[Pages H110-H120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 15, I
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of H.J. Res. 1 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 1

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 107-229 is further amended by striking the date specified
in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 31,
2003''.
Sec. 2. Public Law 107-229, as amended, is further amended
in section 120, by striking ``and December 1, 2002,'' and
inserting ``December 1, 2002, January 31, 2003, and February
1, 2003,''.
Sec. 3. Section 613 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2002, is amended (1) by striking ``2001''
and ``2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``2002'' and
``2003'', respectively; and (2) in subsection (a)(1), as so
amended, by inserting ``(as if effect on September 30,
2002)'' after ``Act, 2002'' and after ``such section 613'':
Provided, That such section, as so amended, shall be
effective through September 30, 2003, notwithstanding section
107 of this joint resolution.
Sec. 4. Public Law 107-229, as amended, is further amended
by striking section 137 and inserting the following new
section:
``Sec. 137. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, in addition to amounts made available in
section 101, and subject to sections 107(c) and 108, such
sums as may be necessary shall be available to the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the Secretary of the Treasury to
advance start-up expenses to the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board pursuant to section 109(j) of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-204).
``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, upon the collection of fees authorized in section
109(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-204),
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board shall reimburse
the Securities and Exchange Commission for any Commission
appropriations advanced to the Board for start-up expenses
pursuant to section 109(j) of such Act or subsection (a) of
this section, so as to result in no net effect of such
advances on appropriations available to the Commission in
fiscal year 2003.''.
Sec. 5. (a) Approval of Prospectus.--For proposes of
section 3307(a) of title 40, United States Code, the
prospectus of General Services Administration entitled
``Prospectus--Lease, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area'', prospectus number PDC-
08W03, as submitted on December 24, 2002, is deemed approved
by the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Prohibition on Delegation.--The authority of the
General Services Administration to lease space under this
section may not be delegated to any other department or
agency.
(c) Modifications.--Any modification to the prospectus
referred to in subsection (a) that is subject to approval
under section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, shall be
approved in accordance with the requirements of such section.
Sec. 6. Section 126 of Public Law 107-229, as added by
Public Law 107-240, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 126. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, except section 107, the District of
Columbia may expend local funds for programs and activities
under the heading `District of Columbia Funds--Operating
Expenses' at the rate set forth for such programs and
activities in the revised financial plan and budget for the
District Government for fiscal year 2003 submitted to
Congress by the District of Columbia pursuant to section 138
of H.R. 5521 of the 107th Congress, as reported by the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 15, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.

{time} 1915

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House, H.J. Res. 1, will
extend the current continuing resolution to allow the government to
continue to operate through January 31 of 2003. All of the ongoing
programs and activities will be continued at current rates under the
same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2002, with the exception of
funding for programs included in the Defense and Military Construction
appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003, which have already been
enacted into law.
In addition, all the provisions of the previous CRs remain in effect,
with one exception: It deletes a provision relating to the rate of
operations for the Federal-aid Highways Program that had been enacted
as part of the third continuing resolution. Specifically, that CR
established total obligations for the highway program while operating
under continuing resolutions. Section 4 of this resolution deletes that
provision, and Mr. Speaker, it does so with the concurrence of the
transportation and infrastructure authorizing committee.
I want everyone to understand this action is going to affect the
budget. We have been advised by the Congressional Budget Office that it
will score an additional $1.1 billion in outlays on an

[[Page H111]]

annualized basis against this continuing resolution as a result of that
deletion. So we are upping the price, but this was an agreed
arrangement. So that is what we are going to do.
The CR also includes five new provisions. I will briefly explain what
they are.
Number 1, it will extend the authorities necessary to make
entitlement payments to include the Child Nutrition Programs, the Food
Stamps Program, Medicaid grants to States, payments to Medicare trust
funds, Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs, veterans entitlements and
supplemental security income payments through the month of February.
Number 2, it will maintain the annual blue collar worker pay
adjustment to be consistent with other Federal pay increases.
Number 3, it will allow for funding for the Public Companies
Accounting Oversight Board as established in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, Public Law 107-204.
Number 4, it will allow the District of Columbia to spend local funds
at the revised budget levels for fiscal year 2003.
Number 5, it will allow the Administrator of General Services to move
forward on the GSA prospectus to lease space for the headquarters of
the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Speaker, we are beginning a new year and a new Congress. We need
to get the business of the old Congress behind us. We will explain at a
later date how we plan to do this, but this CR gives us time to put
that plan into effect.
I do not think this CR is controversial. I am not aware of any
controversy. I urge the House to move this legislation to the Senate
and then to the President so that there will be no question that the
government will continue to operate smoothly and efficiently through
January 31.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is that this is the first of two
continuing resolutions which the House is going to endeavor to pass
tonight. The first is simply a vehicle by which we keep the government
open for the next 30 days or so, while the Congress at long last gets
about the business of finishing what it should have done last year;
namely, virtually all of the domestic appropriation bills.
The second continuing resolution that will be voted on after this one
will be an empty vehicle which is sent to the Senate, and the Senate
will then use that as the carrying vehicle for the work that they do to
put together all of the remaining appropriation bills.
As I was saying, the Senate will then proceed to work its will on the
remaining domestic appropriation bills. They will then put them
together in one package in the second CR, which we will send over, and
they will come back to the House for an up or down vote as a conference
report. That effectively means that the House will have been shielded
from any responsibility to take visible positions on virtually all of
the issues involved in education, in health care, in the Labor
Department programs, in housing programs, in science programs, foreign
aid, you name it. That, I believe, is the purpose of this process.
I do not happen to think that is a very healthy process but that is
what the plan is. What that means is that tonight represented the only
opportunity for Members of this body to speak to any of the issues that
would be funded by this continuing resolution.
Now, the rules of the House provide that if the Committee on
Appropriations has not passed a new 302(b) allocation, allocating the
total resources of the committee that are available to us to the
various subcommittees, then the House is precluded from considering an
appropriation bill. So last night the Committee on Rules waived that
provision for the majority so that the majority is able to proceed with
this process today, but they refused to waive it for the minority,
which means that we cannot offer any significant or meaningful
amendments to the continuing resolution.
If we had not been denied that right, we wanted to offer a $5 billion
package that essentially asked the House to, once again, approve
matters which it approved in the supplemental last summer. Half of that
would be the $2.5 billion that we provided for additional homeland
security items, additional port protection, additional border
protection, additional support to the FBI to modernize its computer
system, additional translators and the like. All of that money has
already been voted for by 90 percent of the Members of both parties in
this House, but it has been effectively impounded by the President who
declined to spend that $2.5 billion, thus leaving this country
needlessly exposed on the homeland security front.
The other $2 billion or so that we wanted to add represented other
items that the House had already voted for: The $274 million which was
badly needed for veterans medical care to clean up the backlog at
veterans facilities; the $401 million which was necessary to provide
aid to first responders, our police and our firemen at the local level;
and $200 million to assist with anti-terrorist actions on the part of
the State of Israel, for instance, all of that has been denied us
because the House Committee on Rules essentially said that there should
be one set of rules for the majority and another set of rules for the
minority.
Now, as I said earlier today on the floor, the purpose of rules in
any venue is to see to it that all people are treated the same, and
that is true whether you are talking about a San Francisco 49er and New
York Giant football game or whether you are talking about actions on
the floor of the House. We are supposed to have rules that apply
equally to everybody, but thanks to the misguided and misbegotten
action of the Committee on Rules that is not what we are going to have.
So what that means is that this House, which is supposed to be the
greatest deliberative body in the world, has been turned into something
that much more clearly represents a Soviet Congress than it represents
the embodiment of democratic representation.
What this means is that a small group of insider Members in the
Republican leadership have essentially decided ahead of time what the
outcome should be on all of these appropriation bills, and now they
have fixed the process so that there is no practical possibility
whatsoever of changing in any way that desired outcome. That may be an
effective use of power, but it is a fundamental corruption of the
legislative process that goes to the heart of democratic government,
and people who engage in that kind of conduct, in my view, should be
ashamed of themselves.
So what we are faced with is the necessity to try to use
extraordinary means in order to try to gain some ability to define what
actions we on this side of the aisle believe are in the best interests
of the country. Mr. Speaker, I detest the idea of having to go after
House traditions and normal House procedures. I do not like, for
instance, to have to try to appeal the ruling of the Chair on matters,
but when we are denied the legitimate exercise of our rights to define
differences, which is supposed to be the subject of legislative debate,
then we are left with no choice but to engage in extraordinary measures
as a matter of protest.
Now, we have not created this situation. The House Republican
leadership and the House Committee on Rules has. I would urge them to
reconsider.
Yesterday, we heard all kinds of nice words about bipartisanship. The
Speaker said that we should respect each other. We do not feel that
much respect has been shown this institution when the normal processes
of this institution are cut short for the partisan convenience of the
party that happens to control this House.

{time} 1930

So I wanted to explain why it is that we on this side of the aisle
are unhappy and why we will be doing what we are doing tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. The gentleman

[[Page H112]]

from Wisconsin has given us an explanation with reference to what is
transpiring.
When I came to this body, I had no idea that I would have the
privilege to serve on the Committee on Rules. When I was given that
opportunity, it became the proudest moment in my limited congressional
career. Last night, before we left here, I became rather distressed
that the majority does not see fit to grant the minority privileges
that the minority at another point in time argued that they should
have, I remember very distinctly.
I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. Certainly, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is a
friend of mine, and I have immense respect for him, his fairness and
his ability. But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is not the
person that is in control of the situation with reference to the rule.
The chairman of the Committee on Rules also is a friend of mine, and I
am not certain that he is in control of what is transpiring with
reference to the rule.
What is happening here is we are giving back-room deals new meaning.
In essence, what my colleagues have done, if we were to take 10 people,
as one Member of Congress here said today, she described it as though
we had 10 people and my colleagues put a gag on four and a half of
them, so that nearly one-half of America is being denied an opportunity
to go forward and put ideas on the table for this body to work its
will. That is not fair.
Thus my colleagues will find that there are some of us who, different
than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) described when he said we
are unhappy, some of us are outraged and plain mad about the
circumstances we find ourselves in. In fact, what my colleagues are
allowing with these two continuing resolutions is absolutely no debate
of consequence with reference to matters of immense and enormous
magnitude for the good of this country.
Among the things that we say all the time, and on yesterday proudly
all of us admired, as we do admire the Speaker of the House, when he
cited certain portions of the Constitution that all of us know so well,
among those things was to promote the general welfare. Well, we cannot
promote the general welfare with dynamic scoring when we are hiding the
deficit with creative math. We cannot promote the general welfare when
we find ourselves taking ``Jefferson's Manual on Parliamentary
Procedure'' and pitching it into the Potomac River.
We did not have hearings last night. A train hit those of us in the
minority in the Committee on Rules, and a train is hitting every member
of the minority as well as the majority. My colleagues hurt themselves
as much as they hurt us when they do not give us an opportunity to make
an adequate presentation on matters of health, on matters of education,
on matters of homeland security; and I could go on and on.
Everybody knows what my colleagues did when they took over the House
of Representatives, and they did it by arguing against what the
Democrats did that was so wrong then: closed rules. Yet every time we
look up, all we see is no opportunity for amendments, no opportunity
for supplementals. Nothing in the way of decency is coming forward. I
am outraged.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to
say that I am not going to try to respond to all the political comments
that are going to be made here this evening. I understand the minority
is upset. They are upset because they are the minority, and I know
about that. I served in this House for 24 years under their rule.
And if my colleagues think what our party is doing tonight to manage
the business of the House is something wrong, they should go back and
look over the 40 years of their own rule. We had more closed rules, we
had more autocratic management of this House, we had more weird crazy,
creative schemes to get through the legislative process. And, yes, we
complained, just like they are complaining tonight.
But we have to get this job done. Come on. We are already beginning
to get ready for our 2004 business. We need to get the 2003 business
finished. Like I have suggested on other occasions, let us do our
politicking somewhere else. Let us do the people's business here
tonight. Let us get this CR out of here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are not objecting to this process tonight because we
are unhappy we are in the minority. We are in the minority, and we
expect to lose 99 percent of the votes around here. But we do not
expect to have denied to us the opportunity to at least engage in the
debate.
My question is, what is the majority party afraid of? Our colleagues
in the majority have the votes, and if they think we are wrong, outvote
us. But the Committee on Rules has taken us beyond that. What the
Committee on Rules has done is that they have said, ``Sorry, we are not
going to even allow an opportunity to raise any of these questions.''
Now, this issue came up in March of 1999 when the Republicans were
also in control. The exact same situation arose. At that time the
majority party did the right thing. The Republican Party waived the
rule for the majority so that we could proceed, but they also waived
the rule so that we could participate equally in the process. That is
what the majority party should have done this time around. They should
have followed their own earlier example.
I would also say that, in effect, what is happening is that the
minority party is being prevented from doing its job because the
majority party neglected to pass a 302 allocation. We did not make the
determination on this side that that would not happen; the majority
party did. So the minority party is being penalized for the inaction of
the majority party. That is quaint in any legislative body.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as a parent of two small children, I have
been told that children pay more attention to what their parents do
than what we say. Tonight, I hope the American people will use that
commonsense principle in judging Congress. It is not what we say in our
speeches that counts so much, but far more important to the American
people is what we do.
What has this Congress, what has this House done today? Basically,
the Republican leadership has denied the minority an opportunity to
present an amendment that would have added $275 million desperately
needed in veterans health care. These particular dollars were focused
to try to help those veterans who have such critical health care
problems that they need specialist care. This $275 million was designed
so that veterans who fought for our country so valiantly, so
patriotically would not have to wait 6 months for a heart specialist or
for some sort of very, very important care.
I would imagine Republicans and Democrats alike on Veterans Day back
home go make that speech, that it is wrong for veterans to have to wait
6 months to get the care that they have earned and even fought for,
even been wounded to earn. Yet when we have a chance to do something
about it, the Committee on Rules, not through the leadership of either
the chairmen or the subcommittee chairmen, who are valiant supporters
of veterans health care, but through the actions of the Republican
leadership in the House, despite all of our great words on Veterans Day
and Memorial Day, all our respect for veterans, when we could do
something about it tonight, when we could have helped veterans, what
are our actions? We are prevented from even having a vote on helping to
improve veterans health care in that desperately needed way.
The Republican leadership does not hurt the Democrats when they deny
us the right to such a vote, denying Republicans and Democrats the
right to that vote. They hurt veterans. These are men and women who
fought for this country, men and women who have been willing to die for
this country.
So I wish the Republican leadership would reconsider its ill-founded
rule that denies not us but veterans the right to get better health
care. Let the American people and let veterans know what we parents of
small children

[[Page H113]]

know: it is what we do that counts, not what we say that counts.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time and congratulate my chairman, as always, for
trying to do the best job he possibly can under the circumstances and
the facts that he is dealing with.
I do not speak in my capacity as whip but as I guess still the
ranking member of the Treasury, Postal committee, or whatever capacity
I am in, because we have not reconstituted that committee. Mr. Speaker,
in the Treasury, Postal committee we included a number of dollars in
the supplemental, which would be the subject of the amendment that the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speaks of and that we would like to
offer and we think is critical.
First of all, there was $400 million in there for the emergency first
responders. That is a critical figure. All of us are for that. I do not
think anybody is opposed to that. As a matter of fact, all of us were
for all the dollars that were in this bill. We voted on it, passed it,
and it was sequestered by the President. We believe that it is
underminding homeland security not to move ahead with these finances at
this point in time.
And not only the $400 million for first responders, but I was at the
White House today with the leadership and brought up the funding of the
election reform bill. The election reform bill was the most significant
bipartisan success that we had in the 107th Congress. The chairman was
a very important part of passing that and committing ourselves to
funding that election reform legislation to make sure that every
American vote not only is cast but is counted accurately. There was
$400 million in that bill for that objective.
The President agreed today that we ought to fund that. Mitchell
Daniels agreed we ought to fund it. I do not say they were for this
particular amendment, but they believe that funding is appropriate
funding. As a matter of fact, I am hopeful and believe that we will get
a higher figure.
In this amendment was $28.5 million for the Secret Service to support
the increased cost to protective details and to implement provisions of
the PATRIOT Act we passed to secure our homeland. But it needs funding.
This $28.5 million would be in that request.
In addition, there were $39 million for the Customs Service Container
Security initiative. We have heard recently the vulnerability of our
ports and the infrastructure in our ports to boats, ships coming into
our ports that may be laden with explosives. Customs needs to have
additional resources in order to check this. I do not think anybody
disagrees with that proposition. However, it has languished unfunded.
Mr. Speaker, because my time is short, let me mention also, and
lastly, $16 million in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
FLETC, located in Glynco, Georgia. All of us know as a result of the
tragedy of 9-11 of the outrage that was committed against this country,
that we have made a determination that we are going to upgrade the
security of our homeland. One of the ways we are doing that is adding
Federal security officers. We are adding them at our airports, we are
adding them at our Federal buildings, we are adding them in other
places in our Federal infrastructure. We need to train them.

{time} 1945

This was not anticipated. The demands for the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center have, therefore, been substantially increased. But we
have not given them the resources to accomplish that training. In doing
so, we undermine homeland security. What we are saying is we ought not
to wait. We ought to act, and we ought to act now to protect the
homeland security.
It is very nice for us to pass bills and say we want to do this. But
if we do not fund it, we cannot do it. We are going to be talking about
that at the end of this month. I would hope to find a way to allow this
amendment to be offered and that we could pass this amendment
overwhelmingly because I believe the objectives are supported.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was speaking
directly to the issue of the CR and to the issue of the necessary
funding, and especially for homeland security. The gentleman is
correct. In the supplemental that we presented, we covered most of
those items that the gentleman mentioned. The President chose not to
release some of those funds, and that was the authority that the
President had.
What I would say to the gentleman is my support for those issues is
no less today than when we did the supplemental. We are in a procedural
situation today. We need to get the CR so we can extend past January
11, which is the present CR, and we have to get the second CR which the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has mentioned so we can conclude
our work of the 107th Congress.
A lot of Members are congratulating each other in starting out the
108th Congress. My comment to some of my colleagues is I am still
trying to get out of the 107th Congress. That is what we need to do
tonight. Let us finish the business of the 107th Congress, and then we
will get on and take care of the issues that the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has so properly identified.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies, such as NASA.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and
also the distinguished ranking member for the gentleman's hard work.
Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to debate all of these issues at
the subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and in many cases
on the floor. But all of these items have been debated.
It has been stated that there has not been time for debate, but there
has been. We have spent hours and hours and hours. We spent 2\1/2\
months in our subcommittee putting this very, very complex bill
together, the VA-HUD bill. If we could move forward and pass this and
then get to a point where we can pass all of the fiscal year 2003
appropriations bills, that would be a good thing.
There has been discussion about veterans. We have substantial
increases in veterans' health care benefits in the 2003 bill. We cannot
get to those until we pass this continuing resolution and send a bill
to the Senate. We cannot make the increases in the housing accounts for
the homeless, in housing for people with AIDS, in the section 8
program, in the senior housing programs. We cannot get those funding
measures to the department heads and the money to the department heads
to implement those policies if we do not pass this bill.
So there has been plenty of time to debate all of the policy issues.
We are at a point where we need to bring closure to the 2003 year. I
know I have and the other subcommittee chairmen have a lot of work to
do. As soon as we complete on these 2003 bills, I will begin hearings
for the Veterans Administration, for HUD, for NASA, for FEMA, for the
EPA, for the National Science Foundation. There is a tremendous amount
of work to be done, and every minute of every day, every hour that we
delay here puts our decisions off for the future, and those are
critical decisions.
Advocates are coming to us, veterans are coming to us, people from
the science community are coming to us and saying please get these
bills done so we can begin to plan for next year's bills. If we work
very closely with OMB and the House and the Senate work closely
together, we will have a budget resolution to work with. That is what
happened this year. The House did its job. We passed our budget
resolution. The Senate did not. Had they passed a budget resolution, we
could have worked out the differences and had a road map to work with.
But we did not have that road map. That is why we are at this juncture.
We need to get this work out of the way, get the bills passed,
complete our work on 2003 and get a good solid budget resolution passed
for 2004 and get these appropriations bills done. It is not that
difficult. It is not rocket science, but we need to get last year's
work out of the way first.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Florida

[[Page H114]]

(Mr. Young) has 9 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has 21 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution
which I think instead ought to be called this continuing saga of one
budget's lonely effort to struggle into maturity is in part a
continuing story of the majority's refusal to allow the corporate
responsibility bill to go forward. There is some language in here
finally that would allow the Public Company Accounting Board to get a
couple million dollars in advance from the Treasury. That comes several
months late after a couple of unsuccessful efforts that we made;
finally the committee has done this.
But on the committee point of funding the corporate responsibility
bill known as the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, this continuing resolution
continues to refuse to do that. When the President signed the bill with
great fanfare months ago, it called for an authorization of $776
million. This bill has in fact a lower figure than the original budget
request as amended, and even if we throw in the pay parity, the
appropriations level in this bill, as I last saw it, is more than $200
million less than Sarbanes-Oxley called for. That is $540 million
instead of $776 million.
So the President signs the bill with great fanfare, and then refuses
to fund it. The Securities and Exchange Commission was given a great
number of new responsibilities, and none of them are effectively funded
in this bill.
The bill also will continue a situation in which public housing
authorities are in crisis. Public housing authorities were told by the
Republican Party that when they lost the money for the drug elimination
program that had been a specific amount, $300 million, not to worry.
When the majority eliminated the drug elimination program, quite
surprisingly to me, which made funds available to housing authorities
to combat drug abuses in the housing projects by hiring police and
other ways, they were told that is okay, they could fund this out of
their regular, ongoing operation.
But this bill, this procedure, has shorted those housing authorities.
So they, in the first place, lose the $300 million for the drug
elimination program, and now they are given less money than they needed
even without that $300 million, and already because of the stop and go
and interruptions of the continuing resolution and some mistakes on the
part of HUD, public housing authorities all over this country are going
to be short of money. Elderly people are going to be looking for police
protection and maintenance, and people are going to be looking for a
whole range of basic protections and they will not be there because of
the majority's handling of this matter.
So with regards to both Sarbanes-Oxley and public housing, this bill
is sorrily deficient.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal and General Government.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is always good in exchanges like this that
every once in a while we try to come back to reality and discuss what
the topic for debate actually is.
What we have under consideration is a continuing resolution so that
the Federal Government can stay open through the end of January, so
that people who are expecting some sort of Federal benefit, whether it
be a Social Security check, whether it is the continuation of Medicare,
whether it is the processing of their Veterans Administration
disability claim, whatever it may be, we are here to talk about a
resolution to enable the Federal Government to keep going through the
end of January.
We are in that situation because the kind of bickering that we are
hearing from too many people on this floor was what predominated last
year and kept us from adopting any permanent appropriations
legislation.
Some Members are saying we do not want to talk about keeping things
going, we do not want to talk anything until we can solve all of the
problems and put a lot of new issues on the table. I guess they want to
go ahead and let the government shut down. If that is Members' desire,
and what they really want to do is mask that desire through other
verbiage that they are throwing at us, I wish they would be open about
it.
But the resolution under consideration is to allow continuing
expenditures at predetermined, ordinary rates so until we can work out
all these problems things do not come to a grinding halt. We are not
going to be able to have time to work on the permanent solutions to the
very funding problems that Members are complaining about unless we can
get things like this through. When all of the time has to be devoted to
temporary stopgap measures, that takes away from the time that we need
to devote to permanent measures.
The American people spoke last fall in the elections. They said they
want us to be solvers. They want us to be working towards solutions,
not bogging down in bickering and petty parliamentary complaints.
Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that we need to adopt. It is
responsible. I do not hear Members complaining about it, or the other
side of the aisle saying we want to shut things down instead. But they
do want to throw all sorts of barriers and roadblocks that will mean
the current spending authority will expire, we will have a government
shutdown.
We are trying to be responsible, Mr. Speaker. We should pass this
resolution tonight so we can then work together on the permanent
solutions and the permanent appropriations bills that need to be
adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I thank the leadership for
bringing this up, and I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) feels that we are unduly taxing
his capacities by raising all of these complex issues. I did not think
that the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability bill came as entirely
a shock to Members on the other side of the aisle.
We just heard that we are raising new issues. All we are asking for
and all I mentioned was let us fund the Securities and Exchange
Commission at the level this House and the rest of the government said
was appropriate last August. It is not a complicated matter. I am not
trying to raise new obstacles. The gentleman said this is just an
ordinary bill.
I thought there was a decision by the Congress and the President last
summer that ordinary was not good enough for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that we had to do some extraordinary things to
combat abuses in the securities industry. So when I say that we should
fund the level that we said we would fund, apparently for the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that is too complicated.

{time} 2000

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to bring some sort of information
here because I was listening back in my office. In the CR under
consideration today are two provisions providing the Securities and
Exchange Commission with additional authorities and resources to
protect investors. That is already in the CR. The second provision
allows the SEC to fund the start-up expenses of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board to begin to provide the additional necessary
scrutiny in corporate accounting.
There was also a bill put in earlier today, I believe it has been put
in, which does the following: with regard to the fiscal year 2003
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts was referring to this, it includes $776 million for the
Securities and Exchange Commission. That is the level that is
authorized by the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. It is $209 million, I will tell
the gentleman, above the President's request;

[[Page H115]]

and it is higher than the amount that was in the Senate bill.
In addition to fully funding the SEC's pay parity cost, the funding
will include an increase of $100 million for information technology
initiatives such as enhanced automated analytical tools, an integrated
document management system, a central data repository and various e-
government projects.
It will also, I will tell the body so they feel very comfortable in
voting for what the gentleman was talking about on the CR, the funding
level will also provide for hundreds of additional accountants,
attorneys and examiners to substantially increase oversight of auditors
and audit services, enhance the commission's investigative and
enforcement capability, improve disclosure of information to investors,
and perform various other oversight duties. So that bill has been
introduced and is in the hopper tonight.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman says it has been
introduced, but it is not in this version here. It has been introduced
for later adoption. It is not a number that is in this bill.
Mr. WOLF. But it is introduced to be the subject of, and we are
committed to those figures, to be the subject of the 2003 conference.
We are actually higher with regard to that than what the Senate had.
That is the subject of us going to conference. It is higher than what
the administration asked for and also higher than what the Senate has.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Providing more money than this
administration asked for for opposing corporate abuses is not a great
thing. What the gentleman from Virginia has said is they have now
introduced a bill to be acted on at some future date that will carry
out the funding level of Sarbanes-Oxley. But the fact is that we are
now in our sixth or seventh continuing resolution and we have not got
it yet. I am pleased to know that a bill has been introduced, but it
does not do anything for the SEC now. Why not simply in this version of
the continuing resolution put that number in there? The bill passed in
August. The President in August signed the bill and said, ``I'm
improving corporate accountability.'' Several opportunities have gone
by to actually fund it at that level, and the answer from the gentleman
from Virginia is, ``Don't worry. Hope is on the way. The Lone Ranger is
coming. We actually introduced the bill.'' I never heard of a bill
being introduced that was immediately implemented.
If, in fact, that is the right number, why not have it in this bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who has just
become chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this continuing
resolution, and I really want to thank Chairman Young for all the hard
work that he has put into this process. I want to thank also the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the minority side. It is not
easy. I know. This may be one of the hardest jobs in the House that the
chairman has and the ranking member, too. The continuing resolution is
an essential bill, and obviously I strongly urge all my colleagues to
support it. I do not think the appropriations process has ever been
easy, and I think this particular situation is maybe one of the most
difficult that we have ever had, at least in my understanding. All we
can do is take the situation that we have and do the very best that we
can. I believe that is exactly what we are going to do.
The President has made it pretty clear, quite clear, that he will not
sign any bills that push us over the discretionary level of $750.5
billion. I believe we have to pay attention to that. We have to respect
that. And I believe we will. The gulf between the spending levels
between the two bodies has now been closed. I understand that we are
now close to agreeing to new allocations for the fiscal year 2003 bills
that have not been completed.
As my colleagues will remember, this was one of the key problems last
year as we attempted, as some attempted, rather, to throw fiscal
discipline out the window. Not everybody may be happy, either, with the
final allocations; but they are critical to move this process forward.
Time is of the essence. We have to complete the fiscal year 2003 bills
so we can properly focus on fiscal year 2004, which is why again we
must pass this continuing resolution. Further delays run the risk of
the Federal Government operating for an entire year under a continuing
resolution. That is the alternative. What is it you want to do? If that
is what you want as an alternative, that is the only thing that is out
there. I do not think either side of the aisle will be satisfied with
that outcome. The blame game is easy. By the way, if I were in the
minority, I might be saying some of the same things that you are saying
and doing some of the same things.
But the hard work, by the way, is being done by Chairman Young and,
yes, Ranking Member Obey to bring the fiscal year 2003, I am talking
about 2003, by the way, and we should be talking about 2004, bring the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation bills to a successful resolution.
I just say, let us pass this CR and let us get back to work. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a point of
clarification?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear to the gentleman, if our
amendment is passed, we are still substantially below the Republican
budget resolution numbers. We do not exceed the amount dictated by the
White House. We simply make sure that the money is used for homeland
security, for the SEC, and for the other items that you have already
voted for in the supplemental.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to
provide for continuing appropriations for the United States Government
through January 31 of this year with the exception, of course, of the
Defense and Military Construction bills that we have already passed and
have had enacted into law.
Like a lot of my colleagues and certainly other members of the
Committee on Appropriations, I have been frustrated that we were not
able during the regular course of events last year and even into the
beginning of the next fiscal year, but still during the course of the
107th Congress, that we have found ourselves unable to complete work on
the appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2003. And so we find
ourselves here in the 108th Congress, a new Congress, a new body, new
committees, new personnel, faced with still doing almost all of the
appropriation bills for 2003. I am not into the blame game of pointing
the fingers as to where the responsibility for this lies. I think that
one can look at the political facts that caused us all, neither side,
to want to complete the work during the calendar year 2002.
And so we find ourselves here in 2003, at the beginning of a new
Congress, a new calendar year, and in the second quarter of this fiscal
year with the appropriation bills still unfinished. I have high hopes
that the new Congress, the 108th Congress, can move speedily to
complete this work. But it cannot be done unless we give authorization
to the government to continue its work, all the agencies of the Federal
Government that have appropriations to continue their work past this
coming weekend and to the end of this month. While we are gone from
Washington in the next couple of weeks, the Senate will be taking up
these appropriation bills. The plan is that they will add them to our
continuing resolution and we will have an opportunity to go to
conference and discuss them there.
Whatever one thinks of the process, I think one has to look at the
end result, which is to try to get the appropriation bills done for
2003 so that we can get into the regular appropriation bills for 2004,
and I think all of us understand that there is going to be a
supplemental appropriation bill as well coming up in the next couple of
months to

[[Page H116]]

deal with the military and political crisis that we find ourselves
dealing with in the Middle East and South Asia.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this body would support this
continuing resolution, that we would adopt it, and that we would get on
with the work of adopting the bills for 2003 before the end of this
month and that we can do the regular work of fiscal year 2004 in the
next year.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I take this time, Mr. Speaker, to explain to the House the amendment
that I will shortly offer. That amendment will do essentially two
things: it would provide an additional $308 million for the Securities
and Exchange Commission to increase funding to the level agreed to in
the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. Secondly, it would make available $5.1 billion
in critical funding already agreed to by the House last year as
contingent emergencies in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental. That money
will pay for items such as helping to find, arrest and deport high-risk
individuals who have disregarded the departure date on their visas. It
would provide for increased security of U.S. nuclear weapons and
nuclear materials at DOE weapons labs, money which the DOE has asked
for. It would provide money for the Customs Container Security
initiative suggested by the agency. It would provide $275 million for
veterans health care, which this House has already approved on a
contingent appropriation basis. It would provide $415 million for
grants to State and local first responders, and a variety of other
items which the House has already approved, but which the President has
declined to release.
As I told the House earlier today, right after the election I was
watching McNeil-Lehrer. In their panel discussion, Tom Oliphant, the
columnist, was asked what the role of the Democratic Party was going to
be now that the Republican Party had all of the marbles in every
institution. He said, ``Well, their obligation as the minority is to
offer alternatives to what the majority proposes.'' That is exactly
what we are trying to do. The problem with the rule that was adopted
earlier is that it attempts to preclude us from meeting those
responsibilities as a minority to offer constructive alternatives. In
the process, it also denies the ability to hold either the majority or
the minority accountable for the decisions they make. That is why we
are attempting to move forward with this amendment.
I would hope when the time comes that no point of order is lodged
against the amendment so that we can, in fact, meet the obligations
that we have in this House to be a real legislative body, not a Soviet-
style Congress where a few unknown individuals make decisions and then
subvert the process in order to predetermine the outcome.

{time} 2015

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
I will be very brief just to say that it has been an interesting
debate as usual. I appreciate the work that the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are able to do together because we do agree
a lot. My position is we should pass this CR and get on with completing
the work of the 107th Congress. There are a lot of good issues raised
here today by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), by the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), by others, but those will be fixed, and I am
as anxious as they are to get those fixes in place. I would like to
pass this CR now. I would like to take up the second CR immediately,
pass it now, and get on to finalizing the work of the 107th Congress by
completing the appropriations process for that Congress because we are
starting the process for the 108th Congress for fiscal year 2004.
We anticipate the budget from the administration shortly. We will
begin our hearings in our subcommittees shortly. We will have a budget
resolution this year that we will begin then to mark up our bills and
bring them to the floor, but let us get this behind us, let us get this
off the table, get it off the desk, get it out of contention. Pass the
CR and let us get on to the business of the 108th Congress.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, only one day into the new Congress and
the Republican Leadership's procedures for advancing legislation are an
outrage that purposefully seeks to limit meaningful debate. By stifling
opportunities to present alternatives by either Democrats or
Republicans, the House leadership is showing its unwillingness to
legislate and its lack of fiscal responsibility.
This morning we passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits
for millions of Americans out of work. Unfortunately, due to the
Republican leadership procedures, provisions could not be added to
provide benefits to 1 million whose benefits have already expired.
Now, with this Continuing Resolution, we are faced with a provision
for the Department of Homeland Security that would allow the
Administration to bypass a normal review by the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and win blanket approval on the House floor
for its plan to lease up to 575,000 square feet at a cost of up to $250
million. There are important security, infrastructure, and fiscal
considerations left undiscussed by this approach.
The Republican leadership is not just afraid of the Democratic
proposals, but they are afraid of their own moderate members and the
American public. Decision-making that leaves out normal congressional
and committee processes is an attempt to remove democratic debate and
public opinion from the table. This is a horrible way to begin the new
Congress. The American public deserves better.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J.
Res. 1, the continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government
through January 31. It is an abomination that only two appropriations
bills have been passed by this Congress--the Defense and Military
Construction bills. We have essentially been operating without set
spending levels for the Federal Government since the fiscal year began
October 1.
My priorities include funding for education, protecting Medicaid, and
providing funds for HIV/AIDS in Africa. I understand the fiscal
constraints, but I also realize that Federal agencies and our
constituents need funding provided from the various appropriations
bills.
This resolution does extend entitlement payments including Food
Stamps, Medicaid Grants to states and veterans' entitlements. The
appropriations bills that fund these programs have not been passed. We
simply cannot keep passing continuing resolutions with set spending
levels. Congress is not living up to its responsibility as stated in
the U.S. Constitution in Article 1.
Congress must do its work. We have eleven appropriations bills that
have yet to be passed by Congress and enacted into law. The Labor-HHS
appropriations bill funds the Department of Education, the Department
of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Democratic priorities in education health care must be fully
funded. Last year, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, but have yet
to fund the bill at levels to ensure the adequacy of the measures
contained in the education bill.
I am concerned about the increasing spread of AIDS/HIV in Africa. I
support funding for research in this area and getting the necessary
medical supplies and medicine to combat this disease to Africa.
Congress adjourned last year with much unfinished business. Passing
the appropriations bills must be on our list of priorities. We cannot
continue this uncertainty in the budget process. This is the sixth
continuing resolution.
The president will soon release his fiscal year 2004 budget and we
have not yet passed eleven funding bills for fiscal year 2003.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). All time for debate has expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant
to House Resolution 15, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. OBEY. I think the Speaker can safely assume that, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res. 1
to a select committee consisting of Mr. Young of Florida and
Mr. Obey of Wisconsin with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:

[[Page H117]]

Page 1, line 5, after ``2003'', insert the following:
``Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of
this joint resolution, $776,000,000 is available for the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Salaries and expenses.''
At the end of the joint resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 7. Public Law 107-229 is further amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``Sec. 138. In addition to the amounts made available by
section 101, and subject to sections 107(c) and 108, amounts
made available in Public Law 107-206 only to the extent that
an official budget request is transmitted by the President
shall be considered available for obligation.''.

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

Point of Order

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit because it violates section 302(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman care to argue further on
his point of order?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Section 302(c) prohibits the
consideration of any amendment that provides for new budget authority
for a fiscal year until the Committee on Appropriations has made the
suballocations required by section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act.
This motion to recommit increases the amount of budget authority
provided by the measure. The suballocations published by the Committee
on Appropriations on October 10 of 2002 lapsed upon the adjournment of
the 107th Congress, and no 302(b) suballocations have been made for the
108th Congress. Hence I make the point of order that this motion to
recommit violates section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Minnesota is asserting
is that the minority should not be allowed to offer a legitimate
amendment because the majority did not fulfill its responsibilities to
abide by certain provisions of the Budget Act and by the timetable of
that act. I find that highly objectionable especially since the
Committee on Rules has already waived the requirement as far as the
majority party is concerned. It seems to me that the House rules
certainly ought to allow the minority the same privilege that the
majority has arranged by rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank)
is recognized.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, when we have points of
order, they are important because they establish precedents, and for
that reason I intend, if the Chair rules in favor of this point of
order, to join in trying to overturn it because I cannot think of a
more damaging precedent.
What this does is to take advantage of the fact that the House did
not complete the fiscal 2003 appropriations when it should have in the
last calendar year. Thus we are now dealing with fiscal 2003
appropriations in a Congress later than we should, not just a year
later but in a Congress later than we should. Because it is a later
Congress than it should be, the 302(b) allocations expired. Instead of
routinely reenacting them, the majority waived the requirement for
itself in a rule and did not waive it for any amendment; so the
precedent being set will be as follows: Do not get the work done on
time, let it go over until the next Congress months after it should
have been done; then abstain from the routine act that the gentleman
from Wisconsin mentioned, give yourself a waiver from your failure to
act, and do not give it to anyone else. So the precedent is that if you
delay the appropriations bills, you can bring them to the floor in an
unamendable fashion, totally unamendable so that when we complain about
the underfunding of the Securities Exchange Commission we are told do
not despair, we have introduced a bill and one of these days we might
even act on it. Nothing could be more damaging to the democratic fabric
of this House.
And I will say that I often, when an appeal to the Chair is made,
will vote to uphold the Chair even when I disagree with the legislative
consequence, but in this case we are not talking about a standing rule
of the House. We are not talking about interfering with those rules
that try to govern our deliberations. We are talking about objecting to
a deliberate scheme to bring the appropriations for the entire
government to the floor of the House in an absolutely unamendable
fashion.
The leadership on the other side used to boast, the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, about we always get a motion to recommit. This is a
motion to recommit, an entirely germane motion to recommit on the
substance that is being ruled out of order on this ground, and for that
reason I hope the Chair will not sustain this degradation of democracy.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the gentleman
from Massachusetts is one of the experts when it comes to the rules of
the House, and I commend him for that, but just to be technically
correct with regard to his statement, it is not because we failed to do
appropriation bills that the 302(b) allocations did not carry forward.
It is because the Senate failed to produce a budget that the 302(b)
allocation did not carry forward. Had a budget resolution been
completed, the 302(b) allocations would have carried forward even
though it was a new Congress.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and
that is true. But it is also true that we could have in this House
passed those appropriations bills without any action from any other
body, and it is a fact in addition that we did not finish the work last
year that put us in the situation which the majority takes advantage of
by denying the House the chance to have even a germane recommit on the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would take this opportunity to
remind those who are speaking to the point of order that their comments
should be directed through the Chair.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order. The gentleman
from Massachusetts is correct that certainly appropriation bills could
have moved forward. We deemed the budget in order for that process to
continue. There are many reasons why appropriation bills did not move
forward, but the only fact I wanted to make clear for the Record and
for the purpose of precedent setting, if there will be precedent
setting this evening, is that in fact it was the failure of a budget to
be produced by the Senate and not failure of appropriation bills to be
produced that causes this extraordinary procedure to occur this
evening. I hope this is not precedent setting because it is very
unfortunate that in fact for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act
was passed that the other body failed to produce a budget.
Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless the gentleman from Minnesota desires
to speak further on the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I will let the Chair rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht)
makes a point of order that the amendment proposed in the motion to
recommit offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) violates
section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 302(c)
precludes consideration after the Committee on Appropriations has
received a section 302(a) allocation for a fiscal year of a measure
within the committee's jurisdiction that provides new budget authority
until the committee makes the suballocations required under section
302(b).
The amendment proposed in the motion offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin provides new budget authority, and the Committee on
Appropriations has not made the required section 302(b) suballocations,
and as such, the motion to recommit violates section 302(c) of the
Budget Act. The point of order is sustained, and the motion is not in
order.

[[Page H118]]

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the
decision of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Motion to table Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) to lay the appeal on the
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 192, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 10]

YEAS--217

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--192

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

NOT VOTING--24

Baird
Ballance
Becerra
Cardin
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goss
Gutierrez
Hayworth
Janklow
Kilpatrick
Kind
Lipinski
McCrery
McInnis
Miller, Gary
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Oxley
Payne
Rush
Slaughter
Towns
Weldon (PA)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter) (during the vote). The Chair
would advise Members of the House that there are 2 minutes remaining on
the 15-minute clock.

{time} 2045

Ms. BONO and Mr. ISSA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 2045

Motion to Recommit

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an alternative motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). Is the gentleman still opposed
to the joint resolution?
Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the joint resolution, H.J. Res.
1 to a select committee consisting of Mr. Young of Florida
and Mr. Obey of Wisconsin with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
(1) On page 3, line 8, of the joint resolution, strike
everything after ``December 24, 2002,'' to the end of the
section and insert the following ``shall require approval by
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
and a select committee of the House consisting of Mr. Young
of Alaska, Mr. LaTourette of Ohio and Mr. Oberstar of
Minnesota.
(b) Prohibition on Delegation.--The authority of the
General Services Administration to lease space under this
section may not be delegated to any other department or
agency.''
(2) At the end of the joint resolution, insert the
following section:
``Sec. 7.--Public Law 107-229 is further amended by adding
at the end the following new sections:
``Sec. 138. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to implement section 1717 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 or the amendments to section 2133 of the
Public Health Service Act made by sections 1714, 1715 and
1716 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (other than to
process, adjudicate or pay claims for compensation under the
program established by subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public
Health Service Act).
``Sec. 139. None of the fund made available by this Act may
be obligated by the Secretary of Homeland Security in
violation of section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, which for purposes of this section shall be applied (1)
by inserting immediately before the period in subsection (a)
`or with any direct or indirect subsidiary of such an entity'
and (2) by substituting the phrase `before, on or after the
date' for `after the date' in subsection (b)(1) of such
section 835.''.''

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.

[[Page H119]]

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The House will be
in order.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would do three things:
It would modify the language in the Department of Homeland Security
legislation to prevent existing corporations who moved offshore to
avoid paying their fair share of taxes from getting government
contracts from that agency. It would bring the bill back in line with
the language this House voted to include by a vote of 318 to 110 on the
motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) last July.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that over the next 10
years corporate expatriates would cost us more than $4 billion in funds
that could help pay for our Nation's security.
The second point of this motion to recommit would be to suspend the
operation of one of the most egregious provisions inserted into the
Department of Homeland Security legislation at the last minute last
year. That is a provision apparently designed to shield the giant
drugmaker Eli Lilly & Company from lawsuits that have been brought by
parents of autistic children claiming that their children's disease was
caused by a vaccine preservative.
There may be good reason to ultimately require claims of this type to
be brought under the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, but
if that is done, it should be done openly in the sunshine after proper
hearings and deliberation, not in a back room deal at the last moment.
Thirdly, this motion would restore the authority of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure to review the leasing of space for
the new Department of Homeland Security, replacing the provision in the
CR that simply approves the administration proposal without any
congressional oversight or scrutiny whatsoever.
We do not stop them from going forward, we simply say that they must
follow the procedure of having some review by the committee of
jurisdiction before they proceed to spend a great deal of taxpayers'
money on leasing property which at this point has been reviewed and
overseen by no one whatsoever in the Congress.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding to me.
I just wanted to remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that in fact
there were 318 people in this body last year who came together and we
voted to end the practice of rewarding those corporations who take
their corporations overseas just for the ostensible purpose of not
paying their taxes, of avoiding their most basic responsibility. We
said no, they can no longer do that and get rewarded with government
contracts.
Why? Why are we weakening the language that 318 or 319 people voted
on? It is what we expect of American citizens, to pay their taxes every
year. Why are we going to weaken this law with regard to these
corporations? We have an opportunity tonight to right this wrong.
When push came to shove, this House weakened its language. We put
good corporate citizens at a permanent disadvantage by protecting these
companies who have moved overseas to avoid their most basic
responsibility, and tonight we have the opportunity to right that
wrong. We will not be acting responsibly this evening if we in fact
vote to allow a small number of people who, quite frankly, put aside
their American responsibilities, at a time when this Nation in fact is
ostensibly on its way to war, and allow them to do what we would not
allow anyone else to do.
We ought to right this wrong, we ought to vote for this motion to
recommit, and live up to our responsibilities as the representatives of
the good people of this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I definitely rise in opposition to
the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the
motions of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) are creative and
appealing, and address subjects that should be addressed.
What I would ask the House to do is to reject the motion to recommit.
Let us get on with the regular order of dealing with these issues in
the regular order, which we expect to do in a very expeditious manner.
At this point, because we do not want to make too many major
decisions in the dark of night, as we hear so often, let us simply vote
against this motion to recommit, pass the continuing resolution, deal
with House Joint Resolution 1, and get out of here for tonight.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote, if
ordered, on the question of passage, and, after that, on the motion to
suspend the rules and adopt House Resolution 10.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 220, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 11]

AYES--192

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

NOES--220

[[Page H120]]

Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--21

Baird
Ballance
Cardin
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goss
Gutierrez
Hayworth
Janklow
Jefferson
Kilpatrick
Kind
Lipinski
McCrery
McInnis
Miller, Gary
Nethercutt
Payne
Rush
Towns
Weldon (PA)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter) (during the vote). The Chair
would advise Members that there are 2 minutes left on the 15-minute
clock.

{time} 2112

Mrs. MALONEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________