communities for any other disasters, working
with EMS facilities and giving the local hospitals the support that
they need and the expertise.
Our war against terrorism is not going to be over until every city in
America is safe. As somebody told me, this war is about making sure we
can go to Wal-Mart and not have to worry, and I think that that is
something we all have to keep in mind.
Finally, in this bill is $5.5 billion to help rebuild the great New
York City, and that is going to be a long job, and I think it is
certainly in the national interest to do so.
[[Page H2908]]
There are some other things in this bill that are less high profile
but very important, and one of the things is there is $1.6 million for
additional staff and resources for the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and one of the issues that has come up recently is do we
need a blue ribbon committee to study what went wrong on 9/11 and how
can we do a better job.
Well, this bill addresses that because we already have an existing
intelligence committee. It is bipartisan. One chairman is Bob Graham of
Florida, a Democrat. Another chairman is the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss), a Republican. A bipartisan committee that has been working
since January to look into 9/11. It is bicameral, Senate and House
together, and it is comprised of experts. This bill addresses that, and
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time, and I also want to take the opportunity to thank our chairman
of the committee, and to me it has been a pleasure to work with the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and I rise
to address the foreign operations component of this bill.
The foreign operations portion of the supplemental contains $1.6
billion for various priorities and provides for the vast majority of
the administration's requests. I am particularly pleased that the
committee did not grant the broad waivers sought by the administration
along with these funds but, rather, included specific waivers where
appropriate.
This bill will give the President the broad latitude and flexibility
that he sought to carry out the war on terrorism. While many have
expressed concern that unnecessary funds for foreign operations were
added to the bill, in excess of the President's request, I believe the
funding added by this committee is extremely important.
In light of the fact that the committee received few details as to
how the funding requested will actually be spent, we were well within
our discretion to provide what we thought was necessary. I strongly
support the additional funding in this bill for rebuilding Afghanistan,
a long-term commitment we simply cannot shortchange, and I also support
the additional funds provided for Israel.
The bill contains both military and economic assistance to a number
of countries outside the immediate area of Afghanistan, such as the
Philippines, Georgia and Yemen, where United States troops are or will
be engaged in training indigenous forces to combat terrorism. The
committee has approved funding in these instances with the clear
expectation that the administration will keep Congress fully informed
of any change or expansion in the role of the United States forces. I
hope this will indeed be the case.
As I said before, I strongly support the additional assistance to
Israel that is included in this bill. Maintaining Israel's security and
stability has long been a fundamental priority of the United States
foreign policy. Israel has devoted precious resources to fighting the
terror that continues to threaten its own citizens, 3 of whom were
murdered just this week by suicide bombers, and the country is a key
democratic ally in our war against terror.
This funding originally requested by the State Department as part of
its supplemental request to OMB is essential to ensure our key partner
in the Middle East remains strong. I urge my colleagues to oppose
amendments to cut this funding.
I would like to take a moment to discuss 2 specific items of concern.
First, the current status of fiscal year 2002 funds for the United
Nations Population Fund. The conference agreement on the fiscal year
2002 foreign operations bill provided $34 million for the organization,
a deal that was painstakingly negotiated. The administration knew about
our negotiations, and after the bill passed the House by an
overwhelming margin, the President signed it on January 10, 2002.
Only after signing the bill did the administration express concern
about as-yet unproven allegations that UNFPA supported coercive family
planning practices in China in violation of U.S. law. In a direct
challenge to clear congressional direction, the President waited 5
months to even investigate these claims, and UNFPA was forced to cut
its staff and curtail its life-saving programs around the world.
During committee consideration of this bill, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I offered an amendment which would have ensured
that UNFPA received the funds intended for it by July 10, 7 months
after the signing of the bill, unless the President determines that the
organization is in violation of the U.S. law.
I am deeply disappointed that the Committee on Rules left this
provision and another dealing with UNFPA unprotected. In my judgment,
it was inappropriate to single out this particular issue while allowing
the bill to come to the floor with highly controversial provisions
regarding the International Criminal Court, the budget resolution and
Medicare provider payments.
I anticipate the Senate bill will have something to say about UNFPA,
and I look forward to discussing it in conference.
I am also disappointed that the rule did not allow me to offer an
amendment increasing funding to address the global AIDS crisis. While
this bill already contains $200 million for HIV/AIDS, a clear
indication that Congress recognizes the emergency nature of the crisis,
we can and should be doing more. Applications to the Global Fund to
Combat Infectious Diseases have far exceeded the fund's resources, and
this situation will only get worse as time goes by. Our own bilateral
programs, while highly effective, will reach 25 percent of affected
areas.
{time} 1915
Our response to this tragedy must be as expansive as the pandemic
itself so that we stop the wholesale destruction that AIDS is causing
in Africa and will cause in other areas around the world.
As a global leader, we have the responsibility to take the
initiative, jolting other donors into contributing more. Again, I
anticipate that the Senate bill will far exceed ours, and I look
forward to discussing this in conference as well.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the bill.
This bill provides much-needed appropriations for the Department of
Transportation, particularly the new Transportation Security
Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard. The bill also provides $1.8
billion in additional expenses for the City of New York to address its
transit needs in the wake of 9-11. And I am pleased that we were able
to provide the vast majority of requested funds for all DOT agencies,
except the TSA; and that is a special case.
The administration requested $4.4 billion in supplemental funds, but
the request made a curious statement. It admitted that OMB did not have
a clue whether or not $1.9 billion, almost half of the amount, was
necessary. It asked Congress to write a blank check for that amount and
let OMB figure it out later. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not the way we
do things on the Committee on Appropriations. We expect the
administration to justify their request, all of it, in great detail.
While some of that material is now being developed and being presented,
it is clear much more work remains to be done. Because of that lack of
supporting justification, the committee was unable to support the full
request for contingency emergency funding for TSA.
Members should know that unless a change in direction is made, the
TSA will be monstrous in size. When this agency was established last
year, we thought we were creating an agency of about 33,000 people. The
current estimate now is almost 70,000. We are planning to create a vast
army of new Federal workers, some of whom would do nothing more than
check your driver's license and airplane ticket or run your shoes over
to an x-ray machine and bring them back to you. TSA plans to
[[Page H2909]]
hire over 3,000 people just to sit in a chair and make sure someone
does not run the wrong way down an exit lane.
Mr. Chairman, there has to be a better way. I do not intend to
recommend funds for a 70,000-man bureaucracy full of shoe runners and
exit-lane watchers. Technology can obviate the need for thousands of
these positions, and others are not the purview of TSA or simply not
essential. So I believe strongly that TSA needs to look more carefully
at its growth plans, and I will continue to press them as the fiscal
year 2003 appropriations process unfolds.
This supplemental bill asks TSA to begin that review now. We provide
full funding for the procurement and installation of bond detection
systems at airports. In fact, we even raise those funds because the
request, we thought, was inadequate. But we have not provided funds to
build up that 70,000-man agency. The bill caps staffing at no more than
45,000 full-time positions. I believe that anyone who reviews TSA's
plans in detail, as I have, will conclude that this is sufficient for
the first year of that agency. In fact, it is about twice the number of
people who were performing screening activities just 1 year ago.
I am pleased that the bill provides even more funding than requested
by the Coast Guard, an agency on the front line of the fight for
homeland security. We provide the FAA flexibility to address operating
budget shortfalls which stem from extra security expenses at air
traffic control facilities, and we provide additional funds for review
of truck drivers who apply to drive hazardous materials within the
country. These are all vitally needed transportation security
improvements, and I am pleased we were able to fund them, especially
given the tight budget constraints placed on us in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill given the constraints
placed on the committee, and I ask Members to support it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise with some concern about
the process here in the United States House of Representatives. I am a
proud member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I am proud of the
work we do there. I am also very proud of the Chair, who I think
manages that committee very fairly. But something happened on the way
through the process here that stinks.
The committee worked very hard to try to pay for the needed costs of
what has happened in this country since we were here last year, the
unexpected costs; and that is why this bill is needed. This is an
emergency bill. It provides additional funds to pay for essentially
contingencies that were not anticipated; and as we have heard, 9-11 is
the biggest of those. But also there is an old adage here that says
this is the only train that is going to make it all the way to the
White House, and if you want to be on that train, you better load up.
I think that the committee did a good job of making sure that this
was not a big pork process and that it did not load up too much; and
that is always a tough bipartisan effort to put out a good bill. But
after the bill was put out of the committee, it went to the Committee
on Rules, and there the word came down that this bill was going to be
beefed up. It was going to be loaded up, and it was going to take care
of the political problems that certain Members of this House were
having.
I am from California, and we all know that California is facing a big
financial problem. It is in debt. It is a big State, the biggest
producer of taxes in the United States, and the biggest contributor of
taxes to the Federal Government. It is a State that probably can take
credit for the surge in the economy in the last decade, and a State
that was hardest hit in the recession, particularly to the dot-com
industry that was such a success.
So that is why the State is in debt. Its revenues just did not meet
expectations. It had incredible costs to pay for energy, costs that we
are now seeing were not the State's problem, but a manipulation of the
market by the private sector. Yet we find in California that we have a
lot of hard-liners who feel that we ought to have constitutional
amendments on requiring a balanced budget, as we do in California. The
State is not allowed to go into debt; and, therefore, the legislature,
at this moment, is cutting like mad and in fact doing some tough
political things in an election year. They are even raising some new
revenue.
But Members of the California delegation who are here in the other
party have come out in signing a resolution, H.J. Res. 86, introduced
this year, to amend the United States Constitution to require a two-
thirds vote if we are to raise the debt limit. But guess what, they are
the ones, the first ones to criticize a Democratic Governor in
California and then turn around in this House, put their name on a
resolution to require a constitutional amendment to do the same as
California.
But this bill, because of the way it was amended in the Committee on
Rules, it allows them to essentially duck a vote on the debt increase,
a huge debt increase, of the Federal Government. We have a dozen
Republicans from California that are coauthors of that bill who now run
away from the responsibility of having a balanced budget to allow the
United States Government to go into a big deficit. That is wrong. It is
the wrong way to handle this emergency appropriations bill.
We will see in the debate tonight a sort of in-your-face; that if you
do not vote for this bill, you are not voting for the soldiers; if you
do not vote for the bill, you are not voting for the firemen; if you do
not vote for this bill, you are not voting for a half dozen other
particular interests out there. That is not the reason why a lot of
people are going to vote against this bill. The reason is that this
process has been corrupted by essentially hijacking a legitimate bill
and making it a bill with all kinds of other political riders on it,
the kind of process that we around here always complain about; that we
ought to be fair and open and full of transparency. The process was
hijacked. And it is not the fault of the appropriators; it is not the
fault of the good work of the Committee on Appropriations. It is the
fault of the Committee on Rules taking mandates from Republican
leadership. That is wrong.
I just hope that tonight, as the debate goes on, that people realize
this was a good bill, put out by a good committee, and it was hijacked
along the way to do wrong for the United States and to do evil in the
budgetary process. This essentially takes money that is in our Social
Security account, takes money that is in the Medicare account and
requires those monies to be spent on things that should not be spent on
by those accounts.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
First, let me say I have great admiration for the chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and for the efforts he has put into
this bill, as well as those of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
representing the minority of this House.
Secondly, as I approach the last year of my tenure here in the
Congress of the United States, I just want to tell my colleagues that
today is a classic example of how great this institution is. In America
and in every democracy, a majority rules. Just a few minutes ago I was
in the well of this House arguing against something on a principle that
I believe very deeply in, and I lost, because a majority rules. When
this bill passes it will be because a majority of us will vote for it.
And if a majority votes for it, it will go on to the Senate.
But this is a great institution, filled with great people, with great
minds, with great Americans, who have one thing in common, and that is
we all want to do what is best for America.
As I listen to the debate on this floor each week, I hear the
Democrats on the one hand saying this is not the right avenue to take.
And I hear my majority Republican Party saying this is the avenue we
should take. But very seldom do we have different destinations. We are
all trying to get to the same corner of the room. Now, the Democrats,
in many cases, choose to go to
[[Page H2910]]
the left to get there; and the Republicans choose to go to the right to
get to, guess what, the same destination.
There is no doubt that we want to do everything we possibly can in
this war on terrorism. There is no doubt that we all want to support
the President of the United States to make certain that the
administration has ample facilities and ample resources to provide the
services they need to provide to the American people. It is only right
that we disagree, but it is only right that a majority rules. And while
I was defeated in my quest to change the rule to move in a different
direction, a majority of the Members of this House voted to tell me
that they disagreed with me, and I respect that.
I will have amendments tonight to change the direction of this bill,
amendments that will reduce some sections of this bill I do not like.
But guess what, I have $378 million for energy and water in this bill,
which is vitally needed by the areas of government that my committee
has jurisdiction over. There are so many good things in this bill, and
there are a few things that I wish were not in there. So a majority
should prevail there too, Mr. Chairman.
As we debate this issue tonight to decide whether we ought to vote
"yes" or "no" on final passage, we weigh the good over the bad. And
while these are some things that I disagree with in here, the good in
this particular case outweighs the bad.
So as I leave, I respect this institution. I respect all of my
colleagues. I respect the great tradition of this House. And I respect
that we live in a democracy where we can differ, but, nevertheless, in
a democracy where a majority rules. And that is what America is all
about.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished deputy whip.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and my
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding me
this time.
This evening, I rise in strong opposition to raising the debt limit.
{time} 1930
The Republicans are trying to sneak in a provision that increases the
debt ceiling without a full, fair, open and honest debate. Apparently
the other side, the majority party, are hiding something. What are they
hiding? What is the great secret?
The American people deserve to know that the funds for a debt limit
increase will come directly from the Social Security trust fund. We
need to protect Social Security and ensure that we meet our obligations
today. Instead, the majority party, the Republicans, are stealing from
the Social Security trust fund and increasing our national debt every
chance they get. For the next 10 years, we will increase the debt by
more than $300 billion. Something is wrong with that.
This party, the Republicans, are mortgaging the future of our
children. They are ripping away the safety for our Nation's seniors.
Increasing the debt limit is like increasing the credit limit on your
credit card. What does this do? It just puts you in a deeper and deeper
hole. That is what the Republicans are doing. So do not be fooled. They
are putting us in deeper debt and it is their obligation to get us out
of it. We should not spend Social Security on anything other than
Social Security. American families work hard to pay into a system that
they should be able to count on when they retire. Social Security is a
sacred trust, a sacred covenant between the American people and our
government. We must never, never, ever take away the security out of
Social Security. Let us keep our promise to the American people.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to my colleagues that this bill
contains $1 billion for the Pell grants. Why? Because more Americans
are seeking these grants. This amount ensures that every qualified
student applicant will receive a Pell grant and this can spell the
difference of more opportunities for a better job and a chance to
participate more fully in the American dream. I think it is vitally
important that we approve the legislation with this particular feature
in the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
The bill includes $112 million for the FBI, which is $102 million above
the request of the administration; but it will help the FBI do what
they have to do. The recommendation also includes $10 million for the
foreign terrorist tracking task force, a multiagency effort to prevent
terrorists from coming into the country. We certainly need that as
quickly as possible.
$75 million is recommended for the INS, $40 million above the
request. Again the administration was low in its request. You cannot
complain about the INS and then not fund its necessary programs,
including $49 million to address the shortfall in the immigration
inspection account; $25 million to bolster efforts to track and
apprehend people who have absconded on deportation orders; and $1
million to continue development of an entry-exit system.
The bill also has $175 million for the Justice Department for State
and local first responder equipment, training and planning needs. This
funding is provided to the Department of Justice as authorized by the
USA Patriot instead of being provided to FEMA as requested.
For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the
bill includes a total of $337 million for critical embassy security and
public diplomacy needs. After September 11, a lot of attention has been
paid to the inadequacy of public diplomacy efforts. We are not doing an
adequate job of telling America's story to the world and communicating
effectively with the foreign public. To improve this effort, the bill
includes $52.6 million for information, exchange and broadcasting
programs of the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, $27.7 million above the request. The amount also includes
$17.5 million for information programs, $20 million for international
exchange programs, $7.4 million for the continuation of the Radio Free
Afghanistan, and $7.7 million to expand the reach of the Middle East
Radio Network.
Then in closing, the bill also includes $20 million for 100
additional positions at the SEC to address the immediate and urgent
need for increased oversight of the accounting industry.
Finally, the bill includes a provision authorizing the closed circuit
transmission of the Moussaoui trial to victims of the September 11
attacks, and we also provide the requisite funding for that.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important and an emergency issue. I urge
quick passage of the bill, hopefully through the Senate and to the
President for his signature.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) concerning INS fee collections.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from New York.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 Commerce Justice State
appropriations bill authorizes the Attorney General to charge and
collect a $3 fee per individual for immigration inspection and
preinspection activities related to commercial ships.
It is my understanding that it was not the intent of this provision
to levy additional costs on regularized commuter ferry traffic between
foreign countries and the United States and that it was this concern
that led the committee to include an exemption for
[[Page H2911]]
ferries operating on the Great Lakes between Canada and the United
States in the legislation. I would like to bring to the committee's
attention another region of the United States that I believe should be
provided an exemption from this fee. Several passenger ferries operate
between Washington State and Canada carrying passengers, cars and
freight daily between the two countries. The new fee would
significantly increase ferry ticket prices charged to commuters and
businesses.
It had been my intent to offer an amendment to this bill exempting
certain ferry vessels from this fee. However, the committee has
indicated that it would prefer to deal with this issue comprehensively
in the fiscal year 2003 Commerce Justice State appropriations bill. I
would like to ask the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from
New York if my understanding accurately reflects their intention.
Mr. WOLF. I would say, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington is
absolutely correct. It was our intent to differentiate these commuter
vessels from cruise ships. As part of the fiscal year 2003
appropriation process, we absolutely will explore legislative
exemptions to ensure that the fee does not have unintended
consequences. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention.
We will take care of it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SERRANO. I agree with the gentleman from Virginia and look
forward to working with him and the gentleman from Washington to ensure
that this fee is fairly and equitably imposed.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen very much for engaging
in the colloquy.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for
the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation that is before
us.
Mr. Chairman, as it has been mentioned, there are three purposes
behind this bill: it is a wartime supplemental. First, to pay for the
expenses, the huge expenses of our war against terrorism. Secondly, to
pay the major expenses of homeland security to protect the United
States borders and the people in the country. And, third, to provide
the emergency assistance for those that have suffered through these
disasters relating to terrorism.
I rise to address some of the elements relating to homeland security.
We did not begin just after September 11 to try to address homeland
security. Our subcommittee, among other things, funds the U.S. Customs
Service. Even before September 11, we had allocated major funds to put
285 additional agents of the Customs Service at our borders, to add $33
million in inspection technology to examine the cargo that is coming
into the country, looking for dangerous substances as well as drugs
that could be sought to be brought in. Then we continued this process
in the supplemental that we passed in December, not only paying for
recovery and restoration of the offices that were destroyed in New York
City but also beefing up the air and marine operations of the Customs
Service, providing the funding with which the Customs Service is
already adding over 300 additional special agents, over 600 additional
border inspectors and the support people to go along with it.
There is another $68 million in the technology to be able to examine,
without having to open all the containers, the cargo that comes into
the country; and the major expansion of the training that is necessary
for the people that are coming in as new Federal law enforcement
people. This supplemental continues those efforts. For example, the
Federal law enforcement training center in Georgia has to train some
6,000 investigative personnel of the Transportation Security
Administration. This bill has the funding for those personnel. It has
additional funding to add more security at the Federal buildings under
the supervision of the General Services Administration which is the
landlord for our Federal Government. It has some $87 million to help
pay for better filtration equipment and other items to protect workers
in the postal system against the threats of anthrax or any other
substance that someone might send as part of a terrorist act through
the mail.
There are major other elements of this bill trying to protect our
Nation, trying to secure our borders, to detect and deter and halt
threats before they get into the United States of America. This is a
major and significant effort. I want to thank Chairman Young and
everyone who has been responsible for making these resources available
to better secure our homeland.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern about the procedures used
to bring this important legislation to the House floor and the lack of
inclusion in doing so. I would point out in the rule that was adopted
earlier today in this Chamber, section 1404 was added to the underlying
legislation relative to the treatment of certain counties for the
purpose of reimbursement under the Medicare program. I do not rise
today to express my opposition to the inclusion of those counties if
relief is necessary for them. I rise in opposition to a point that
other counties were not included as well.
The fact is, under this legislation, counties in Lackawanna,
Pennsylvania; Luzerne, Pennsylvania; Wyoming, Pennsylvania; Columbia,
Pennsylvania; Lycoming, Pennsylvania; and Mercer, Pennsylvania, were
included. Hospitals in Orange County, New York, were included.
Hospitals in Dutchess County, New York, were included.
On November 7 of last year, I wrote to the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means explaining that Porter Memorial Hospital in Porter
County, Indiana, was experiencing similar difficulty as far as an
inequitable reimbursement under their classification in Medicare
reimbursement. On January 22 of this year, I received a response from
the honorable chairman indicating that he had received my
communication, that hearings would be held and I would be notified. On
February 5 of this year I wrote to the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means and asked that we be allowed to testify on behalf of
Porter Memorial Hospital in Porter County, Indiana.
{time} 1945
Subsequent to February 5, no hearings were held that I am aware of.
We were not asked to provide any materials for justification as far as
the arguments for Porter Memorial Hospital. But tonight, on May 22, I
find out that we have 8 hospital counties in the States of Pennsylvania
and New York whose problems are being rectified tonight. That is not
fair. That is not inclusive in this legislative process. Porter
Memorial Hospital in the State of Indiana, in the County of Porter, is
as deserving.
I would hope as this session proceeds that the representations made
by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means on January 22 that
hearings were going to be held and that action on this vital issue to
Porter Memorial Hospital would be taken.
The fact is that Porter Memorial Hospital is located very near
Chicago, Illinois. Their costs of providing care to residents in that
area are comparable to the City of Chicago, Illinois, but the
reimbursements are not. There is a differential for an adjoining county
between Cook County, Illinois, and Porter County, Indiana. That is Lake
County, Indiana, and that places the people at Porter County in a
further disadvantage. I would hope that this problem is rectified.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) for being a champion for my State, New York.
As a number of Members have mentioned, there are 3 goals to this
supplemental. I would like to address the New York City component of
that. We remember well President Bush's pledge to do whatever it takes.
A number of
[[Page H2912]]
$20 billion was discussed. There was a lot of discussion, a lot of
contention about that in the last supplemental. The President said, "I
am good for my word." The chairman said the President's word is good.
I said the President's word would be good. And the President's word is
as good as gold. In fact, this brings the total appropriation for New
York City to $21.5 billion.
There is $5.5 billion additional in this for the reconstruction and
recovery of New York, $1.8 billion for transportation, $2.75 billion
for FEMA, and $750 million for HUD. The HUD fund, CDBG funds, have
enabled New York City to begin to put itself back together again and at
the same time retain the businesses and the residences of the people
who live in that Lower Manhattan neighborhood.
I was there just 2 weeks ago, and I was there the Friday after the
attack, with President Bush. It is a remarkably different place. Then
it was total devastation. Today the World Trade Center site looks like
a construction site. It is hallowed ground, clearly, but New York is
back to work.
Is there more to do? There is lots more to do. Decisions have not yet
been made on what to do at that site. But the fact of the matter is the
neighborhood is alive, it is vibrant, and it is New York City again. It
has that hum in Lower Manhattan.
So the President kept his promise, the Congress is keeping its
promise, and it is a remarkable thing to see the vibrancy of that city
returning.
Is there more to do? Yes. Is there planning to be done at the World
Trade Center site? Yes. But the New Yorkers will make that decision,
with the help of the Federal Government and the people of the United
States.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I was very supportive of the supplemental
appropriations bill as we worked our will in committee under the quite
able leadership of our chairman and ranking member. I am, however,
somewhat concerned about the rule and the self-executing nature of the
various amendments to this, particularly the one related to the debt
ceiling and the like.
I just want my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to know
that I think the original work of the committee as reported
represented, I think, an appropriate response to a number of issues
facing the country at this time, and I was particularly pleased with
the work that was done to help the District of Columbia meet some of
the needs that have been associated with September 11 in terms of
police overtime and the like. I just want to thank the chairman and the
ranking member for their work on those important matters.
As we conclude our work, I would hope that in the future we would not
have these types of add-ons. But it is part of the process,
unfortunately, and we will have to work our will here on the floor. But
the committee deserves, I think, appropriate thanks from the House for
the original work that was done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time. I do so to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith), for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, first may I compliment the
gentleman and his committee on his efforts to get needed support to our
first responders, our firefighters, so they can better prepare for any
terrorist attack that may occur.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the President's fiscal year
2003 budget request proposes consolidating existing preparedness
programs under the Office of National Preparedness within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. This is a proposal Congress will be
addressing in the coming months.
However, a concern I have is that the first responder supplemental
grant funding for fiscal year 2002 in this bill goes to the Department
of Justice. I understand the reason behind providing Justice with
funding, but I hope it does not mean that the anti-terror needs of
firefighters and emergency medical personnel will be implemented
without the input of the U.S. Fire Administration, which is part of
FEMA.
Can the chairman provide some assurance that he and his House
conferees will take into account the needs of firefighters and EMS
personnel as it distributes these supplemental funds?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
makes a good point. There is no question, as we watched on television
as the recovery and the first response in New York City and at the
Pentagon unfolded before our very eyes, we saw the importance of the
first responders in not only protecting property, but especially saving
lives. So I would have to tell the gentleman we are still in the
process of figuring out the best division of responsibility among the
various agencies for providing assistance to first responders, which we
are going to do. There is no question about that.
I agree with the gentleman from Michigan that we have to involve
those agencies with responsibility for assisting firefighters and EMS
personnel to help assure that they are prepared. I can assure the
gentleman that the Committee on Appropriations will continue to work to
make sure it takes into account the needs of firefighters and EMS
personnel, as well as law enforcement officers, when it considers how
to distribute the supplemental funding in this bill and in the fiscal
year 2003 appropriations bill.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I thank the chairman for his statement, and certainly all his
personal support for our first responders and law enforcement personnel
in this Nation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for this opportunity to have that colloquy.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of emergency
security assistance to our democratic ally Israel. The $200 million in
supplemental assistance to Israel contained in the FY 2002 Supplemental
Emergency Appropriations bill provides vital emergency resources to a
key U.S. ally and a frontline state in the war against terror.
Mr. Chairman, it became painfully evident after September 11 that
Israel and the United States are engaged in a common struggle against
terrorism. Neither country asked for this struggle; both have
constantly chosen a path of peace when given the choice. Israelis must
know that the U.S. stands with them in this difficult hour, as they
have repeatedly stood with this country throughout the years.
The United States has never been more resolved to eliminate the
threat of terrorism against innocent civilians and free society. The
democratic State of Israel stands shoulder to shoulder with the United
States in this effort. Terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli
civilians are taking place on a constant basis. In the face of terror,
Israel is attempting to rout out the forces that threaten the daily
lives of its citizens. But Israel continues to suffer a systematic and
deliberate campaign of terror aimed at inflicting as many casualties as
possible.
Mr. Chairman, as the world's leading democracy, we have a
responsibility to stand by a democratic friend and ally threatened by a
wave of terrorist aggression. At this volatile stage of developments in
the Middle East, Israel needs to know that it can count on U.S.
security assistance.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4775, the
Supplemental Appropriations Bill. For the last few years supplemental
appropriations bills have been brought to the floor to cover
shortcomings in the previous year's appropriation bills. Increasingly,
these bills have strayed from their original purpose of merely
appropriating funds for certain programs. Instead, they make changes in
policy, create new regulations, or implement new and completely
unrelated laws. This bill continues this unfortunate trend. It sends
billions of dollars in foreign aid to other countries, cuts funding to
low-income and elderly housing, and includes specific Medicare
"fixes" for hospitals in the districts of three Republican House
members. Most egregious of all, the bill raises the federal debt limit
to let the government keep spending money above what we should.
The Republicans have a problem and they don't know what do about it.
Their irresponsible tax cut has eaten up so much of the government's
resources that we are about to exceed the federal debt limit. Rather
than admit that they caused this problem, the Republicans have slipped
language into the bill to raise the debt limit without anyone knowing.
In other words, they've taken a page from Ken Lay's book: cover up
irresponsible spending
[[Page H2913]]
with hidden accounting tricks. What a disgrace.
Keeping up these tricks, the Republicans want to send $1.4 billion in
aid to foreign countries four months ahead of time in order to dodge
the budget bullet. There is simply no justification for this funding.
Even worse, the bill further relaxes controls that prevent human rights
violators from receiving military assistance.
And the bill doesn't stop there. Listen to this: we're going to give
Israel $200 million to continue destroying Palestinian infrastructure
while at the same time giving the Palestinians $50 million to rebuild!
The bill relaxes restrictions on aid to Colombia despite its ongoing
human rights violations in its war against revolutionaries within its
own boarders. It even appropriates $1.8 billion in military funding
above the President's request.
The Republicans naturally need a method to pay for all this new
spending and they have proposed to do so in two ways: first, as I've
already described, they want to raise the debt limit. Second, they want
to cut valuable programs here at home. For example, the Republicans
have cut $300 million for low-income and senior housing in order to pay
for this bill. In doing so, they turn their backs on 13 million
Americans who spend more than half of their income on substandard
housing.
This bill wastes more of our precious resources and then covers up
for it with hidden, below-the-table gimmicks. I will vote against this
awful bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, once again the GOP leadership in the House
has taken a necessary bipartisan effort to fund our war on terror and
bolster our homeland security, and riddled it with partisan budgetary
maneuvers including a thinly veiled provision that would permit an
increase in our nation's debt ceiling.
This supplemental appropriations bill includes $15.6 billion in
necessary military and defense-related expenditures to fight the war on
terror, and another $13.6 billion for homeland security, financial help
for rebuilding efforts in New York City, and foreign assistance,
including $200 million for Israel--all necessary expenditures that I
support and will vote for.
However, the rule for this legislation includes seemingly innocuous
language that would allow a huge increase in the debt ceiling to be
inserted in the conference report without a separate vote. This is
unconscionable.
Raising the debt ceiling, coupled with the current reckless fiscal
policy of increasing spending while reducing tax revenue, will put us
on the track for a fiscal train wreck.
This will plunge this country back into a level of debt, borrowing,
and higher interest rates that we thought we had permanently left
behind. In just a year, we have seen actual and projected surpluses
erased. Today, the most recent analysis suggests that we will run a
$300 billion non-Social Security deficit in this fiscal year. Even if
we spend Social Security dollars to fund the government--a policy that
I adamantly oppose--we will still run a $150 billion deficit this year.
Our debt ceiling is like a limit on a credit card, and if we keep
raising it without taking action to put our fiscal house back into
order, we are heading for fiscal disaster. It is not prudent for a
family in financial trouble to seek a higher limit on the family credit
card nor should Congress impose a long-term debt ceiling increase
without a sound fiscal plan.
I would support a time-limited increase in our debt limit to help
fund our war efforts--possibly one to three months--but that must be
accompanied by a budget summit between leaders of Congress and the
Administration to put our budget back into order and prevent us from
further fueling our debt with money from the Social Security and
Medicare Trust Funds.
While the supplemental bill is generally a good bill--absent the
provisions contained in the rule--I am troubled by one particular
provision. In order to keep the cost of the bill under $30 billion, the
bill drafters offset $643 million of the costs by striking airline loan
guarantees that Congress passed after 9/11. These guarantees are a
matter of survival for the airlines, particularly US Airways. I will
work with my colleagues in the Senate to see that this language is not
included in the conference version.
Although I support this supplemental spending, I will quite possibly
vote against it in a conference report if an unfettered debt ceiling
increase is included. Funding our war on terror, making America safe
and putting our fiscal house back in order are not mutually exclusive
pursuits. We need a budget summit to come to a bipartisan agreement on
ways to fund our current spending needs, stabilize our tax policy and
protect Social Security and Medicare without throwing our budget into
turmoil from which it will take years to recover.
I have been a hawk on our national debt since I came to Capitol Hill,
and I will remain so in this crucial fiscal period.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Appropriations
Committee's effort to bring forward a bill that provides funds to
address the current shortfall in the Pell Grant Program for this
nation's neediest students.
Specifically, this bill puts forward an additional $1 billion to
ensure the largest maximum award in the history of the Pell Grant
Program--$4,000. This bill, while providing for the $4,000 annual
maximum Pell Grant award as proposed by the President, will also
provide assurances to students and their families that the necessary
funds will in fact be available for them when they are needed.
This President and this Congress stand firm in their commitment to
the Pell Grant Program. That commitment is clear as evidenced by this
chart, which shows a steady and substantial increase in the annual
maximum award since fiscal year 1995, the point when Republicans gained
control of the Congress, through the current year. We will continue our
pledge to support the Pell Grant Program as we move forward with the
President's education agenda.
The Pell Grant Program is the foundation of the Federal need-based
student financial assistance programs, and is often the only hope low-
income students have to achieve their dream of obtaining a higher
education. Currently, the Pell Grant Program serves more than 4.4
million students and in FY 2003, the President's budget request will
serve an additional 55,000 students, allowing more students to move
forward and obtain a quality education.
We can do nothing better than provide an opportunity for this
nation's citizens to obtain a quality education.
In addition, I'd like to thank the Appropriators for including $190
million to help replenish the National Emergency Grant program, and for
restoring $110 million to the dislocated worker program. These funds
will go a long way in supporting American workers who have lost their
jobs due to the economic slowdown and last year's terrorist attacks.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to show their support for American
workers and the very important Pell Grant Program by voting yes on this
legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and the amendments printed in House Report 107-
484 are adopted.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4775
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For an additional amount for "Food Safety and Inspection
Service", $2,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to
the extent an official budget request, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of such Act.
Food and Nutrition Service
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC)
For an additional amount for "Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)",
$75,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003,
which shall be placed in reserve for use in only such
amounts, and in such manner, as the Secretary determines
necessary, notwithstanding section 17(i) of the Child
Nutrition Act.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for "Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Salaries and Expenses", $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended, 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: Provided, That the entire amount shall be
available only to the extent an official budget request, that
includes
[[Page H2914]]
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of such Act.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for "Food and Drug
Administration, Salaries and Expenses", $18,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire
amount shall be available only to the extent an official
budget request, that includes designation of the entire
amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined
in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the
Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER
Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act for the Department of Health and Human Services may
be used to consolidate the Food and Drug Administration
Office of Public Affairs or Office of Legislation at the
Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Point of Order
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 101
of the bill, beginning on line 18 through line 23, violates clause 2 of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives prohibiting
legislation on appropriation bills.
The language in question prohibits the Food and Drug Administration
from consolidating its Office of Public Affairs or Office of
Legislation at the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human
Resources under this bill or "any other Act." As such, the language
changes current law and constitutes a violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI.
I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I must concede the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded.
The point of order is sustained. The provision is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 102. Of the funds made available for the Export
Enhancement Program, pursuant to section 301(e) of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended by Public Law 104-
127, not more than $28,000,000 shall be available in fiscal
year 2002.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, people at home must be scratching their heads wondering
what are these folks talking about? Let me tell you what we are not
talking about. There is no disagreement between the majority of
Republicans and the majority of Democrats as to whether we should fund
our war against terrorism, because we all support that; or that we
should increase funding for the Defense Department, because we support
that; or increase funding for agencies that protect us and inspect
things coming into the United States, things and people, Customs,
Secret Service, et cetera; or provide money for the rebuilding of New
York City. There is no disagreement.
So what have we been hearing about this debt ceiling that bothers the
Democrats so much? Well, you see, the problem is that my friends on the
Republican side of the aisle decided that they would force through a
rather large tax cut, a $1.35 trillion tax cut, last year, that
benefited, in my opinion, disproportionately, the richest 5 percent in
the United States. At the time they said America could afford that,
there would be no deficits; that surpluses that were present under
President Clinton would continue now under President Bush, even with
this $1.35 trillion tax cut.
Something happened. A war on terrorism; the recession was still going
on. But then about 45 percent of what will now be a $300 billion
deficit in the year 2003 is a direct result of this tax cut forced
through by the Republican party.
The problem with this bill, and I am going to support this bill
because I support all the aid to our men and women overseas defending
us, standing in harm's way, and all of the good things in the bill, the
problem with the bill, that we hope will get fixed by the Senate
because the Democrats are in control of the Senate and they will
hopefully hold the line on this, is my Republican colleagues have
inserted into this supplemental appropriations bill a way for the new
deficits created, 45 percent of the reason for which is their tax cut,
they have created a way to fund these national deficits that are
expected for the next 10 years, and they buried it in this bill. They
did not have a debate on it. They would not let us debate whether we
should postpone the tax cuts for the very richest of Americans in order
to eliminate 45 percent of these new deficits, next year projected to
be $300 billion, and we all know where this money is coming from. It is
coming from our children and grandchildren and Social Security, as they
stick their hands deeper and deeper into the pockets of future
generations to pay for a tax cut that benefits primarily the rich.
Again, they did not plan on it this way. They thought there would be
surpluses. Then the war on terrorism came, and the recession. So we
said now there is a war on terrorism and a recession. Perhaps we ought
to delay this tax cut that benefits primarily the very rich. They said
no. So rather than admitting to the American people that the
Republicans have now created this huge deficit, 45 percent of which is
related directly to their tax cut that goes to primarily to the rich,
admit they have a deficit this year and projected for the next 10
years, admit that 45 percent of the reason for this new deficit is
their tax cut that goes primarily to the very rich, they have buried
language in this bill preventing a debate on it so that the American
people will not realize that when they said they could do a tax cut
that benefited primarily the rich and created surpluses, they were
wrong. They guessed wrong.
{time} 2000
I think that that is a terrible mistake that needs to be rectified.
What else could we do with this money? We could pay off our debts if
we did not have this tax cut for the very rich. We could even just
postpone it, delay it for a year, take a look around, see what the war
on terrorism is like, whether we are out of the recession or not.
Reasonable people of goodwill could debate whether a tax cut is
important in the midst of a recession. We are out of the recession,
according to all of our official estimates, and most of this tax cut is
going to take effect for the rich in the next 10 years, except we have
to pay for it now.
So if anyone is wondering why there appeared to be a disagreement
between Democrats and Republicans about a bill where we all support an
increase in defense, the war on terrorism, all of the agencies
rebuilding New York, et cetera, et cetera, we all support that. What we
do not support on the Democratic side is the unwillingness of the
Republican majority to hide the effect of their tax cut, which by
conservative numbers, 45 percent of the reason for the upcoming
deficits will be as a direct result of their tax cuts; and we say, if
you want to cause these deficits, cause us to dig into Social Security,
to pay for your tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest
of Americans, at least debate it out in the open. Do not hide it in
this bill. We are hoping that the Democratic Senate, when this bill
goes to conference with the Senate bill on this emergency supplemental,
will be resolved at that point.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, but
encourage the Senate and the conferees to remove this hidden, deficit-
hiding device.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 134,
noes 250, not voting 50, as follows:
[[Page H2915]]
[Roll No. 196]
AYES--134
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Sherman
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--250
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Petri
Phelps
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--50
Abercrombie
Barr
Becerra
Bilirakis
Boehner
Burton
Buyer
Clay
Clayton
Culberson
Deutsch
Dooley
Doolittle
Ehrlich
Emerson
Fattah
Foley
Frost
Gordon
Graham
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hilleary
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Johnson, Sam
LaFalce
Lampson
Lipinski
Mascara
McDermott
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Neal
Norwood
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Sawyer
Scott
Slaughter
Stark
Stenholm
Tauzin
Traficant
Waters
{time} 2023
Mr. SUNUNU changed his vote from "aye" to "no."
Mr. HILLIARD and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from "no" to "aye."
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a Member of the Committee on Appropriations,
having served with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), who was
very dignified as this Committee on Appropriations spent over 3 days,
14 hours on the first day, trying to bring to this House of
Representatives a supplemental bill to really react and respond to our
war on terrorism.
Many of us, over 60 of us who sit on that committee, vowed that we
would do the work necessary. We put 20 hours-plus on the bill over 3
days, and brought a bill to this floor, an emergency supplemental. I am
appalled with what the Committee on Rules has done with our work. It
has emasculated the committee system in this House.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has done a
wonderful job, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey). We have worked together in a bipartisan way to bring the
bill to the floor of the House. But what we have before us is not the
bill that came out of the Committee on Appropriations. It is not the
bill we were told was an emergency and had to be passed right away to
address the war on terrorism.
What we have before us now is a bill with all kinds of amendments
added onto it, and all kinds of things we cannot amend as Members of
this House that do not address the emergency before us.
This bill will increase the debt limit without a vote of this House.
We may have to increase the debt limit, primarily because of the $1.3
trillion tax cut that was given to the wealthiest of Americans just
last year at the time when the economy was slowing.
The CBO has told us that we will be in deficit $2.7 trillion, so
perhaps we will have to increase the debt limit, but let us vote on it.
Let us debate it. Do not bury it in this emergency supplemental that we
spent so much time and energy and hours on.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfair, and it emasculates the committee
system in this House of Representatives. The Committee on Rules has
gone ahead and gone deeper into the Social Security trust fund, leaving
everything to be taken care of in conference, and again, not allowing
us, the elected Members of this House, to have the proper forum in
which to debate it.
There is no new money for education, and again, if we adopt this
supplemental that the Committee on Rules has rewritten, we
automatically adopt the Republican budget resolution that passed this
House earlier this year. That budget resolution, if we remember, did
not fortify Medicare, did not take care of Social Security, did not
take care of education. If we adopt this Committee on Rules
supplemental tonight, we automatically adopt that poor budget
resolution that was passed a few months ago.
Mr. Chairman, these are trying times for our country. We are at war.
We do need to address the emergency needs of our troops, our homeland
security. But we also need to address the national defense, homeland,
problems of education.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
{time} 2030
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman
that it was the Committee on Rules because that is where the action is.
But it was the majority on the Committee on Rules that undertook this.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for making that caveat. It was the majority, the Republican
members of the Committee on Rules who emasculated the work of the fine
Committee on Appropriations and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
and
[[Page H2916]]
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and now we have before us not
an emergency supplemental that deals with terrorism, but a bill that
will raise the debt limits for this country, making us have more bills
to pay and at the same time not having an up-or-down vote on it; nor
will we be able to debate that. I think that is unconscionable.
We live in a time in this country where leadership is paramount,
where we must stand up and be counted. This is not the way this House
should be run. This is not the way the majority should run it. I hope
we will vote against the supplemental. Some people say they cannot vote
against it because of what is in it. I think you can vote against it,
come back and put together a supplemental for the American people that
will address the emergency needs of our country.
Our health care industry is about to collapse. I have been visited by
doctors in this country. I am sure you have too. They are not taking
Medicare senior citizen patients. The reimbursements are too low. Our
children cannot stand up to the competition of people all around the
world. We can fix that. This supplemental does not begin to address
that.
At a time when we need leadership, we are finding more and more that
we are doing the wrong things for the people of this country. They
expect us to be leaders. They sent us here for that.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, watch what we do over the
next few hours. Vote against this supplemental.
We are being asked to do something today that we have not done in
almost 6 years--pass legislation that paves the way for increasing the
debt limit that will allow the government to borrow money to pay its
bills. The majority is attaching this on to a must-pass bill, an
emergency supplemental appropriations to fund homeland security and the
war on terrorism, in order to minimize its exposure as the party of
fiscal irresponsibility.
For more than 60 years, the other side of the aisle has billed itself
as the party of balanced budgets, budget firewalls and Social Security
lockboxes. But their rhetoric does not comport with reality and they
know it. In the last half of the 20th century through last year, the
only budget surpluses this nation enjoyed came under Democratic
administrations and Democratic financial management.
That's a point the Republican majority does not want to acknowledge.
Consequently, it wants to slip debt-increase legislation through on the
sly without a full and fair debate of the fiscal position of the
country, how we got there, and how we're going to deal honestly about
digging ourselves out of the hole in which we now find ourselves.
The problem is the other side is in a state of denial. It does not
want to expose itself as the party of deficit spending after a
Democratic administration produced the longest string of budget
surpluses in the history of this country. And it doesn't want to own up
to the fact that it has to raise revenues before the country can get
back on the right track to fiscal sanity. Yes, the economic slowdown
and the war on terrorism caused us to spend more than general revenues
allow. But the primary reason we are spending beyond our means is
because of a $1.3 billion tax bill Congress passed last year.
Because the other side doesn't want to deal with the deficit
situation honestly and openly, the majority wants us to approve must-
pass legislation, so it can have a license to raid the Social Security
and Medicare trust funds.
We need to ensure that all areas of our budget are adequately funded.
While it is necessary to fund defense and national security priorities,
it is not acceptable to ignore domestic priorities that are of crucial
importance to our nation and the American people. By insufficiently
funding key priorities such as education and prescription drugs, we are
shortchanging our families and children. Yes, they might be safer on
the national security front, but if we cannot ensure our nation's
children a quality education, if we can't ensure seniors a sound
prescription drug coverage, and if we can't ensure the solvency of our
Social Security for so many people in the future, we are truly off the
mark.
The budget resolution presented a distorted vision for our future by
laying out a budget that does not sufficiently fund our education and
health care needs. This is not a budget that the appropriations
committee should adhere to if we really want to keep the promises we
have verbally made to our people. It is time to match our words with
real funding levels on paper.
Education
In January, the President signed into law landmark education reform
legislation with the "Leave No Child Behind Act." Yet, his proposed
budget and the Republican budget that was passed in the House does not
make the title of this bill a reality. If we continue along the
Republican funding path, more and more children will be left behind.
Both budgets provide a $1.4 billion (2.8 percent) increase over FY 2002
funding levels to the Department of Education, which represents the
smallest increase in funding in recent years.
Not only does the budget for education represent the smallest
increase in recent times, it actually eliminates funding for 28 key
education programs such as Drop-Out Prevention, Rural Education, Close-
Up Fellowships, and numerous other programs that enrich students'
education.
At the same time, the budget resolution proposes cutting or freezing
many other elementary and secondary education programs, including
educational technology (cut $134 million--15.7 percent), improving
teacher quality programs (cut from $105 million to $3 billion total),
and safe and drug-free schools (cut $102 million or 13.7 percent). It
also freezes funding for 21st century community learning centers after-
school programs, comprehensive school reform. Even keeping funding for
programs for FY 2003 at their current level represents a cut in funding
when inflation and rising costs are taken into account.
If we expect schools to implement the provisions laid out in the
"Leave No Child Behind Act", then we must give them the funding
resources needed to help them succeed. Mandates without adequate
funding is leaving our schools and teachers with their hands tied.
In my state of Michigan, funding for educational priorities such as
school construction and class size reduction have been eliminated.
Other programs have been cut, such as Even Start which provides grants
for family literacy projects that include early childhood education for
children through age 7.
health
The Republican budget proposed a mere $350 billion for Medicare
reform and prescription drug coverage over ten years. This represents a
gross underfunding just for a prescription drug coverage, which would
cost $700-800 billion over 10 years alone if we want a comprehensive,
meaningful drug coverage plan for seniors and disabled individuals.
This funding level does not even account for what will be needed to
strengthen Medicare for our future. If Republicans, in their
maneuvering today, really expect us to stick with the funding levels
proposed in the budget resolution, then their actions on the floor
definitely contrast with the verbal promises that they offer seniors
everyday on the floor and in their districts.
Overall, the health care outlook in the GOP budget is bleak. If we
are asked to stick with their numbers, major programs will be cut, such
as rural health programs (41.9 percent cut), Telehealth (84.6 percent
cut), and other programs that assist in coordinating care for the
uninsured.
social security and medicare raids
The huge tax breaks for the wealthy that Republicans passed have left
us looking at deficit spending. And where will the funds for all our
programs come from? Social Security and Medicare trust funds. This is
what they have to resort to when just last year, Members pledged not to
raid Social Security and we passed Social Security lockbox legislation
on the floor. This promise has been broken and the lockbox is locked no
more.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected last January that the
course of the Republican path would lead Congress to spend $845 billion
of the Social Security trust fund over the next 10 years. And this in
only taking into account the FY 2002 budget.
This return to deficit spending and raiding of the Social Security
trust fund cannot be explained by the recent recession or the war
against terrorism. When taking into account the Administration's own
numbers, the national debt will be $2.75 trillion higher than what was
originally projected early last year before the President's FY 2002
budget proposal. When adding recessionary costs and the war, these
numbers combined total $800 billion of projected debt. This means that
$1.9 trillion is left that cannot be explained either the economic
downturn or the war against terrorism.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we are gathered tonight in a place of
great and high honor. This is a Chamber in which decisions that have
profoundly affected the history of our Nation and of humankind have
been debated with great dignity and honor. In this Chamber we have
debated questions of civil rights, questions of war and peace,
questions of education and health care. And what brings honor to this
institution and what humbles each one of us privileged enough to serve
in this institution is the process of debate, of exchanging ideas, of
laying before the
[[Page H2917]]
people of the Nation, the people of the world, our divergent and
heartfelt views.
What we are doing tonight in this Chamber does not measure up to the
standards of honor of this Chamber. Because this bill is being used as
a vehicle to make a decision of monumental importance for the future of
this country, but we are not debating that decision. We will not take a
vote on that decision. We will not let the public hear our voices on
that decision.
There is a plan to move innocuous language in this bill that talks
about protecting the full faith and credit of the United States to a
conference with the other body. There is an anticipation that the other
body will add a law which authorizes the borrowing of $750 billion, the
bill which will be handed off to the children of this country. The bill
will then be brought back here, and it will be put to a vote where that
$750 billion borrowing is wrapped in the holy garments of all the good
things that are in this bill, aid to the troops, aid to loyal allies of
this country, reconstruction of New York City, things for which there
is broad, even, unanimous appeal.
The majority has chosen to hide its plan rather than to debate its
plan, and that is just plain wrong. I think I know why, Mr. Chairman,
the majority has chosen to do that. In 1990 when I came here, for every
$100 that we needed to run the government, we were bringing in $70
worth of revenue. And we made up the difference by pilfering money from
the Social Security trust fund and borrowing the rest from the private
markets in a way that drove up interest rates and drove down economic
activities. President Clinton made good decisions to change that.
Members of Congress of both parties made good decisions to change that.
The American people worked very hard, paid a lot of taxes and changed
that. And by 2000, for every $100 we spent to run our country, we
brought in $108. And we were told that $108 would be $115 and then $125
and then $135, and there would be all this money to spend.
In the summer of 2001, the majority voted to rid the Treasury of
about $2 trillion worth of money in one of the largest tax cuts in
American history. There were voices, mostly on this side, who warned
against the risk of that proposal. Our warnings when unheeded. The bill
became law. A recession came along. The terrorist attacks of September
11 came along. And where do we find ourselves?
For the fiscal year that will end this September 30, instead of
having $108 in revenue for every $100 we will spend, we will have 80.
So here we are once again borrowing the rest. Borrowing once again from
the Social Security trust fund and robbing the pensions of Americans.
Borrowing once again from the same markets that our entrepreneurs and
companies looked to grow their businesses.
The majority understands that the public would rebel against such a
plan. So rather than bring that plan to this floor and defend it, they
have chosen a procedural vehicle that will obscure it. That is the
wrong thing to do. This is a bill that does much good and many of us
will support it for that reason. I believe that if the leadership of
this committee had been permitted to bring this bill forward, that is
all the bill would have done.
But the majority leadership has a different agenda. It is to obscure
the agenda that will result in the borrowing of $750 billion. We vote
on congratulating the people of the East Timor in this Chamber. We vote
on the naming of Federal buildings. We vote on resolutions honoring
people that win NCAA basketball championships; but we are not going to
cast a vote on indebting the children in this country to the tune of
$750 billion.
It is so wrong, it is so indefensible the majority will not put this
on this floor. It is the wrong way to proceed.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a
colloquy with the chairman of the committee, as well as my colleague,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), also I think that the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) also are concerned.
This regards section 1103 of the bill dealing with the Federal loan
guarantee program for air carriers. The airline industry has changed
dramatically and permanently since September 11. Business air travel is
down 30 percent industry-wide and total industry revenue is down 15
percent since 2000.
It is an unfortunate reality that some carriers' financial situation
is currently unsustainable. We cannot now pass the provision that moves
the goal post on the very companies for whom the legislation was
intended when it was passed a mere 9 months ago.
I ask the chairman, this section would upon enactment of the bill
delay disbursement of loan guarantees until October 1 of this year. Is
it the chairman's understanding that while this provision would prevent
the actual issuance of a loan guaranteed until October 1, that the air
transportation stabilization board may continue and complete processing
of applications during the remainder of this fiscal year?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first let me say it is essential
to the United States that a viable air transportation system be up and
running. So I would say to the gentleman that what he suggests is my
understanding.
The Office of Management and Budget in a letter sent to our committee
interprets this provision as only preventing the actual issuance of
credit pursuant to the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act. The stabilization board may continue accepting and
fully considering qualified applications as authorized by that act.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for further inquiry.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that statement.
As the chairman knows, many of our colleagues, and certainly I am in
that group, strongly support this program and we want to ensure that no
changes are enacted that would prevent a qualified carrier from
receiving a loan guarantee as early as the stabilization board may act
on the application. This particular program was enacted to assist
carriers suffering losses as a result of the terrorist attack on
September 11. The Federal Government's closure of Reagan National
Airport made matters even worse for some of the carriers.
I know the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick), and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) have been very,
very concerned about this. We are aware of one or more carriers that
may apply for a loan guarantee before the deadline of June 28, 2002.
There are concerns that the provision, if enacted, might have the
unintended consequences of preventing a qualified carrier from securing
a Federal loan guarantee in time to avoid bankruptcy or other
irreparable harm to a carrier's operations, employees and customers.
Would the chairman be willing to work with us and other Members, and
there were so many that were interested in this, to ensure that that
provision does not have those unintended effects?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would yield again, the
committee does not intend to prevent any carrier from having an
application fully considered, nor does it intend for this provision to
result in the kind of outcome the gentleman is concerned about.
We will work with the gentleman and other Members as we go to
conference with the Senate on this bill to address any concerns that
affected parties may have.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for his assurances.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Office of
Management and Budget which clearly states the provisions which we are
considering today permit the Air Transportation Stabilization Board to
continue to complete the processing of
[[Page H2918]]
qualified loan guarantee applications that are properly filed.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This letter provides the Administration's
interpretation of Section 1103 of the pending House FY 2002
supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4775) regarding
airline loan guarantees. This provision was not proposed by
the Administration but was added by the House Committee on
Appropriations during committee consideration of the
supplemental appropriations bill.
Under Section 1103 of the bill, the Air Transportation
Stabilization Board would be able to continue and complete
processing of qualified applications for loan guarantees
during the balance of FY 2002 consistent with the authorities
of P.L. 107-42, the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act.
While the Board could not obligate loan guarantee funds
during the balance of FY 2002 (from enactment through
September 30, 2002), it can, after October 1, 2002, issue the
loan guarantees to qualified applicants.
Sincerely,
Nancy P. Dorn,
Deputy Director.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) and I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers), all of those folks who have tried to protect USAirways'
ability to be financially solvent.
I have to say, though, that I am convinced that the language in this
supplemental appropriations bill does just the opposite. I do know that
the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and the Chair of the
subcommittee want to make it right. But I think we need some assurance
that it will be made right. I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), who will be affected.
There are 204 cities whose economy is going to be severely damaged if
USAirways is not able to continue operations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis)
has expired.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, there are 204 cities who are dependent
upon the air service that USAirways provides. There are 40,000
employees who are dependent upon the income that they earn from
employment with USAirways. This is a very, very serious issue. I know
we have discussed previously that it looks an awful lot like a budget
gimmick, $1.3 billion by terminating the ability to apply for a loan.
But it is serious business when you are talking about one of our
premiere airlines. And I know that we have substantial support on the
other side of the aisle, and certainly those who voted against the
rule, this is one of the reasons that virtually all Democrats voted
against the rule. And I know there is substantial support on the
majority side. But we have got to find a way to make USAir whole, at
least to the extent we are capable of doing so.
And that is why we passed the airline guarantee program. We did it
right after November. We know that USAirways is the most adversely
affected. National Airport was closed down for an entire month and for
8 months it has been in partial operation. How can an airline survive
under those conditions? I do not know.
So this is the airway that was most likely to benefit from the
legislation we passed, and now we turn around and say we are going to
terminate the loan program knowing that they are ready to apply so we
can save $1.3 billion to get under their nonofficial ceiling?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that USAirways has
indicated that it needs this loan guarantee so it can get loan proceeds
by August 1. But under the bill as presented to us, nothing will be
payable until October 1, the first day of the next fiscal year and this
is sooner than it could possibly be paid. It would be soon after that,
that is the soonest possible date, and that is too late according to
their indication, is it not?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on
the House Committee on the Budget. What he says is absolutely the case.
USAirways indicates that it will run out of money by August and it will
need the infusion of loan money by then. What this language does is to
not make any of that money available until October 1. And unless we can
work out some language, it has no assurance that it can give to the
creditors that money, in fact, will be authorized.
{time} 2045
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the purposes
of colloquy is to assure we have full leadership working to make sure
one way or the other, the right thing happens should they qualify for
this loan. In fact, the money will be available on a timely basis. We
have received assurances that this, it still has to go through
conference. There is Senate language that still needs to be worked
through, and I just want to say I am comfortable with the fact that we
are going to work this out, but I appreciate the gentleman's being very
aggressive on this issue because I think it is very important, not just
for the airline, as the gentleman has mentioned before.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time to tell
my good friend from Virginia that I know he has been aggressive as well
in supporting U.S. Air, but I think the gentleman also knows that on
the Senate side they have capped this loan program in such a way that
U.S. Air will not have access to the money. So if the money is not
available on the House side, if it is not available on the Senate side,
we are not going to be able to get it in conference.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, they have only capped it in
committee. It still has to go to the floor. It has a long way. I know
Senator Byrd is concerned about this as well.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that CBO has scored
this particular provision as saving temporarily for this fiscal year
$343 million, that is all, under the Credit Reform Act. It is not the
full amount of the loan. It is the likely loss on the loan that is
scored as an expenditure on the loan this year. However, this is
nothing but an obligational delay, so it does not really save anything.
What it means is that what would be obligated in the remaining few
months of this fiscal year will instead be obligated after October 1.
Why go through shenanigans like that and send a message to the lenders
that U.S. Air will not be able to take down the cash it needs to
survive until after October 1? Sure, it can complete its loan
application, but it cannot get the cash it needs, and that message will
go out again tonight. It will chill the atmosphere for lending. My
colleagues know the Transportation Stabilization Board will not want to
process anything for fear that Congress is about to undercut it. Why
are we doing this? What sense does it make? It does not save a dime.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Moran of
Virginia was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full committee.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's dedication to
this issue, as well as the other Members on his side of the aisle and
on our
[[Page H2919]]
side of the aisle, and I would tell my colleague that we are very
committed to doing everything we can to make sure this problem is taken
care of.
Yes, there is a problem here on the House side, we understand that,
but by the same token, it does have to work its way through the whole
process, and that is what we are looking at and working on, to get the
assurances that we need that the money will be there, that they will be
able to get these loans, and that they are not going to go bankrupt. We
have no intentions of allowing that to happen.
It is very unfortunate these provisions were put in this bill the way
they are, but we want to do everything we can through our leadership
and through the Senate to make sure that this is taken care of, and I
appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There are 2 distinct issues on this point. First is what will happen
to U.S. Air, and, frankly, I cannot tell, and that is the problem.
The second problem is that the original committee provision was
scored as saving $400 million. That was the proposition that said that
the Transportation Department could not issue any loans from this point
on for the remainder of the fiscal year. That was estimated by CBO to
save $400 million, but now we are being told that even though it is
being suggested that this loan may go ahead, we are still being told by
OMB, and I understand the House Committee on the Budget, that we are
going to save $1.3 billion by this provision, even though the loan that
is being foregone is allegedly going ahead.
I find that hard to follow.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, CBO scored it, I have a letter and I put it
in the Record, at $343 million. That is the accurate scoring for this,
and that is the question I am raising. For that sum of money, why put
U.S. Airways flying into jeopardy?
Mr. OBEY. My point is, I understand that is a legitimate concern, but
my point is another concern. I am concerned about putting the integrity
of the Federal budget process in jeopardy, and my problem is that when
we are told that the loan that was not going to go through is now going
to go through and yet we are going to save more money than we were to
spend originally, that is sleight of hand to me, and it looks a little
bit like Arthur Andersen accounting to me.
So I do not understand how we can say this loan is going to go
through and yet we are going to save three times as much money as CBO
originally estimated. It does not compute and it also does not make
clear what is going to happen to the airline, which is an overriding
and justifiable question in the minds of many Members tonight.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if I could simply ask, am I wrong? I
believe the $343 million is exactly what CBO scored it as, and number
2, does this really save anything? If this is just an obligational
delay that says that the money cannot be obligated during the summer,
but come October 1 it can be obligated, it does not save anything, why
do this? Why go through shenanigans like this just to claim a credit
that is not really a credit? It is not a savings. If I am wrong, I will
stand corrected.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say
to the gentleman, I have seen the CBO analysis dated today, that it is
only $343 million. It is not $1.3 billion.
Mr. SPRATT. But that is for 4 months.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely
correct.
My other concern is I know how sincere the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, the chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation, the
chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary,
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has been working very
hard on this.
I believe we had the votes in full committee to strike the language.
We were assured that we would not have to do that because it would be
taken care of, and my concern is that I do not know at this point how
it is going to be taken care of, and if the House bill leaves the
floor, I am very much concerned it is going to be too late.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest the answer to the
gentleman is that the only reason at this point that this is in here
with this outlandish estimate is to make the bill look like it is paid
for when it is not. This $1.3 billion savings, in my view, is a
fictional savings of OMB and the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was listening with interest to the discussion about
U.S. Airways. I represent Baltimore, which has an interest in the
direct health of U.S. Airways, and I think it is very clear that we are
using accounting gimmicks again in order to satisfy budget rules
because we do not have a straightforward budget, and I mention that,
Mr. Chairman, because there is a lot of good things in this
supplemental appropriations bill, and many of us are going to be voting
for a lot of the issues that are underlining the bill itself, but we
are compelled to speak about the unfair procedure and the undemocratic
principles that are being used in the legislation that we are
considering on the floor this evening.
We are talking about provisions that were added after the bill came
out of the Committee on Appropriations. I want to compliment the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Many of
these issues were worked out in committee that are good provisions, and
we want to move them forward, but, unfortunately, what was added by the
Committee on Rules and by our last vote, we are, for example, deeming
the Republican budget as being enacted for the purposes of the
Committee on Appropriations work.
Well, that gives approval to a budget that is just not realistic. It
does not protect the priorities that many of us believe in, that the
majority of this House believes in. We are not going to be able to deal
with education or Medicare, prescription drug or transportation or
homeland security or the airline industry in a straightforward way on
the budget that was deemed by the rule that we approved a little bit
earlier this evening.
So now what are we going to do? We are going to go back to gimmicks.
We are going to go back to waiving all these rules. No budget
discipline at all. That is the concern that many of us have about the
procedure that is being used tonight.
We clearly are going to move to large deficits again. We are going to
protect large tax cuts, but we are going to move to large deficits, and
we are going to use Social Security funds. We are going to borrow those
funds to cover the other obligations of the United States Government.
How often have I heard the Members of this body talk about a lockbox?
We are going to make sure that money is not used, and, oh, yes, we have
had some unexpected expenses, but that is not the reason we have the
large deficits. The large deficits are a direct result of the budget
and the tax bills that were passed. My colleagues know that; I know
that.
We should be able to debate that issue here on this floor, but,
instead, what are we doing, we are using a magic wand to do certain
things rather than having a full and open debate on the budget issues
and on the debt ceiling. So it will be extremely difficult for us to
deal with Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the moneys that were in the
surplus were used in just about every proposal that has been brought
forward to deal with Social Security, including the bill that was filed
in the last Congress by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and now those funds are to be
borrowed and used for the general obligations. That is wrong, and we
all know that we are using a stealth process so we do not have to deal
with the direct debate on this floor on the debt ceiling.
We should have a direct vote on that issue. We should talk about it.
We
[[Page H2920]]
should talk about how we are going to deal with the future debt. As I
understand it, Republicans are going to be asked to raise the debt by
$750 billion. $750 billion. Look at how much of the tax bill is going
to have to be paid for by additional borrowing. I am not sure that is
exactly what the American public wants us to do.
We are going to go back to the red ink again. What we should be
doing, we should take a little pause in the action, we should sit
together and work out a bipartisan agreement on a budget, and if we had
a bipartisan agreement on a budget, with the other body, with the
administration, then we would have a supplemental appropriation bill
here that could be considered in a relatively short period of time.
We could have a prescription drug bill for Medicare that we could all
agree upon and really get something done for our seniors at last. We
could have a budget that would speak to the priorities on education and
on homeland security, on the other issues, and we could really deliver
for our constituents.
So, Mr. Chairman, many of us are going to express the frustration
tonight that the process that the majority is using is unfair; not
unfair to the Democratic Members, it is unfair to the American people.
We deserve better. The American public deserve better, and I would urge
my colleagues to use the time to get together so that we can produce a
bipartisan budget so we can produce results for the people of this
Nation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to all of these speeches. What I
have to say is this is an emergency, wartime supplemental. Political
speeches about whatever my colleagues want to make political speeches
about, that is all well and good. Why do my colleagues not do that on
some other bills? This is a wartime, emergency supplemental.
The military is running out of money, especially those who are
directly involved in the war in Afghanistan. We have got to protect
those soldiers that are deployed. We have got to make sure that they
have whatever it is that they need to fight this war. We have got to
provide for the FBI and the intelligence agencies. Let us focus on what
this bill is all about, and it is about protecting America. It is about
seeking out those who would terrorize America. It is about securing our
places and our people, our seaports, our airports, our airplanes,
public gathering places. That is what this bill is about. This should
not be a vehicle for political speeches.
{time} 2100
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. And, Mr.
Chairman, I do so to applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran)
for raising appropriately the issue of USAirways. I think it is, to put
it mildly, bad faith on the part of Congress to terminate the loan
guarantee program, and it is an act at the worst possible time for this
carrier, and for other carriers along with it, who have indicated their
likely need to apply for the loan guarantee program.
Virtually everybody in this House voted for both the compensation
program and the loan guarantee program last fall when it was crucially
necessary to save America's airlines from financial liquidation. That
legislation passed overwhelmingly to the great credit of the
administration. They came forward and said, yes, we need to do this,
when we in the House were already talking about the need to save
America's airlines, who were bleeding at the rate of $360 million a day
because they could not operate.
And the reason we enacted that legislation was that it was an act of
government that shut down the Nation's airlines in the national
interest, out of security concerns. It was an appropriate action. But
we caused the airlines, we, the government, caused the airlines to lose
billions of dollars in the national interest. We recognized that it was
a necessity for the government then to come back and not make the
airlines whole, but at least put them in the position they were in at
the moment of the order for all airline operations to cease on
September 11.
Mr. Chairman, 2,460 commercial airliners were brought on the ground
within 2\1/2\ hours and did not operate for 3 days. And then, for a
month after other airports were opened, National Airport remained
closed. This is the hub, the base of USAirways' operations. The order
of government not to operate out of National Airport hit this carrier
disproportionately greater than any other carrier in the United States.
I find it short-sighted, bad faith, poor judgment, poor calculation to
say, oh, we have taken back what we offered you last fall. It is just
simply not right. It is not fair.
And I do not want to get into all these other discussions about what
else is in this supplemental appropriations bill. This particular
provision is really harmful and hurtful and goes back on our word that
we gave in this body to the airlines of the United States: we will make
you whole to the point that you were at when you could not fly, and we
will provide loan assistance, payback with all sorts of guarantees that
I participated in crafting into the loan guarantee program in the
Speaker's office, the night of the President's address to the Nation.
And now the program is there; and all of a sudden you are pulling the
rug out from under this carrier that has suffered a disproportionate
burden compared to other carriers in the country because of the
shutdown of National Airport for over a month.
Now, I heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) say that we
will fix this somehow over the course of the next few days. "Somehow"
is no help to the financial institutions. It does not give them a whole
lot of confidence at all. It gives them zero confidence, in fact. This
needs to be fixed now, before this bill leaves the House, whether it is
a statement by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or a
statement by the Office of Management and Budget.
I think our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget has already
spelled out how little, how ephemeral, how chimerical the savings will
be. Surely we can do something in the course of this evening, which
apparently is going to be a very long evening; and I appeal to the
chairman. I do not fly USAirways. They do not serve Minnesota.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an interest only because of my
many, many years of action in the aviation sector as the former Chair
of the Subcommittee on Aviation and a desire to do the right thing.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we want to do the right thing as
well, but I want to remind the gentleman that this loan program was
enacted into law on September 22 last year.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I said that just a moment ago.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I just want to remind everybody. And as of
tonight, as we stand in this Chamber, certain airlines have not even
made their application, knowing full well that under the law that we
passed last September the application process terminates on June 28.
That is rapidly approaching. So the airlines are not totally free of
guilt in not getting the job done.
All that aside, we are prepared to try to help keep our airline
industry viable. And the only airline that I can fly direct to my
district is USAir. I do not want USAir to go out of business or to go
bankrupt. I want to help them. But I have to tell my colleague that
they could have applied for this loan guarantee a lot earlier and they
did not.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the chairman
that the regulations for the loan guarantee program were not available
until early this year, along about January-February. And the person
administering the program was not put in place until just about that
time. It has been very difficult for the carriers to understand how
this program would be
[[Page H2921]]
administered. Further, they wanted to wait and see whether they could
be whole on their own.
So I do not exonerate the airlines, but there were mitigating
factors. And this carrier is particularly vulnerable. If we lose
USAirways, then on the east coast the cascading effect will be that
there will be a diminution of competition in the airline sector.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, our heart is in the same place, I
would tell the gentleman. But the gentleman's facts are not exactly
correct, because the first application under this program was America
West and it was filed on November 28 of last year. So the regulations
were in order much earlier than the gentleman suggested.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, America West filed
before the regulation process had been fully implemented. They were in
much more desperate shape than USAirways, no question about it. The
full set of regulations was not in place at that time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just share some
information regarding USAirways. In the first place, USAirways
attempted to sustain its operations as long as possible without having
to draw on a Federal loan guarantee.
In the second place, as I think the gentleman knows, USAir has been
working very diligently in working out labor agreements and showing a
long-term plan so that this loan guarantee will be able to be paid off
and they can show a viable financial plan into the future.
This is a very difficult process for such a large airline.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, before my colleagues jump again to react to the airline
industry, I would caution that we think about the way the airline
industry responded to our last legislative action. Within hours, Mr.
Chairman, within hours of the passage of that airline bailout,
USAirways fired hundreds and hundreds of its employees. Not only did
they do that, they fired and closed reservation centers of their most
senior, most experienced reservationists because they could save more
money that way. And then they did not give them the opportunity to be
rehired at other locations. They went out and the reservation centers
that needed additional employees, they hired people "off the street,"
because they could hire them at a lower wage.
This is the airline that charges customers seven times what other
airlines serving the same two cities charge. This is the same airline
that has average employee costs of $87,000. This is the same airline
that provides service in 37-seat prop jets when they could go out and
purchase new regional jets that would provide dramatically better
service, and they are asking people to fly in those 30- and 40-year-old
planes because their contract with their pilots will not allow them to
buy new regional jets. This is the same airline that came back to us
and said we need your help on this bill, and they still have not got
their loans filed.
It is no surprise that an airline this poorly managed would not have
their paperwork done. So before we proceed to give them more help, let
us remember what they did the last time we provided them with help.
Lord knows what they will do to their employees and their customers
this time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, many of us wait not just minutes but hours to come to
the floor to speak, and this evening, after listening to this debate
about only a slice of what is in this supplemental, I cannot help but
observe that this distinguished body, this great House of
Representatives, has somehow created a mess. And I think the mess, and
I do not like using the word, it is not out of disrespect to any
individual, but haste can make a mess.
I listened to my colleagues who serve on the committee who said we
had something drawn up and then something happened at the Committee on
Rules. There is a frustration on my side of the aisle that we cannot
offer anything to amend this. That is wrong. For people that served in
the minority for 40 years, my Republican colleagues know that is wrong.
My colleagues know, and we all know, what a credit card is. If
someone took any one of our credit cards and put $750 billion on that
credit card without our knowing about it, we would be the first ones to
dial up and say, something has gone wrong. I have taken votes when I
was new here and my leadership said it is important for the country to
raise the debt limit. But, no, no one is brave enough on the other side
to take that straight vote up or down.
We are accountable to our people. And so now the Nation's debt goes
higher. I should not, and none of my colleagues on the minority side
should be lectured to say that what we say is political. We ran for
this office because we love this country. We all do. But we are not
doing right by her by hiding in a poorly drafted, jammed-through-a-
committee supplemental.
This is not right. It is not becoming of this House and this body.
All joking aside, my colleagues know when they go home how their
constituents respect them. How can anyone answer for raising this,
incurring more debt, and not explaining it to the American people
without even taking a vote.
I have heard over and over and over again the lectures. I do not need
to be lectured, and no one here does about how much we love our country
and want to defend her. That is not the issue. That is not the issue.
So it is with deep regret that I stand up this evening with a great
deal of frustration and an enormous amount of sadness.
We can debate our issues and hold our ground and still respect one
another. But to do this, this is wrong. This is wrong. America,
tonight, $750 billion was placed on America's credit card and we could
not stand up and debate and offer a better idea.
{time} 2115
If you have more votes, you can outvote us. But ideas are at the
heart of this democracy. I believe my constituents would object to
this, Republicans, independents, and Democrats, because it is not
becoming of those we represent, it is not becoming of the process that
we should follow in a democratic institution, and I want you to know
that I object. I object. I object. I object.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if I might for a moment revisit the issue of USAir. The
Eighth District of North Carolina has a number of USAir employees. I
want to reassure them in spite of some of the things that they may have
heard, that I and others here are vitally interested, whether they are
machinists, pilots, caterers or other people who work at USAir. We
worked very, very closely with every aspect of USAir to make certain
they had every possible chance to work with us.
My colleagues here on the floor heard earlier today a very specific
colloquy between the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf),
and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), very specific,
about our ability, desire and capability of working with USAir to make
sure that there is a proper outcome for those very valuable employees.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, when Republicans put the
debt ceiling in this legislation, they politicized the process. When
they put deeming the budget, the Republican budget, in this process,
they politicized the process. So to be lectured to that we are
politicizing the process, we are responding to what you have created on
the floor which you control as the majority.
[[Page H2922]]
For those who might not understand the sometimes arcane rules of this
institution, let me put what is going on here in very plain language.
Republicans have already spent all of the surpluses we had well into
the future and now they are trying to get a further credit line
increase without even giving us a chance, those of us who represent 49
percent of all of the American people on this side of the aisle, to
approve it in an up-or-down vote.
There are some of us here, and many Americans out there, who think
that raising America's debt limit is irresponsible. Why are you hiding
your efforts to increase America's debt? You are hiding behind it
because you clearly must be ashamed of the mess that you have made of
America's budget. They are hiding behind it because they do not want
the American people to know that you are raising the ceiling on how
much they will owe, and their children and their grandchildren. And why
do they need this debt limit increase in the first place? Not because
of the recession. After all, the Congressional Budget Office is
projecting deficits long after the recession is supposed to be over.
Not because of the war on terrorism, which we support. Because even if
you add up every last additional dollar we are spending on the war
abroad and here, it does not even come close to accounting for the debt
increase Republicans are proposing. So why the huge increase in debt?
The answer is obvious. Republican fiscal mismanagement.
Democrats support fiscally responsible tax cuts that are paid for.
But this bill saddles our children and grandchildren with huge debts
that will take generations to pay off, by taking funds from Social
Security and Medicare that our seniors are, and baby boomers soon will
be, relying on, by increasing the amount of interest Americans pay on
this debt, which is nearly $1 billion a day.
Huge debts, deficits as far as the eye can see. Social Security
raided; higher interest rate payments; the Republican fiscal plan is a
disaster. Republicans passed this budget. They cannot blame anyone but
themselves for the fiscal mess we are now faced with. But today they
want to pass the buck to working Americans to clean up their mess and
they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the American people
while doing it. At least you should have the courage to stand up and
vote for what you have done. At least they should have the courage to
do this out in the open instead of by illusion.
We Democrats demand the chance to vote on and oppose your
irresponsible debt limit increase, this reckless credit card spending
binge that you are on. But if you will not give us the chance to vote
against a debt limit increase, this reckless credit card spending, if
you are determined to hide it from the American people in this bill, if
you are determined to raise the debt of all Americans even without so
much as a single vote, then the shame is theirs, as are the
consequences.
This is exactly what we Democrats said would happen if you passed
your irresponsible budget. So I would say to my Republican colleagues,
you who want to blame this fiscal mess on the recession, tell that to
the laid-off workers whose unemployment benefits you held hostage for
weeks. And do not try to blame it on the war on terrorism. You dare not
use our fighting men and women as an excuse for the deficits you have
created. If you want to know who is to blame for our return to
deficits, merely look in the mirror. This is an abomination on the
greatest democratic institution in the world that in the marketplace of
ideas that we promote throughout the world we cannot have a vote up or
down on the debt ceiling so that the American people will know how you
are hocking their future generations for generations to come.
It is a shame. It is an abomination. That is why you will hear the
anger throughout this evening as I think you will hear it from the
American people in the days ahead.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great admiration for my colleagues
across the aisle. That is because I admire what my family calls
chutzpah, or nerve, some might say gall, but not me. An ordinary person
watching tonight might think that the Republican leadership would be
just a little bit sheepish about coming here today and proposing a
supplemental budget that we really do not have the money to pay for
without dipping into the Social Security trust fund, a trust fund that
just a few short months ago was safely ensconced in a lockbox, a
lockbox that, if I remember correctly, one after another of those same
Republican leaders declared loudly and eloquently would never, ever be
unlocked. Oh, no, we would never dip into the Social Security lockbox.
And why? Because we had such a huge surplus, a surplus, if I can be
rude enough to mention, was inherited from the Clinton administration,
a surplus of $5.6 trillion, a surplus so large that these leaders
scoffed at those of us who warned that the future is too uncertain to
throw trillions of dollars of tax giveaways to the richest of the rich.
I admire my Republican colleagues that despite the fact that $5.6
trillion of surplus is gone, gone, that we are now facing a $300
billion deficit this year, rather than being even the slightest bit
embarrassed or apologetic, they are pressing aggressively ahead with a
supplemental budget that, among some very worthwhile things, also takes
money out of rural hospitals, expands the war in Colombia, ignores our
housing and health care needs and is all paid for by raiding the Social
Security trust fund. And I admire their arguments. It is war. How dare
we be so unpatriotic as to bring up trivialities such as Social
Security or debt or even fiscal responsibility? We are just being
political. Although it does occur to me that there just might be such a
concept as economic patriotism, that at a time of new demands caused by
war, caused by our efforts to end terrorism, that it might be just the
perfect moment to reconsider such things as tax cuts for the richest.
Their forcefulness, some might call it sanctimony, but I do not, is
laudable.
And perhaps the cleverest of all, some would say too clever by half,
but not me, is the way that the Republican leaders are disguising the
way they want to come up with the money that we simply do not have.
They want to borrow $750 billion more money than the law currently
allows, borrow even more money from Social Security and also the
Medicare trust fund. But just asking for it would not look good. After
all, so many of their Members sponsored a resolution to amend the
Constitution making it especially hard to borrow more money, a
resolution that proves how fiscally responsible they are.
Some of my Republican colleagues from Illinois, including the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane) are proud cosponsors of this resolution. Perhaps they can
explain the embarrassing truth that this supplemental appropriations
bill is nothing more than a stealth maneuver to orchestrate a backdoor
increase in the debt limit, the same as raising the credit card limit
on a credit card, but I do not expect that they are embarrassed by this
fiscal sleight of hand. I congratulate them for it. As I said, I admire
chutzpah. But maybe, just maybe, their constituents, who not only talk
about fiscal responsibility but who practice it every day balancing
their checkbook, paying their credit card bills, saving for college and
saving for a rainy day, might not be as admiring as I am of this
squandering of the surplus, this raiding of the Social Security, this
cynical effort to borrow more money without even taking a vote on it,
without any apology. They might not appreciate, as I do, the chutzpah
it takes to play with such finesse at this dangerous budget game.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, when this bill was presented to the Committee on
Appropriations, a committee on which I sit, the distinguished chairman
of the committee sent a report to each member saying that one of the
pluses of this legislation was that it was a clean bill designed to
provide emergency funding to fund our war against terrorism and
homeland defense. I applauded that approach. Unfortunately, because of
the late-night, closed-door, secret plan effort of the Committee on
Rules, this bill is no longer a clean bill. It has been sullied by
partisan amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with funding our
war on terrorism. I find it
[[Page H2923]]
somewhat ironic that some of the same people who say we should support
this process tonight out of patriotism for our war against terrorism
just happen to be exactly the same people who orchestrated the process
of the Committee on Rules so that these controversial extraneous
amendments would be forced on this legislation, thus slowing down the
funding for our war on terrorism.
What is wrong with all of this? Let me count the ways. First, adding
$750 billion in deficit spending could certainly undermine the future
of Social Security and Medicare. When you add that extra debt onto our
already enormous $6 trillion national debt and consider the enormous
interest payment that taxpayers have to pay each year on that, we could
in effect be putting at risk benefits for Medicare and Social Security
recipients.
Second, $750 billion in deficit spending will increase the cost for
homeowners to buy a new home, for family businesses to build or expand
their businesses, or for families to buy a car by increasing interest
rates, a direct result of massive deficit spending. In fact, if we
increase the mortgage rate, interest rate on a $100,000 home in
America, that family will have in effect their taxes increased by
$1,000 a year. That is what is wrong with this secret, late-night plan
to raise our deficit spending by $750 billion.
Let me count the additional ways that this is wrong. Third. This kind
of deficit spending will lead to higher taxes for hard-working
Americans. In fact, interest on the national debt today is one of the 5
largest expenditures of the Federal Government out of the thousands and
thousands of programs we fund. In fact, last year on average every man,
woman, child and infant in America was responsible for $1,200 in taxes
just to pay the interest on our present national debt, not to speak
about the extra $750 billion we are going to add to that debt.
{time} 2130
In fact, if one assumes a 5 percent interest rate on this $750
billion increase in deficit spending, that amounts to about $37.5
billion a year in increased taxes on the American people, simply to pay
the interest on that debt. That is what is wrong with this bill and
this process.
Fourth, in increasing deficit spending by $750 billion through this
measure, we are going to make it harder to fund priority national
programs such as national defense, veterans' health care and education.
Fifth, I think it is wrong to burden our children and grandchildren
with a $6.7 trillion national debt. We in this generation of Congress
have no right to drown our grandchildren in a sea of national debt.
Sixth, by slowing down this bill with controversial, unrelated
amendments, partisan amendments that have nothing to do with funding
the war on terrorism or homeland defense, we basically end up harming
national defense, because we will force military training at bases such
as mine, Fort Hood in my district, to be delayed or canceled in order
to fund our war on terrorism, because we will not pass this bill as
quickly as we could pass it had we not had these extraneous, late-
night, secret amendments added to this bill.
Now, perhaps the handful of Republican district hospitals given
special treatment at the cost of every other rural hospital in America
stuck in this bill, maybe those hospitals have some unknown direct
relation to fighting our war on terrorism and homeland defense. I
certainly have not heard that explanation in this debate tonight.
Mr. Chairman, if increasing the national debt by $750 billion, if
adding that burden on our children and grandchildren, cannot pass the
test of open debate and an honest vote, it does not deserve to be
hidden in a bill purported to fund our war on terrorism. Shame on our
House if we do that.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, a man
for whom I have great respect, a colleague I enjoy working with, has
described this bill as the emergency wartime supplemental. Indeed, much
of the content of this bill does exactly as the chairman describes.
Unfortunately, and I believe it is extraordinarily unfortunate, the
chairman was unable to keep his bill relative to the emergency wartime
supplemental purposes he speaks so convincingly about.
Once again we see critical legislation hijacked somewhere in the
legislative process, in the bowels of the majority leadership
somewhere, and turned into something quite different than what it
initially purported to be.
There is a feature of this bill that I feel is extraordinarily
unfortunate, and that is what I rise to point out tonight. Language in
this bill sets the stage for a significant increase in the national
debt. One year ago, 1 year ago tonight, we were not talking at all
about raising the national debt, we were not talking about deficits; we
were looking at a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. What we now know is
the 10-year outlook has deteriorated $4 trillion.
Mr. Chairman, we have presided over the worst reversal of financial
fortune of the United States Treasury in the history of the country. We
all ought to be alarmed. Those who voted for legislation contributing
to this reversal ought to be ashamed.
But we all ought to realize, one to another, that something has got
to be done. We wanted to have, at the time you were going to seek to
raise the debt, because we know now the budget is in the red this year,
running in the red to the tune potentially of $140 billion, that is
almost half a billion dollars more out the door in spending a day than
we are bringing in, and you were going to ask us in participating in
raising the debt limit, we had a request for you, a very simple, very
straightforward request: Show us your plan. Show us your plan to get us
out of this debt. Show us your plan to get us back to the black.
Reverse this run of red ink, this shame you have brought upon the
fiscal policy of this country.
We deserve that, and the American people deserve that, a discussion
about what was required by way of raising the debt limit, a discussion
about a plan and a process to get us back to black, as simple as one,
two, three: The majority passes their budget, we go into the red, debt
limit increase required. But show us a plan to get out.
It is important, it is very important, that we work together to get
back to the black as soon as possible. There is nothing Republican,
there is nothing Democrat, about the demographics facing this country.
Those demographics have a very harsh fact that we ought to think about
every single day. Seventy-eight million Americans in the year 2010 will
be within 10 years of turning 65. Within that next decade they will be
on Medicare. Within that next decade they will be on Social Security.
Should I be alive, I will be one of them, because we are the great
baby-boom bulge, about to place a strain on entitlement spending like
never before.
Obviously we know this is coming. We can see it in the age trends. We
have got to prepare. There is no great mystery of fiscal policy to
prepare for the hit we are about to take. We have got to pay down the
debt. We have got to make sure the Social Security dollars coming in
are held for the benefit of Social Security. We have got to prepare.
Instead, we are doing the worst thing we can do. If paying down the
debt and making our country fiscally stronger is the best thing, we are
doing the worst thing. We are taking Social Security revenue and we are
spending it on other programs; we are taking dollars coming in from
payroll taxes from the guys working hard every day, counting on that
Social Security, and we are spending it on other programs. Rather than
strengthening our fiscal position, we are back into borrowing and
adding debt onto our country.
We have to stop this practice. Chickens have a way of coming home to
roost, and unchecked debt means reduction in Social Security benefits.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I support providing whatever funds the President needs
to fight the war on terrorism. I do not think there is a Republican or
a Democrat in this body that does not support the President in fighting
this war on terrorism; all the more reason Congress should not be
playing politics with this bill, a bill that supplies important funds
for our fighting men and our fighting women.
Hiding a huge increase in the national debt limit and an assortment
of other budget gimmicks to this bill
[[Page H2924]]
under the cover of darkness, literally in this case, is a political
game. A $750 billion increase in the national debt requires, for
heaven's sake, an open and thoughtful debate. A $750 billion increase
in the national debt requires, surely, an up-or-down vote, not in
secret. But we are not going to get either one of those offers this
evening. And to this I say shame on the majority.
I know all of my constituents expect certain things, regardless of
their party affiliation: Straight answers and a willingness to be held
accountable for our actions. They know if they charged their credit
cards to the limit, they have to pay down their balance or work out an
arrangement with the credit card companies to get an increase in their
credit limits. They most certainly cannot write a small note on the
memo line of their checks to the credit card companies asking those
same companies to "please raise our credit limits" and expect it to
happen.
Why should Congress be any different? Why should Congress get to
operate under a different set of rules? The short answer is that
Congress is no different and should not be able to operate under a
different set of rules.
Congress should be held accountable for this $750 billion increase in
the debt limit and the actions that have made this increase necessary.
The days of surpluses are gone, and in a very short time the Social
Security lockbox has been emptied and the days of deficits and
borrowing money from the public to pay the government's bills are back.
Yet the majority has no stomach for taking a step back, looking at the
whole budget picture, figuring out how we got into this mess and how we
are going to work to try to get out of this mess.
My colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and I each
offered amendments that would have helped restore fiscal discipline to
the Federal budget process. In fact, the Moore-Spratt amendment would
have provided limited increases in the debt limit and required Congress
and the President to develop a plan to balance the budget without
counting Social Security.
My amendment would have imposed discipline and accountability in the
budget process by extending and strengthening the spending limits and
pay-go rules in the Budget Enforcement Act, something that we have been
living under for the last several years, something that you all think
is necessary, that you voted for. And yet you will not allow that
amendment to be put in this spending measure. My amendment would have
imposed discipline.
But both amendments were ruled out of order. Instead of an open
debate on these amendments and what should be done with the
government's maxed-out credit card, the majority hid a $750 billion
increase in the national debt in this important bill. That, I am
afraid, is an action my constituents would find to be a little less
than honest.
I have been told by my colleagues on this side of the aisle that if
the Democrats would be in the majority this evening and would have been
offering this bill here this evening, that you on the other side of the
aisle would be yelling to the heavens against it, that we should not be
increasing this debt limit. And I have no doubt, I have only been here
for 2 years, I have no doubt that we have been guilty of what you are
doing tonight.
So it is time to put away the foolishness of the past. It is time to
admit the Democrats in the past have done the wrong thing, and it is
time for you all to admit, I would hope, in the sense of doing the
right thing, that we have the opportunity to vote up and down on this
vote; that we are not doing it in the dead of night; that we do it in a
way that is honest; that we not resort to the politics as usual; that
we be bipartisan and straightforward with the American public; and that
I think the American public would appreciate that.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to point out that under the protocols
established by the majority leader, the Committee on Rules of this
House, when it brought rules forward, was to allow committees that are
authorizing committees if they notified the Committee on Rules of
concerns they had that represented appropriation that was unauthorized
on a bill of this sort, that they would be subject to a point of order.
Unfortunately, that has not been done in a number of cases where things
that are amounts of money that are not authorized are in fact being
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund.
We have worked very hard in this body over the last several
Congresses to reestablish the concept of a Highway Trust Fund; to
reestablish trust, put trust back in the Highway Trust Fund. And yet
the legislation, unfortunately, would provide for funding some $19.3
million for border enforcement activities; a very good program, but one
that is not authorized from the trust fund. That will mean less money
available for important transportation needs in our country. It is
something that should be done out of our general revenue, not out of
the Highway Trust Fund without an authorization.
The second thing I would like to point out is that the legislation
does provide for some $5 million for the Safety Permitting Program to
come from the Highway Trust Fund. Again, the Safety Permitting Program
is under the Hazardous Material Program. The HAZMAT Program is funded
from general funds and is funded out of registration fees.
{time} 2145
This is something that again will result in less money available for
transportation needs in this country and will free up funds for other
programs. I understand the problems that we have, but this is not a
proper use of the highway trust fund.
In addition, there are over $4 million being provided for background
security checks, again out of the highway trust fund. This is not
something that was contemplated, it has not been authorized, and it
should not have been done; and I regret it. I want to call it to the
attention of the Members as this legislation moves forward through the
process, which I am confident it will do, so that we can, as we refine
this legislation in conference and it comes back to the floor, maintain
the principle of integrity of the transportation trust fund that we
have all worked so hard, really all of us have worked so hard to
establish.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the clock now and wondering what my
constituents are doing on the west coast in Los Angeles, California;
and I know that they are probably just finishing up their dinner, and
maybe not dwelling on what we are doing here in the Congress. But I can
tell my colleagues that the people in my district would be shocked.
They would be alarmed to know that language has been inserted in this
bill that is going to be voted on tonight to allow for a huge increase
in the national debt limit, and I think it is irresponsible; and I know
that many of them would feel that same way. Worst yet, it forces us to
play Russian roulette with the livelihood of our Nation's seniors and
the future of America's children. Social Security should provide just
that: security. But by raising the debt limit today, we endanger our
Nation's safety net which allows our senior citizens to live out their
golden years with dignity and respect.
We are playing with the lives of our senior citizens, men and women
who have worked hard for our Nation and deserve the full benefits of
Social Security to help pay for their rent, their food, and their
prescription drugs. We are playing with the lives of our baby boomers,
who must not only help care for their senior citizen parents, but also
have to plan for their impending retirements. What about those people?
We are playing with the lives of our young people who every day pay
into Social Security, but which may not be there to provide for them
when they need it.
Just last year, our Nation enjoyed one of the largest surpluses in
American history, but then the Bush administration and the Republican
leadership ran through what I call a reckless series of tax cuts
designed to provide the most benefit to the richest 1 percent of
Americans, many of whom are not seen on this floor tonight. By raising
the debt limit, this administration continues to rob the working poor
and middle class by stifling them with the additional debt. Raising the
debt ceiling weakens Social Security for our current senior citizens
and baby boomers like myself.
Look in the mirror. Look at the American future. Last August the
[[Page H2925]]
Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, predicted that the United States
would not reach into its debt ceiling until late 2003, but now that the
Republican leadership has passed its huge tax breaks for the very
wealthy, we are quickly being forced to juggle our Nation's accounting
books. Raising the ceiling steals, literally steals hundreds of
billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund, from that fund
which my parents rely on right now. It is a backwards Robin Hood
policy, stealing from the poor and our Nation's seniors to give to the
rich.
Mr. Chairman, every day Americans pay $1 billion in interest on our
national debt. That is about 16 cents for every dollar we pay into
taxes. Raising the debt ceiling will do nothing to alleviate the
problem; it just gets worse.
I am staunchly opposed to this plan. I support a responsible budget
that makes needed investments in our national security, protects our
Social Security, Medicare, and does not saddle our children and our
grandchildren with enormous national debt.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of good things in this bill. It will
provide appropriations to help us fight the war on terrorism. It will
provide some good things for our veterans. All of these are things that
we all support. But I have to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, the way
that the attempt is being made to deceive the American people in the
dark of night to make it possible to add to the debt of our children
and grandchildren, to steal the Social Security trust fund, to endanger
the well-being of our senior citizens makes me want a dip of snuff, and
I do not even use tobacco.
I grew up in a community where there were a lot of bootleggers. They
look like paragons of virtue compared to this crowd. The great country
music singer Merle Haggard wrote a song called "Rainbow Stew." I just
want to paraphrase this. He said, "When a Member of Congress goes
through the Capitol door and does what he says he will do, we will all
be drinking that free Bubble-up and eating that rainbow stew."
Well, I am here to tell my colleagues we are getting fed a big pot of
rainbow stew tonight.
If this is an emergency wartime appropriations bill, why does it have
a stealth effort to raise the debt ceiling to put more debt on our
children and grandchildren? Why does it do that? If that is what this
is about, why do we not just have an appropriations bill? We do not
need one of these chicken-hearted rules that allows for some kind of
stealth effort to put more debt on our children and grandchildren, to
threaten our senior citizens with losing their Social Security. Why
would we want to do something like this? Why not have a vote up or down
on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling?
Let us face reality. All the money is gone. It has all been spent.
This time last year we had money in the bank. We were paying off debt.
I remember so well the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
coming to the Blue Dogs and saying, our greatest fear is that we are
going to have so much money that we are going to pay off all the debt
and there will not be any U.S. Treasury bonds. Well, dear heart, you
can rest easy tonight. There is going to be a U.S. Treasury bond
available for as far as anybody can imagine, and our children and
grandchildren are going to have to pay it off. That is not right.
I can tell my colleagues that they may do it just because they have
more votes; but my colleagues are not going to do it without me coming
to this well and raising the issue, and I am not going to go back home
and face my children and grandchildren. I am not going to look at my
three grandchildren, and they are to me just as dear as anything can
possibly be, just like everybody's grandchildren are, and let them look
at me 20 years from now, if I am still around, and say, Granddaddy, why
did you not do something about that? Why did you let that happen? Why
did you put this debt on us? Why did you destroy this country over the
only reason you had that was to stay in power and reduce taxes on the
wealthiest people in this country? Why did you do that?
When I have to face that question, I at least will be able to stand
before them and say, I did everything I could do; but we were not in
the majority. We did not have any control over that.
I ask my colleagues to think about what they are doing. Think about
what they are doing. All we ask is for my Republican colleagues to sit
down with us in this bipartisan spirit I have heard so much about, and
if this is bipartisanship, I am a space scientist, and everybody who
knows me knows that is not true.
We hear about bipartisanship, but yet we have this single-handed
attempt to cram this down our throats. Let us sit down in a bipartisan
way. Let us do an honest budget. Let us recognize what we are doing and
not steal from our children, our grandchildren, and our senior citizens
to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to pass this bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I really had not intended to speak
tonight on the supplemental appropriation, but I have been locked out
of my office due to my own inability to remember my keys, so I have had
no recourse but to sit on the floor and actually listen to the debate,
which is a very enlightening experience.
Now, I got elected in 1984. From 1985 in January when I got sworn in,
to 1995 in January, when the first Republican majority took this House
in over 40 years, there was one balanced budget presented to the House
of Representatives to vote on. One, in the first 10 years that I was a
Member of this body serving in the minority, and that was the budget
that President Reagan supported. I think it got 13 votes, and I voted
for it. There was a reception down at the White House and President
Reagan asked all of the folks that were willing to vote for a balanced
budget to come down, and I believe there were 13 of us. I think all 13
were Republicans, but it is possible that there were one or two
Democrats, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and perhaps the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I would have to go back and look
at that.
So the first point I want to make about that is that when my good
friends who are in the minority tonight were in the majority, they did
not present any balanced budgets for the American people; they did not
present any balanced budgets on the House floor. Now, when the
Republicans got into the majority, we did. In fact, I remember when
President Clinton was in office, we had a partial government shutdown
because the Republicans were insisting that there be a balanced budget;
and at least in that first year, President Clinton said, balanced
budgets do not count. We do not need a balanced budget. He later
changed his position, and we got balanced budgets; and I will say for
the record that both Republicans and Democrats voted for those balanced
budgets.
Now we are at a point in our Nation's history where we have had a
recession, we have to fight the war on terrorism, we have had to
present some budgets that are unbalanced. But let us think about that.
There are actually two parts to a Federal budget. There is the
discretionary spending budget, and this year that budget is about $769
billion, $759 billion, somewhere in that range; and then there is an
entitlement portion of the budget, and that entitlement portion of the
budget is over $1 trillion. Then there is interest on the national
debt, and that portion of the budget is over $200 billion.
Now, I have brought to the floor, in the time that I have been a
Member of this House, budget process reform bills to change the way we
do budgeting, and I had good support from the Democrats in those
efforts, trying to change the budget process itself. But under the
system that we are operating under today, we cannot do anything about
the entitlement part of the budget; we can only do something about the
discretionary part of the budget.
The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has moved heaven and
Earth to hold the line on discretionary spending. I am told that the
increase from last year to this year in the budget resolution, in the
budget the appropriators are working on, is 1 percent, 1 percent.
{time} 2200
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget that is sitting at the
back
[[Page H2926]]
of the room, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), presented a budget
on the floor that has held the line on discretionary spending. So we
are going through the budget process under rules that I think need to
be fixed. I want to fix them. I talked to the Speaker of the House
yesterday about fixing them.
But under this budget resolution, the budget resolution that we are
operating under, we cannot do anything about entitlements. We can only
do something about discretionary spending. This supplemental spending
bill that is before us this evening is somewhere between $27.1 billion
and a little over $29 billion in supplemental discretionary spending.
That is a good number, and we should vote for that and then work
together on a bipartisan basis to reform the budget process later on so
that we can do something about the larger issue.
Mr. Chairman, let us keep in mind that there is politics and there is
policy. The policy embedded in this supplemental appropriation bill is
a good policy. We should vote for it.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have taken this time in order to discuss the schedule
for the rest of the evening and, indeed, the rest of the week with the
Members of this body.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by apologizing to all the Members of this
body. It had been my hope and my expectation that we would be able to
complete our work for the week and our work on this bill this evening.
Given that expectation, which seemed reasonable at the time, it was
me who advised so many of you to go ahead and make your travel plans so
that you could return to your district work periods in your respective
districts across the country as early as possible tomorrow. We are all
anxious to get home to be with our families, to be with our
constituents, and to take up that important work we have scheduled in
our districts.
However, it seems that there are a large number of Members of the
body that do not have that desire to get home, and have decided they
would like to prolong this debate and discuss any number of matters. We
could go on through the evening. We could work all night. But, Mr.
Chairman, there would be nothing productive, worthwhile, or
contributing to the well-being of this Nation if we spent our time in
that way.
Far better, I would think, for us to go ahead and complete our work
for the evening, rise from the committee, and then resume our work
tomorrow. It being a Thursday, we will not be able to resume our work
before 10 a.m. I can only make my commitment to the Members of the body
that I and the other Members of the leadership, I am sure, on both
sides of the aisle will do everything we can to work out whatever
agreements might be possible so that we might be able to complete our
work at a reasonable time tomorrow, so that people might be able to
reschedule their planes and their travel arrangements, and perhaps make
it home by even possibly Friday for their district work period.
The distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), is a man of an extraordinary high ability and good
heart, as is the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I have every confidence that given the
encouragement we might give these two gentlemen, we might find them
capable of coming in tomorrow and working out an agreement between
themselves and others who have amendments that might pend so that we
can accommodate to the desire of the Members to complete this work.
I must say, however, that failure to arrive at these kinds of
agreements would result in our staying through Friday, through
Saturday, if necessary. I would hope that is not necessary. I know we
all have family and constituents that we long to see. But this is about
funding the war on terrorism and the security of this Nation. I am sure
there is nobody in this body that wants to go home without completing
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, while I will ask the Chairman of the Committee to rise
from our work this evening and resume it in the morning, it is, again,
as I said before, with my most sincere apology to all of the Members on
both sides of the aisle who made travel plans based on my assurances
that they will have to reschedule them, and it is my sincere hope and
belief that we will be able to tell Members a timetable in the morning
that will make it possible for them to reschedule in a manner that will
be, let's say, accommodating to Members and their families and their
travel plans.
I hope Members have a special evening. Let me just say as a final
note, the Colorado Avalanche is winning tonight, so all is not lost.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________
