Amendment Text: H.Amdt.46 — 108th Congress (2003-2004)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/03/2003)

This Amendment appears on page H2788 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H2762-H2809]
                              {time}  1645
        EMERGENCY WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 172 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 1559.

                              {time}  1645


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) had 
been disposed of, and the bill was open from page 3 line 3 through page 
9 line 13.
  Pursuant to the previous order of the House, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purpose of debate; amendments numbered 2, 7, 
8, and 9 in the Congressional Record; and amendments specified in the 
list placed at the desk. Each such amendment may be offered only by the 
Member designated in this request, or a designee, or the Member who 
caused it to be printed, or a designee, shall be considered as read, 
shall not be subject to amendment, except pro forma amendments for the 
purpose of debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division 
of the question.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Of the funds appropriated under this heading, and in 
     addition, such sums as may be transferred, or are otherwise 
     available, from current and future balances in the Defense 
     Cooperation Account and the Natural Resources Risk 
     Remediation Fund (only to the extent said funds are available 
     pursuant to the authorities and limitations in current law 
     and those further enumerated in chapter 3 of this Act), and 
     only for expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     finance the estimated partial costs of operations associated 
     with Operation Iraqi Freedom and other operations and related 
     activities in support of the global war on terrorism 
     (including Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle), 
     there is hereby made available a total amount of not to 
     exceed $59,682,500,000, only for transfer to the following 
     accounts in not to exceed the following amounts:

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $6,974,500,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $1,984,300,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $1,204,900,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $1,834,800,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $3,000,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $93,000,000.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $10,481,500,000, of

[[Page H2763]]

     which $874,000,000 shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2004.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $3,940,300,000, of which $1,909,000,000 shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2004.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $1,383,700,000, of which $786,000,000 shall 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $3,668,200,000, of which $359,000,000 shall 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $901,900,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $58,400,000.

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $301,700,000.

                              PROCUREMENT


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Army'', $4,100,000.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Army'', 
     $3,100,000.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $53,300,000.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $447,500,000.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $241,800,000.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $113,600,000.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $451,000,000.

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Army'', $11,500,000.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $90,000,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2004.

      COMBAT, STABILITY OPERATIONS, AND FORCE RECONSTITUTION COSTS


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For additional expenses, to be derived by transfer from the 
     ``Operation Iraqi Freedom Response Fund'', not otherwise 
     provided for, necessary to finance the estimated partial 
     costs of combat, stability operations (including natural 
     resource risk remediation activities), force reconstitution 
     and munitions/equipment replacement, and other related costs, 
     an amount not to exceed $25,436,400,000, of which not less 
     than $4,000,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation until 
     after July 1, 2003, as a reserve for any additional 
     incremental fiscal year 2003 Military Personnel and ``Defense 
     Health Program'' costs that may be incurred above the amounts 
     provided elsewhere in this chapter or previously enacted 
     defense appropriations: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall not make any transfer from the ``Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom Response Fund'', the ``Defense Cooperation 
     Account'', or the ``Natural Resources Risk Remediation Fund'' 
     to appropriations, programs and activities cited under this 
     heading, until seven days after notifying the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the amounts and purposes of any such transfer: Provided 
     further, That subject to the limitations stated above, 
     amounts provided under this heading shall otherwise be 
     available for obligation in the following amounts, as 
     specified:
       For classified programs, not less than $1,817,000,000, 
     which shall remain available for obligation until September 
     30, 2004, and which shall be in addition to amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this chapter for Procurement, and Research, 
     development, test and evaluation;
       For Operation and maintenance, up to $20,214,300,000, of 
     which $4,000,000,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2004, and of which not less than $8,000,000,000 shall be 
     only for fiscal year 2003 costs associated with Operation 
     Enduring Freedom and related costs of the global war on 
     terrorism;
       For Procurement, up to $4,242,000,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2004, of which up to 
     $3,249,400,000 may be made available to replenish munitions 
     and other equipment expended for military operations in and 
     around Iraq and the global war on terrorism;
       For Research, development, test, and evaluation, up to 
     $57,600,000; and
       For Department of Homeland Security, ``United States Coast 
     Guard, Operating Expenses'' up to $400,000,000 to support 
     military activities in connection with Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom and the global war on terrorism: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense: Provided further, That upon 
     determinations that all or part of the funds transferred from 
     this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes 
     provided herein, such amounts shall be transferred back to 
     this appropriation or to the ``Operation Iraqi Freedom 
     Response Fund''.

                NATURAL RESOURCES RISK REMEDIATION FUND


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       There is established in the Treasury of the United States a 
     special account to be known as the ``Natural Resources Risk 
     Remediation Fund''. Funds transferred to, appropriated to, 
     and contributions made to, the ``Natural Resources Risk 
     Remediation Fund'' may be made available for expenses 
     necessary in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom to 
     address emergency fire fighting, repair of damage to oil 
     facilities and related infrastructure, and preserve a 
     distribution capability, and may remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $489,300,000 of the 
     funds appropriated under the heading ``Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom Response Fund'' in this Act may be transferred to 
     this fund: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     may accept from any person, foreign government, or 
     international organization, and credit to this fund, any 
     contribution of money for such purposes: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds available in 
     the Natural Resources Risk Remediation Fund to other 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense to carry 
     out such purposes, or to reimburse such appropriations or 
     funds for expenses incurred for such purposes and such 
     reimbursements may include funds received pursuant to the 
     authority of the previous proviso: Provided further, That 
     funds to be transferred shall be merged with and shall be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided 
     further, That the transfer authority provided in this 
     paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided, such amounts may be transferred back to 
     this appropriation.

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $1,100,000,000.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

         DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $34,000,000, for transfer 
     subject to the terms and conditions governing such transfers 
     as provided for under this heading in Public Law 107-248.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoeffel

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoeffel:
       Page 17, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $34,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 19, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $34,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 11, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $68,000,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment today, and I will not 
ask for a vote, that will increase the amount of money that we are 
providing to peacekeeping in this supplemental bill to an additional 
$68 million, and we would take that money from the Colombia military 
funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical for this House to understand the 
importance of internationalizing our peacekeeping. The peacekeeping 
funds as distributed by this bill by the State Department are used to 
assist coalition partners and other cooperative front-line states to 
promote stabilization activities in postconflict Iraq. Frankly, we do 
not want all of the peacekeeping to be done by American military 
forces, or even the coalition forces currently fighting with us in 
Iraq.
  It is necessary, certainly, for us to have some initial burden; but 
we want

[[Page H2764]]

to quickly move in terms of long-term security presence to peacekeepers 
from our allies in Europe, from other partners, from organizations of 
international stature, such as the United Nations, or more likely 
perhaps NATO; and we need to understand the need to move toward that. 
We need to establish the rule of law in Iraq as part of peacekeeping, 
and we will need an international team of legal experts and judges and 
prosecutors to form a transitional justice team and a civilian police 
team. Years of neglect at the United Nations have made that 
organization probably incapable of the kind of robust peacekeeping that 
we are going to need.
  I would suggest to the House that we look at NATO. That is the kind 
of organization that can lift a great part of the burden from American 
taxpayers and yet deliver robust and effective peacekeeping in Iraq 
after our victory. It is time now to understand the need to 
internationalize our burdens, not to try to do this all ourselves, to 
plan ahead and to make sure we call upon international agencies like 
NATO to help us in the tasks to come after our military victory.
  For a variety of reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw this 
amendment. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
ranking member (Mr. Obey) of the Committee on Appropriations for their 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       In chapter 3 of title I, in the item relating to ``Drug 
     Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', after 
     the aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced 
     by $34,000,000)''.
       In chapter 4 of title I, in the item relating to ``Andean 
     Counterdrug Initiative'', after the aggregate dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $27,000,000)''.
       In chapter 5 of title I, in the item relating to ``Office 
     for Domestic Preparedness'', after the first and second 
     dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $34,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Florida for a time request.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and any amendments thereto be limited to 
40 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
myself as the opponent.
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, as I said earlier, we have 
over 40 amendments left to go. I understand this is an important 
amendment. We just had over an hour on an amendment from the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) that was considered important. If we 
provide 40 minutes' time for this amendment, I do not want the 
expectation to be that we will do that for every other amendment. I 
would hope that we understand that this is the last amendment we would 
ask significant time for, and Members can expect us to ask unanimous 
consent in order to hold each future amendment to considerably less 
time than this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if under his reservation the 
gentleman would continue to yield, I will do my best to make that work 
on my side.
  If the gentleman would continue to yield, as to our Members so they 
can make some plans for the evening, while we will still continue and 
intend to complete this bill sometime tonight, I would ask the Chair 
that we not have any votes prior to 8 p.m., roll votes until 8, so 
Members can have time for dinner or whatever.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a 
Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to add $34 million to the Office of Domestic 
Preparedness for assistance to State and local first responders. I 
would have preferred to increase those funds by $61 million, but the 
Committee on Rules last night would not allow even that modest sum to 
go to our first responders.
  This amendment is very simple. It adds $34 million for our first 
responders, and it strikes $61 million in military and security 
assistance for Colombia to pay for the increase. This supplemental 
contains more military aid for Colombia, in total $105 million, than 
the amount for first responders in 49 of the 50 States. At a time when 
our country faces an increased risk of terrorist attack, at a time when 
every dollar is needed to support the men and women who daily protect 
our communities from terrorism and other threats, this bill makes it 
clear they would be better off as a military or police officer in 
Bogota, Colombia, than Worcester, Massachusetts, Miami, Florida, or 
even New York City.
  President Bush asked this Congress to refrain from attaching items 
not directly related to the emergency at hand. This bill is supposed to 
focus on Iraq and the region surrounding Iraq and on our own homeland 
security. So why is military aid for Colombia in this bill?
  Scarcely 6 weeks ago, Congress passed an appropriations bill that 
contained over $500 million in military security and economic aid for 
Colombia. Have they already run out of that money? No. Most of it is 
not even in the pipeline yet. When this House returns from the April 
recess, the Subcommittee on Defense and the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on 
Appropriations will begin work on the fiscal year 2004 appropriations 
bills. The President has asked for more than $700 million in military 
security and economic aid for Colombia in those bills. I submit that 
Colombia is very well taken care of in the regular authorization and 
appropriations process.
  If this House approves this amendment, the supplemental will still 
include $44 million in military and security assistance for Colombia. 
My amendment does not touch additional funds for hostage search and 
rescue missions in Colombia. This amendment does not touch funds to 
strengthen security for President Uribe, and it does not touch at least 
$25 million in other military assistance in this bill, funds which 
could be used for bomb detection, for extending the Colombian 
Government's control over zones of conflict, or for other purposes.
  This amendment is a very modest increase for the men and women who 
are our front-line security right here at home, and a very modest 
reduction in military funds for Colombia.
  Most of my colleagues know that I have grave concerns about our 
policy in Colombia. I am even more deeply concerned that we never seem 
to get an opportunity to debate that policy except when money is being 
slipped in through the back door in supplemental appropriation bills 
that are focused on other critical issues like the war in Iraq.
  Members may disagree with me on our policy on Colombia, but they 
cannot disagree that these funds are needed more at home right now than 
they are needed in Colombia.

                              {time}  1700

  I just returned from 1 week in Colombia, and I saw first hand what 
the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights in Bogota just 
reported to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Violence and human 
rights crimes by the paramilitary guerillas are on the increase. Human 
rights

[[Page H2765]]

abuses and crimes by official government military and security forces 
are on the increase, and the links between the Colombian armed forces 
and the paramilitaries remain unchanged.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. has more troops on the ground in Colombia than 
ever before, and Americans are dying in Colombia and our involvement is 
becoming increasingly directed in counterinsurgency efforts. These are 
serious matters. They deserve serious and full debate before we further 
escalate our involvement.
  I know that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is 
concerned that terrorist groups like al Qaeda rely in part on drug 
money to finance their operations. Every Member of this House is 
concerned about that. But al Qaeda's drug money comes from South Asian 
poppy fields, not Colombia. In Colombia, drug money permeates all 
sectors of society. It helps finance Colombia's 40-year-old civil war. 
And let me suggest that one of the best ways to deal with the drug 
problem in America is by making certain that we have enough law 
enforcement officers on our own city streets.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, support our 
police, our firefighters and our public safety officers at home, to 
pass this amendment for their own hometown.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to talk about this amendment which does affect both the 
defense chapter of this supplemental as well as the foreign assistance 
chapter. The supplemental bill before the House today has the same 
level as the President's request for funding for Colombia in the 
Foreign Assistance Chapter. It includes $37 million foreign military 
financing and $34 million from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. The 
McGovern amendment would cut $27 million from the Andean Counterdrug 
Initiative and $34 million from the funds in the Department of Defense 
Chapter. It leaves in the foreign military financing assistance and $7 
million of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative.
  Let me begin by saying about my opposition to the amendment that the 
funding in supplemental legislation for Colombia is subject to all of 
the restrictions and conditions that exist under current law. These 
funds are not exempt from those conditions. The funds are subject to 
human rights certifications. They are subject to coca spraying 
conditions, conditions on the use of U.S. helicopters, the rules of 
engagement, and there is more. In fact, let me emphasize to my 
colleagues that there is no provision in the foreign assistance 
legislation that is subject to more conditions than these funds, with 
the possible exception of those funds provided for the West Bank and 
Gaza.
  I apparently do not need to remind the subcommittee that Colombia is 
South America's oldest democracy, but it is a country that is torn by 
decades of civil strife. It has endemic violence, corruption, deep 
socioeconomic inequities, weak institutions, and a serious economic 
recession, all exacerbated by the illicit drug production and 
trafficking. Drug profits play the motivating factor in inciting the 
terrorism that is killing 3,500 Colombian citizens every year. It is in 
the national interest of the United States to promote better stability 
in Colombia by helping it address these longstanding problems and 
confronting the socially corrosive drug industry.
  But for the first time since becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, I have some 
good news to share with my colleagues. Our eradication efforts with 
President Uribe's administration and with his assistance are making a 
difference in Colombia.
  The last half of 2002 and the first half of 2003 marks a turning 
point in the struggle by the United States and Colombia against 
narcotrafficking and terrorism. We have made significant progress; but 
as a result, the narcoterrorist groups have become desperate.
  President Uribe and his senior administration officials, in office 
only since August of 2002, have demonstrated the will and the ability 
to fight narcotrafficking and terrorism at their roots. Therefore, the 
terrorists are now targeting him and other officials for assassination. 
Funding in this supplemental will provide much-needed security upgrades 
for official facilities and training for Colombian security personnel 
to reduce the threat of assassinations.
  I would urge my colleagues to recognize the situation in Colombia, to 
recognize that U.S. national interest in a stable Colombia is 
important, to recognize that we are making a difference. Reducing U.S. 
support at this time would send the wrong message to the FARC and to 
the paramilitaries.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the McGovern amendment.
  (Mrs. LOWEY was given permission to include a statement at this point 
in the Record.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  The additional funding requested for Colombia has no place in this 
bill. More importantly, it adds funding in support of a policy that is 
essentially flawed. President Uribe's election gave us some initial 
hope that he would engage all the disparate elements of the conflict 
with new ideas and a real commitment to bring lasting peace.
  Unfortunately, what we have seen is an escalation of activity from 
guerilla organizations, increasing influence and control by 
paramilitary organizations, no reduction in coca cultivation, and a 
slippage in the commitment to prosecute human rights abuses.
  I have no illusion about the complexity of the problems of Colombia, 
but I do not think we should be adding funds to expand our commitment 
there at this point. Make no mistake: we are headed toward the direct 
involvement of U.S. troops in that conflict. I regret the fact that 
there are U.S. hostages in FARC camps, and I support all efforts to 
rescue them, but this funding goes beyond that and expands the 
involvement of U.S. personnel on the ground.
  If the policy were balanced and we had a real commitment on the part 
of the Colombian government to deal with all aspects of the problem--
including the rapidly expanding drug trafficking by paramilitary 
organizations--it might be different. Unfortunately we don't, and the 
influence of these organizations and their cooperation with the 
Colombian military increases daily. The Colombian military has 
succeeded in decreasing the control that rebel groups have enjoyed in 
certain parts of the country. But these successful military operations 
have been followed up by paramilitary units moving in to these same 
areas and taking control. This has occurred in the Buena Ventura port 
area on the Pacific Coast of Colombia, which is a primary drug 
transshipment port near the town of Cali. And we also have seen no 
action by the Colombians to arrest indicted members of the 
Paramilitaries.
  Until we have a balanced policy with a real commitment by the 
Colombian government to deal with all aspects of the problem, our 
funding for eradication and military training only serves to inflame, 
not to stop, the conflict. I urge my colleagues to move funding away 
from these purposes, and instead invest it in homeland security--where 
it can make a positive difference in the lives of the American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member on the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to support this amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend and co-sponsor.
  The previous speaker spoke about national interest. This amendment 
provides at least some critical assistance to national interest, and 
that is of homeland security. Mr. Chairman, this supplemental bill that 
we are debating today is about the war in Iraq. It is about the crucial 
ongoing operations in the region of Afghanistan, and it is about 
protecting the American people from future acts of terrorism. This war 
is expensive, and its aftermath will be more expensive still. And I 
must tell the Members, Mr. Chairman, I have deep concerns and I am 
troubled so very much about the aftermath after we have a victory in 
Iraq because that of course will be the proof in the pudding as to 
whether the young men and young women's sacrifices have been in vain.

[[Page H2766]]

  I commend the Committee on Appropriations for providing the funding 
to give our troops everything they need to win the war, and I commend 
them too for making a downpayment on the costs of reconstruction in 
Iraq. We in Congress and the American people must know that rebuilding 
that nation will require substantial and sustained commitment.
  But we owe a commitment too to our first responders here in our own 
country. They are on the front lines of the war on terrorism right here 
at home. Our States remain underfunded for critical needs. The State of 
Missouri alone requires some $500 million to do the defense work 
concerning our first responders. And while this supplemental provides 
some funding for the States, it needs to do more.
  This amendment would provide more funding for the first responders by 
decreasing the amount of military and counterdrug assistance going to 
Colombia. I have deep concerns about our Nation's involvement in the 
ongoing conflict there, but today my larger concern is about where we 
face a bigger danger, and that is right here in the United States of 
America. That justifies emergency spending.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, allows funds for unforeseen needs in 
Colombia, notably search and rescue operations for the Americans held 
hostage, and increased security for President Uribe, who is trying so 
hard to bring peace to his nation. But, Mr. Chairman, on the other 
hand, Colombia's request can be and should be handled in regular order. 
There is simply no emergency that warrants funding for these other 
items and programs in this bill. Money is more urgently needed and it 
would be more appropriately spent in the supplemental supporting our 
first responders right here in the United States just as we support our 
troops.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for his leadership.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I think adopting this amendment would be a huge mistake for this 
House; so I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which proposes 
cutting vitally needed assistance to Colombia and the Andean region. 
Quite simply, now is not the time to turn our backs on the progress we 
are making against narcoterrorism in Colombia.
  General James Hill, the commander of the U.S. Southern Command, said 
recently that the so-called narcoterrorists operating in Colombia and 
throughout Latin America fuel and fund worldwide terrorist 
organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Our counternarcotics and 
counterterror initiatives in Colombia are finally beginning to bear 
fruit. For example, last month John Walters, the director of the Office 
of National Drug Policy, announced promising new estimates of coca 
eradication in Colombia, and these numbers do not account for the 
intensified spraying that has occurred since President Uribe took 
office in 2002. It would be foolish for us to send this message to the 
Colombian Government now and for us to derail this program just as it 
is beginning to succeed.
  The administration has requested the allocation of supplemental 
funding to support the Uribe administration's commitment to stamp out 
terrorists, reduce the level of narcotics trafficking, and eventually 
eliminate his nation's supply of drugs. President Uribe's aggressive 
approach to counternarcotics and antiterrorist programs has seen 
significant results in a very short period of time.
  Our 2003 funding was developed prior to President Uribe's taking 
office, and it is not sufficient to appropriately and effectively fund 
the current pace of our counternarcotics operations. Supplemental 
funding would provide Colombia with several essential tools and 
resources, including intelligence equipment to detect threats against 
U.S. and Colombian officials and increase capabilities to enhance 
existing eradication efforts.
  After a recent visit with President Uribe in Bogota, I can tell the 
Members that the Colombian Government's commitment is strong. President 
Uribe's administration is working to enhance state presence in vast 
areas of the country that have lacked it for decades. They have the 
popular support of a vast majority of Colombians to beef up and spray 
eradication efforts, impose new taxes, to strengthen their police and 
military, and reform their beleaguered criminal justice system.
  Of course, significant hurdles remain. The FARC, ELN, and AUC 
continue to hold sway over large portions of the countryside where 
there is little, if any, state presence. The narcotics terrorists have 
also shown no respect for human rights and do not value human rights. 
They have murdered and kidnapped innocent men and women and children 
including American citizens. As we prepare to reaffirm our commitment 
to the demand side of the war on drugs by reauthorizing drug policy 
legislation in this Congress, it is imperative that we continue to 
closely monitor both progress and setbacks on the supply side in 
Colombia.
  With military intervention in Iraq under way and concerns about 
homeland security here at an all-time high, it is important we do not 
overlook the battle against narcoterrorism going on in Colombia. It is 
part and parcel of our international antiterrorist efforts.
  The killing and kidnapping of Americans and the murderous bombing of 
a Colombia club frequented by families are the acts of a desperate band 
of outlaws.
  Mr. Chairman, the Uribe administration has made more progress in 7 
months than we have seen in many years. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I repeat, this amendment supports first responders. It does not touch 
$44 million of military aid in Colombia. A few weeks ago this Congress 
approved $500 million in military aid to Colombia, most of which is not 
even in the pipeline yet, and we can handle the rest of Colombia's 
needs and have this debate through the regular appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro), another cosponsor of this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment with my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). It would reduce military and 
security assistance to Colombia and add $61 million to the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness for assistance to State and local first 
responders.
  Today our country is at war and the Nation's threat level is high. I 
heard in my district a few weeks ago when I met with police, fire, and 
emergency medical personnel that there is a serious need in our cities 
and towns to provide funding for first responders in our fight against 
terrorism. Our localities have already spent in excess of $3 billion to 
meet their homeland security needs; and with this economy, with States 
in the single worst fiscal crisis since World War II, we cannot expect 
them to shoulder the full burden. Any bill to fund the war must also 
provide these cities and towns with the funds they need to safeguard 
their communities.
  This bill includes provisions that have nothing to do with meeting 
our homeland security needs or funding the war in Iraq. In particular, 
I am talking about the substantial military aid for Colombia. In fact, 
this bill contains more military and security assistance for Colombia, 
$105 million, than the amount that nearly every State will receive for 
first responders. And what is so urgent at this particular moment about 
our objectives in Colombia that could not be addressed in the annual 
appropriations process? Why is this funding in an emergency bill meant 
to address Iraq?
  I am concerned that this funding for Colombia may signal an 
escalation of our military involvement there. If this is true, then we 
have an obligation to have a full debate here in the Congress and 
reconsider our objectives there rather than simply approve additional 
funding without any debate at all.
  No matter how we feel about our involvement in Colombia, this bill is 
not the vehicle by which we should be making serious policy decisions 
regarding the escalation of our involvement.

[[Page H2767]]

                              {time}  1715

  I urge my colleagues, do right by their cities, their towns, police, 
fire, emergency medical personnel. Support this amendment. Give first 
responders the resources they need to keep their communities safe.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that would 
cut $34 million in Colombian assistance provided by the Defense 
Department and $27 million earmarked for the Andean Counterdrug 
Initiative to be added to the Office of Domestic Preparedness.
  Mr. Chairman, it really makes no sense at this time to direct 
additional funds to the Office of Domestic Preparedness when $331 
million remains unspent from a previous allocation of $494 million.
  President Uribe of Colombia is showing real leadership in the face of 
drug-financed terrorism. His life is always in danger. Our drug czar, 
John Walters, recently testified before my subcommittee about 
Colombia's record progress in eliminating illegal drugs. The governor 
of a leading drug-producing area in Colombia, Putamayo, was in my 
office just this week telling me of additional successful efforts in 
his Putamayo district. In fact, drug production in Putamayo has already 
been reduced from 66 million hectares to 13 million hectares. That is a 
reduction of 80 percent over 2 years.
  Cutting aid to Colombia would also remove search and rescue funding, 
even as we work to return three Americans who are being held by the 
FARC.
  Mr. Chairman, the drug war continues. Our homeland security compels 
every effort to fight the drug scourge that continues to kill our 
children, up to 30,000 a year. Compare that to Iraq. We have an ally in 
Colombia who is fighting this war for us. Let us not reduce our efforts 
when we are finally winning.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the McGovern amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I need to repeat this, because I think we 
need to deal with facts here. Not one dime of search and rescue money 
is touched by my amendment. So we can disagree on policy, but we should 
stick to the facts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my frustration and 
my disappointment in that our first responders are being neglected in 
this effort to supplement the cost of the war. I am disappointed on 
behalf of the first responders in our district in Orange County, 
California. I am disappointed because the police in Anaheim, California 
are being forced to spend an additional $20,640 a day to maintain their 
readiness under the orange threat level. Mr. Chairman, $20,640 per day. 
The Federal Government is telling these local officers at what level 
they must remain alert and yet adequate funding is not being provided. 
This mirrors what is going on all across our Nation.
  All of our first responders are responding every single day to the 
threat that still exists against this country. They are responding with 
additional officers, with additional sergeants, and with the additional 
overtime necessary to keep their forces alert. Our first responders are 
fighting the war, and we should be funding them.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first I think it is important that we 
review why we are in Colombia. Colombia is in our hemisphere and we 
cannot let it be overtaken by the narcoterrorists.
  Violence there in Colombia is primarily because of U.S. and European 
drug addiction. Violence in the U.S., 20,000 deaths a year, far exceeds 
the terrorist deaths we have in the United States.
  Colombia is an important trading partner. Colombia is a model of 
democracy, the oldest in South America. Colombia is an energy supplier 
to the U.S., a supply that has been basically blocked by the 
narcoterrorist attacks.
  Now, the fundamental question. If we have all of these compelling 
reasons to be in Colombia, more than probably any other Nation where we 
have troops at this point, the question comes, why are we cutting it 
and what are we cutting? The gentleman from Massachusetts, who I 
consider a friend, we do not agree on this subject, but I know he has 
been down there as I have many times. We have looked at it. We do not 
agree on some fundamental facts. He sees the glass half empty, I see it 
half full. We have been making progress on human rights, we have been 
making progress on controlling the terrorism, and we need to make more 
aggressive progress and keep it up.
  His amendment proposes to cut the funding that provides the 
intelligence base with which to do the rest of the operations. He did 
not cut the funding to protect President Uribe, which is critical. The 
man is under daily attack. They are trying to kill him like they killed 
his father, like they threatened his family. But we are going to cut 
the intelligence in this bill to protect Uribe.
  We say that we want the Colombian units to go out and eradicate the 
drugs, but we want to cut with this amendment the money that would 
enable us to identify where the drugs are. We say we want to help the 
Colombians tackle the problem, but we are cutting with this amendment 
the military assistance from SOUTHCOM to help train those Colombian 
units. That is the $34 million he has in particular targeted, the money 
that goes to SOUTHCOM.
  Now, General Hill from SOUTHCOM said that the terrorist threat coming 
from Colombia through the narcoterrorists is greater than the other 
terrorist threats. What does he mean precisely by that? Did he mean al 
Qaeda? No, he did not mean al Qaeda. There may be future ties to the 
money, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, that the greatest 
funding of the al Qaeda has come from Asian heroin. However, Hamas, the 
Russian Mafia, and others have started to interconnect with the 
narcoterrorists.
  Let us be blunt here. I have spent the last 2 years doing hearings on 
our north and south border. We have better control over Middle Eastern 
illegal immigrants right now, with the possible exception of at Detroit 
and Buffalo, than we do of our south border. We are completely 
vulnerable right now to terrorist attacks coming from Hispanic attacks, 
coming from the south, particularly the FARC and Mexican Mafia-type 
groups who are directed at us.
  As we are more effective in Colombia, as we cut off this 
multibillion-dollar industry of selling narcotics to the United States, 
those groups are going to fight back. As they have developed with our 
money, with our drug users' in the United States money, as they have 
developed the shoulder packs with which to attack, as they have had the 
ability to shoot down our helicopters to go off and take down military 
forces in Colombia, as they bring that to our soil, we better be 
focused on Colombia. We better be going after those terrorist groups as 
well.
  I strongly oppose this amendment which would cripple our operations.
  The following is a letter to other Members of Congress sent online 
today by Chairman Tom Davis and me:
                                                    April 3, 2003.
       Dear Colleague: We strongly encourage you to oppose the 
     McGovern Amendment to cut vitally needed assistance to 
     Colombia and the Andean region. In a time of war, withdrawing 
     American aid to help end political instability and conflict 
     in our own hemisphere is shortsighted and against our 
     national interests for several reasons:
       Colombian Instability Directly Threatens U.S. National 
     Security: Political violence and instability in Colombia 
     threatens the security of the United States as much as the 
     instability in Iraq for which America is now engaged in war. 
     Three Americans have been held hostage in Colombia since 
     January by the FARC, which the State Department has 
     designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Other major 
     groups fighting against the democratically elected Government 
     of Colombia have also been designated as terrorist 
     organizations. Public reports recently revealed that Osama 
     bin Laden had visited the tri-border region in South America 
     to

[[Page H2768]]

     meet with terrorists. The supplemental funding is directed to 
     a serious and proven national security threat in America's 
     own hemisphere.
       Drug Eradication Efforts Are Succeeding: Nearly 20,000 
     Americans die each year of drug-induced causes--substantially 
     more than the toll terrorism has taken in the United States 
     to date. Last month, official estimates from both the CIA and 
     the United Nations indicated that the coca crop in Colombia 
     had declined substantially for the first time in years--as a 
     direct result of U.S.-funded drug control programs. Our 
     efforts have finally reached a turning point, and it would be 
     foolhardy to cut off the program just as it is beginning to 
     succeed.
       Domestic Preparedness Funding Is Currently Available: 
     Currently appropriated funding is already available for 
     assistance in first responders and has not yet been 
     obligated.
       Plan Colombia Aids Human Rights: The State Department's 
     annual Human Rights report this week examined violations of 
     human rights on all sides of the complex conflict in 
     Colombia. American assistance through Plan Colombia addresses 
     human rights issues by providing $230 million in aid to 
     directly improve human rights and administration of justice, 
     preserve the environment, and foster economic development. 
     Further, by bolstering political stability and the 
     acceleration of peace in Colombia American assistance aims to 
     end the root conflicts driving human rights violations. To 
     withdraw aid from Colombia will cause more, not less, 
     violence and more, not less, violations of human rights.
       We strongly encourage you to oppose the McGovern Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Davis,
       Chairman.
     Mark E. Souder,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
     Human Resources.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let we repeat again, we just approved a few weeks ago $500 million in 
military assistance to Colombia. Most of that is not even in the 
pipeline yet. Mr. Chairman, $44 million remains in the supplemental 
bill that is untouched. The President has requested an additional $700 
million for this Congress to consider in the foreign ops and defense 
provisions bill. We are introducing this amendment because we care very 
much about our hometown security in the United States of America which 
is being shortchanged.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed that we cannot 
just all agree that we must adequately fund our homeland security 
needs. The McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment moves us in the right 
direction, cutting $61 million in the bill for Colombia and redirecting 
resources to State and local first responders. I wholeheartedly support 
this proposal.
  Having traveled to Colombia, I know it is important for the United 
States to support our neighbor. However, I cannot support sending 
additional millions above the billions we have already sent to that 
country to be used for military equipment and military purposes in a 
failed counternarcotics and counterinsurgency effort. I cannot support 
this effort, because despite increased U.S. aid to Colombia, the 
violence in that country persists.
  According to the State Department, the Colombian Government is still 
implicated in gross human rights abuses. I certainly cannot support 
sending additional U.S. dollars to Colombia for the wrong reasons, 
before guaranteeing my constituents that our homeland security needs 
are met. We are far from being able to make that guarantee.
  As of today, every single municipality in my district has informed me 
that their homeland needs are desperately underfunded. One firefighter 
in my district told me that he prays every single day when he goes to 
work that no terrorist attack will occur, because the city he works in, 
despite all of its best efforts, does not have the necessary resources 
to respond.
  The war in Iraq has exacerbated the problem. Firefighters and police 
officers from my district have been deployed to the Persian Gulf and 
their departments do not have the funds to hire replacements. Coast 
Guard cutters controlling the Great Lakes for suspicious vessels have 
been redeployed to the Persian Gulf, and our public health 
infrastructure is not equipped to handle terrorist attacks that have 
been identified as greater threats to our security than Iraq or the war 
in Colombia.
  How dare we send more money to Colombia, ostensibly for its security, 
than we are sending to first responders in 49 States in our own Nation? 
I urge all Members to correct this misguided approach to national 
security. Support the McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman who has 
offered this amendment has intended, and that is to assist our first 
responders, and we want to make certain that those who are protecting 
our streets, those who are protecting and defending our communities 
against the threat of terrorism have the adequate resources to do that. 
But this is, unfortunately, an ill-conceived amendment. It would do a 
great deal of damage.
  I have chaired the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Drug Policy, 
and I can tell my colleagues that we finally have the opportunity, the 
glimmer of hope of bringing under control some of the devastation that 
is being wrought by the illegal narcotics that are being produced in 
Colombia. Today, Colombia provides 90 percent of the cocaine and 60 
percent of the heroin sold or seized on America's streets. To put this 
in perspective for my colleagues, drug-related deaths in the United 
States now exceed homicides. Fifty American lives are lost every day. 
Before this day ends, 50 Americans will die in the streets and 
communities across our Nation, most of them young people, and most of 
the deaths are a result of drugs and narcotics coming from Colombia.
  So this is a bad amendment and bad timing, because we have a 
President now who is supportive of our efforts to curb terrorism, to 
curb narcoterrorism, and to curb the narcotics that are coming into our 
streets and communities and killing countless Americans.
  So I ask for my colleagues' careful consideration and defeat of the 
McGovern amendment. I know it is well-intended, but it is inappropriate 
at this time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the Chair that I 
have only one remaining speaker to close, so I will reserve the balance 
of my time until the gentleman has concluded his time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I feel I need to repeat this one more time. This Congress just a few 
weeks ago approved $500 million for Colombia. Most of that is not even 
in the pipeline yet. In the supplemental, we do not touch $44 million. 
The President has requested an additional $700 million in mostly 
military aid. We are throwing more money at Colombia than Colombia can 
absorb. But in my city of Worcester, Massachusetts, they are laying off 
20 police officers and 20 firefighters, and that is happening all over 
my State and all over this country. That means more drugs and more 
crime, and that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the McGovern amendment because 
Los Angeles is a very likely target for a terrorist attack. Our city is 
known worldwide for its famous landmarks and notable economic assets.

                              {time}  1730

  Local transportation hubs, such as the port of Los Angeles and Los 
Angeles International Airport, are the transit points each day for 
thousands and millions of people and millions of dollars' worth of 
goods.
  LAX is a center of international tourism, not just for the Southern 
California area but for the Nation as a whole, accomodating more than 
60 million passengers from 28 different countries. LAX handles more 
than 2 million tons of airborne cargo each year.
  We talk about the lives of people being affected by drugs coming up 
from Colombia, but what about the lives of people who might be at the 
wrong place at the wrong time because they happen to be at LAX, and we 
have not allocated the funds to help the first responders?
  Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of priority. As we have heard over and 
over

[[Page H2769]]

again this afternoon, money has been allocated to Colombia, but not a 
dime has been allocated to help the first responders handle an incident 
at Los Angeles Airport, or at Los Angeles' ports.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members not to leave us that vulnerable. When 
we talk about life, think about the lives that could be lost because we 
do not have the first responders funded to be able to meet the need.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason to support this amendment is simple: States 
and local governments are being forced to lay off critical first 
responders: police, firefighters, and emergency medical workers. The 
amount of funding in the committee-passed bill remains inadequate to 
meet these needs. Our amendment will help provide a modest increase for 
these men and women who carry the burden of protecting our hometowns 
from terrorism and other threats.
  The costs of the Iraq conflict are steep and the needs of our own 
domestic security are critical. This supplemental request will likely 
not be the last to pay for war-related expenses. Many of us in Congress 
also share a deep concern about the costs of rebuilding Iraq and 
providing for its government in transition.
  At this time, with the Nation at war, our priority must remain with 
these efforts. While the war with Iraq justifies emergency supplemental 
appropriations to support our troops overseas and to protect our 
security here at home, there is no such emergency with respect to 
Colombia that would justify deviating further from the regular order of 
the authorization and appropriations schedule, especially when our 
first responders remain in real need of additional funds.
  As I have said over and over in this debate, we are throwing more 
money at Colombia than Colombia can absorb. But in all of our 
communities, even those that have risen in opposition to this 
amendment, there is a real need with our local law enforcement 
community among our first responders for additional funds so they can 
meet the security needs of their communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment in no way puts any of the efforts 
against counterterrorism or narcotics in Colombia at risk. What this 
amendment does, it strengthens our war against drugs and strengthens 
our war against crime and strengthens our security right here at home 
by providing more assistance to our local police officers.
  As I have said before, in my home city of Worcester, Massachusetts, 
20 police officers are about to be laid off, 20 firefighters are about 
to be laid off. That does not enhance the security of our community.
  That is not unique. It is happening all over this country. We have an 
opportunity to respond to that crisis. This is the time to do it. This 
is a good amendment, this is a reasonable amendment, this is a modest 
amendment; and I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support the McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), who 
will close.
  (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is perhaps no 
free people and democratic government in the world that faces a more 
serious threat from terrorism, and specifically narcoterrorism, than 
the government of Colombia.
  The narcoterrorists in Colombia, because of the fact that they are 
engaged in the drug traffic, have hundreds of millions, indeed, 
billions of dollars at their disposal to purchase the most deadly 
weapons available from rogue states and terrorist groups from 
throughout the world to cause the most serious damage conceivable.
  Those billions of dollars available to the narcoterrorists in 
Colombia have made it possible for them to engage in a sustained 
campaign of extraordinary violence, of kidnapping, of the most horrible 
conceivable crimes again the Colombian people. Day in and day out the 
Colombian people and their democratically elected government are 
fighting the narcoterrorists in an extraordinary way, a valiant way, an 
admirable way.
  What we are doing in this Congress, with the support of the President 
of the United States, and, indeed, his orientation and his leadership, 
is we are saying to the Colombian people and their democratically 
elected government that we support them in their effort against 
narcoterrorists who have billions of dollars for death and destruction 
at their service, at their disposal.
  These tens of millions of dollars that we are discussing today may be 
able to be categorized, as they were by the sponsor of this amendment, 
as a modest proposal. But the challenge before the Colombian people is 
not a modest challenge, the challenge posed by the tens of thousands of 
murderers who engage in thousands of kidnappings each year, including, 
and I have the latest travel warning from the United States State 
Department, 26 Americans who are reported as kidnapped in recent months 
in Colombia.
  Those terrorists have, as I said before, billions of dollars at their 
disposal. Yes, we are, in the words of the sponsor of this amendment, 
dealing with a modest, a modest amount, tens of millions of dollars in 
aid, for a democratically elected government that is fighting against 
the most violent terrorists perhaps on the face of the Earth today, 
terrorists that attack not only military personnel but civilians, and 
engage in systematic violence against a people who live in a democracy.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject, to vote down this ill-timed and 
ill-conceived amendment and to support our leadership, to support the 
President, to support the efforts against narcoterrorism that are 
embodied in our support for the democratically elected government of 
Colombia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1301. Except as otherwise specifically provided in 
     this chapter, amounts provided to the Department of Defense 
     under each of the headings in this chapter shall be available 
     for the same time period, and subject to the same terms and 
     conditions, as the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2003 (Public Law 107-248) and Making Further Continuing 
     Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other 
     Purposes (Public Law 108-7).
       Sec. 1302. None of the funds in this chapter may be used to 
     initiate a new start program without prior notification to 
     the congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 1303. None of the funds in this chapter may be used to 
     develop or procure any item or capability that will not be 
     fielded within four years of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 1304. Title II of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248), is amended 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' 
     by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000'': 
     Provided, That the additional funds for the CINC Initiative 
     Fund made available by this section may be expended 
     notwithstanding the limitations in section 166a(e)(1) of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 1305. Title II of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248), is amended 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' 
     by striking ``$34,500,000'' and inserting ``$69,000,000''.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 1306. Section 8005 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``May 31'' in the fourth proviso and 
     inserting ``June 30''; and
       (2) by striking the sixth proviso, as added by section 112 
     of division M of Public Law 108-7, beginning with ``: 
     Provided further'' and ending with ``to which transferred''.


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 1307. In addition to amounts made available elsewhere 
     in this Act for the Department of Defense, $165,000,000 is 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense to reimburse 
     applicable appropriations for the

[[Page H2770]]

     value of drawdown support provided by the Department of 
     Defense under the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall not increase the 
     limitation set forth in section 202(b) of that Act: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds 
     provided herein to the applicable appropriations of the 
     Department of Defense: Provided further, That the funds 
     transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided in this section is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, none of the funds provided in 
     this or any other appropriations Act for the Department of 
     Defense may be used for the drawdown authority in section 202 
     of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-327) prior to notifying in writing the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations of the source of the funds to be 
     used for such purpose.
       Sec. 1308. Funds appropriated in this Act, or made 
     available by transfer of funds in or pursuant to this Act, 
     for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414.)
       Sec. 1309. (a) Of the amounts available to the Secretary of 
     Defense, $63,500,000 may be used to reimburse applicable 
     appropriations for the value of support provided by the 
     Department of Defense under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall not increase the 
     limitation set forth in section (4)(a)(2)(B) of that Act.
       (b) Section (4)(a)(2) of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is 
     amended by adding the following new subparagraph at the end:
       ``(C) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided 
     under this paragraph may not exceed $150,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 2003.''
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act for 
     the Department of Defense may be used for the drawdown 
     authority in section (4)(a)(2) of Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 
     (including the drawdown authority of this section) unless the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified in 
     writing of the sources of the funds to be used for such 
     purpose at least seven days prior to the exercise of the 
     drawdown authority.


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 1310. During fiscal year 2003, amounts in or credited 
     to the Defense Cooperation Account under 10 U.S.C. 2608(b) 
     shall be available for obligation and expenditure consistent 
     with the purposes for which such amounts were contributed and 
     accepted: Provided, That such amounts shall only be available 
     for transfer by the Secretary of Defense the ``Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom Response Fund'' and be available for the same 
     period as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided 
     further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall report at least seven days in advance to the Congress 
     of all proposed transfers to be made pursuant to this 
     authority.
       Sec. 1311. (a) Hereafter, contributions of money deposited 
     into the ``Natural Resources Risk Remediation Fund'' shall be 
     reported to the Congress in the same report, and under the 
     same terms and conditions, as the report required for 
     contributions to the ``Defense Cooperation Account'' under 
     section 2608, chapter 155 of title 10, United States Code.
       (b) During fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the use of monies or 
     real or personal property contributed to the ``Defense 
     Cooperation Account'' and the ``Natural Resources Risk 
     Remediation Fund'' shall be subject to the prior approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 1312. The Secretary of Defense shall notify the 
     congressional defense committees, in writing, not later than 
     15 days prior to the obligation of funds appropriated in this 
     chapter for military construction activities or minor 
     construction in excess of $7,500,000.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 1313. As of October 31, 2003, all balances of funds 
     remaining in the ``Defense Emergency Response Fund'' shall be 
     transferred to, and merged with, the ``Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom Response Fund'', and shall be available for the same 
     purposes, and under the same terms and conditions, as funds 
     appropriated to the ``Operation Iraqi Freedom Response Fund'' 
     in this chapter.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Tauscher

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Tauscher:
       After chapter 3 of title I (relating to Department of 
     Defense), insert the following new chapter (and redesignate 
     the subsequent chapters and any cross references 
     accordingly):

                               CHAPTER 3A

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                           GENERAL PROVISION

       Sec. 1351. (a) Expanded Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
     Funds.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2003 the President may use Cooperative 
     Threat Reduction funds, including Cooperative Threat 
     Reduction funds for a prior fiscal year that remain available 
     for obligation as of the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     for proliferation threat reduction projects and activities 
     outside the states of the former Soviet Union if the 
     President determines that such projects and activities will--
       (A) assist the United States in the resolution of critical 
     emerging proliferation threats; or
       (B) permit the United States to take advantage of 
     opportunities to achieve long-standing nonproliferation 
     goals.
       (2) The amount that may be obligated under paragraph (1) 
     for projects and activities described in that paragraph may 
     not exceed $50,000,000.
       (b) Authorized Use of Funds.--The authority under 
     subsection (a) to use Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds for 
     a project or activity shall be subject to section 1206 of the 
     Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (22 U.S.C. 5955) and 
     includes authority to provide equipment, goods, and services 
     for the project or activity.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'', $55,000,000: Provided, That, of the funds 
     made available in this paragraph, not more than $20,000,000 
     may be made available for the Second Line of Defense program 
     to install radiation detection equipment at key transit 
     points outside the former Soviet Union: Provided further, 
     That, of the funds made available in this paragraph, not more 
     than $35,000,000 may be made available for materials 
     protection, control, and accounting activities in regions of 
     concern outside the former Soviet Union, including Iraq 
     should any dangerous agents be discovered there.

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to register my strong 
support for ensuring that the supplemental appropriations legislation 
before us gives the President the critical ability to defend the United 
States against the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
  Two of the most effective ways to do that are to give the President 
the authority to use the Department of Defense funds to dismantle 
nuclear and chemical weapons facilities around the world, and to 
support efforts by the Department of Energy to prevent smuggling of 
weapons of mass destruction throughout the Middle East and central 
Asia.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I have an amendment that would do just that. 
It provides the President with the authority that he has requested from 
Congress to expand the use of cooperative threat-reduction funds for 
projects and activities in countries outside the former Soviet Union.
  My amendment also adds $55 million for Department of Energy 
nonproliferation programs; of that, $20 million for the Second Line of 
Defense Program to install radiation detection equipment at key transit 
points outside the former Soviet Union, and $35 million for materials 
protection control and accounting activities in regions of concern, 
including Iraq, should any dangerous agents be discovered there.
  Both these provisions were contained in the Senate version of the 
supplemental, approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee just this 
past Tuesday. Additionally, CTR authority outside the former Soviet 
Union is urgently needed for the Defense Department to apply its unique 
knowledge and capabilities in places like Iraq if and when weapons of 
mass destruction are discovered.
  The additional funds for the Department of Energy would allow for 
some of the same capability while also enhancing domestic security 
through radiation detection at transit points overseas.
  Two years ago, former Senator Howard Baker and White House counsel 
Lloyd Cutler concluded, ``The most urgent unmet national security 
threat to the United States is the danger that weapons of mass 
destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and 
sold to terrorists or hostile nations and used against American troops 
abroad or citizens at home.''
  Today, it could not be any clearer that our homeland is at risk and 
that our troops are getting ever closer to potential weapons of mass 
destruction.

[[Page H2771]]

Congress has the duty to let the President use DOD and DOE 
nonproliferation programs to protect our homeland and our troops.
  I understand that my amendment is subject to a point of order and I 
will withdraw it; but I deeply urge my colleagues to support this 
provision in conference, and I urge my colleagues who are conferees to 
please re-insert this language and support it in the conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

                              {time}  1745

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 4

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

           UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

                Child Survival and Health Programs Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Child Survival and Health 
     Programs Fund'', $40,000,000.

                   International Disaster Assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster 
     Assistance'', $160,000,000: Provided, That amounts made 
     available pursuant to section 492(b) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for the purpose of addressing relief 
     and rehabilitation needs in Iraq, prior to enactment of this 
     Act, shall be in addition to the amount that may be obligated 
     in any fiscal year under that section: Provided further, That 
     during the remainder of fiscal year 2003 the authority 
     referenced in the preceding proviso may not be utilized 
     unless written notice has been provided to the Committees on 
     Appropriations not less than five days prior to the proposed 
     obligation.

   Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
                              Development

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses of the 
     United States Agency for International Development'', 
     $23,000,000, of which not less than $2,000,000 may be 
     transferred to and merged with ``Operating Expenses of the 
     United States Agency for International Development Office of 
     Inspector General'' for financial and program audits of the 
     Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund and other assistance for 
     Iraq.

                  OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                         Economic Support Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     $2,342,000,000, of which:
       (1) not less than $700,000,000 shall be made available for 
     assistance for Jordan;
       (2) $300,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2005, shall be made available only for grants for Egypt: 
     Provided, That during the period beginning March 1, 2003, and 
     ending September 30, 2005, loan guarantees may be made to 
     Egypt, the principal amount, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, shall not exceed $2,000,000,000: Provided 
     further, That the Government of Egypt will incur all the 
     costs, as defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990, as amended, associated with these loan 
     guarantees, including any non-repayment exposure risk: 
     Provided further, That all fees associated with these loan 
     guarantees, including subsidy and administrative costs, shall 
     be paid by the Government of Egypt to the Government of the 
     United States: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this paragraph and other funds appropriated to carry 
     out chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and made available for assistance for Egypt may be used 
     by the Government of Egypt to pay such fees to the United 
     States Government: Provided further, That the President shall 
     determine the terms and conditions for issuing the economic 
     assistance authorized by this paragraph and should take into 
     consideration budgetary and economic reforms undertaken by 
     Egypt: Provided further, That if the President determines 
     that these terms and conditions have been breached, the 
     President may suspend or terminate the provision of all or 
     part of such economic assistance not yet outlayed under this 
     paragraph;
       (3) not to exceed $1,000,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2005, for grants for Turkey: Provided, That 
     during the period beginning March 1, 2003 and ending 
     September 30, 2005, direct loans or loan guarantees may be 
     made to Turkey, the principal amount of direct loans or 
     loans, any part of which is to be guaranteed, shall not 
     exceed $8,500,000,000: Provided further, That the Government 
     of Turkey will incur all the costs, as defined in section 502 
     of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended, 
     associated with these loans or loan guarantees, including any 
     non-repayment exposure risk: Provided further, That all fees 
     associated with these loans or loan guarantees, including 
     subsidy and administrative costs, shall be paid by the 
     Government of Turkey to the Government of the United States: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under this 
     paragraph and other funds appropriated to carry out chapter 4 
     of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and made 
     available for assistance for Turkey may be used by the 
     Government of Turkey to pay such fees to the United States 
     Government: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available by this paragraph may be made available for 
     assistance for Turkey until the Secretary of State determines 
     and reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     and Senate, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
     and Committee on International Relations of the House that 
     the Government of Turkey is cooperating with the United 
     States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the facilitation 
     of humanitarian assistance to Iraq: Provided further, That 
     the President shall determine the terms and conditions for 
     issuing the economic assistance authorized by this paragraph 
     and should take into consideration budgetary and economic 
     reforms undertaken by Turkey: Provided further, That if the 
     President determines that these terms and conditions have 
     been breached, the President may suspend or terminate the 
     provision of all or part of such economic assistance not yet 
     outlayed under this paragraph;
       (4) not to exceed $5,000,000 may be available for 
     administrative expenses of the Islamic Partnership and 
     Outreach program; and
       (5) funds made available under this heading for the Islamic 
     Partnership and Outreach program and other regional programs 
     are subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.

                  Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the purposes of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for humanitarian assistance in 
     and around Iraq and for rehabilitation and reconstruction in 
     Iraq, $2,483,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2004, including for the costs of: (1) water/sanitation 
     infrastructure; (2) feeding and food distribution; (3) 
     supporting relief efforts related to refugees, internally 
     displaced persons, and vulnerable individuals; (4) 
     humanitarian demining; (5) healthcare; (6) education; (7) 
     electricity; (8) transportation; (9) telecommunications; (10) 
     rule of law and governance; (11) economic and financial 
     policy; and (12) agriculture: Provided, That these funds 
     shall be apportioned only to the Department of State, the 
     United States Agency for International Development, the 
     Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, as appropriate, for expenses to meet such 
     costs: Provided further, That with respect to funds 
     appropriated under this heading in this Act or proposed for 
     appropriation in subsequent Acts, the responsibility for 
     policy decisions and justifications for the use of such funds 
     shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the 
     Deputy Secretary of State and this responsibility shall not 
     be delegated: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be used to fully reimburse accounts 
     administered by the Department of State and the United States 
     Agency for International Development, not otherwise 
     reimbursed from funds appropriated by this chapter, for 
     obligations incurred for the purposes provided under this 
     heading prior to enactment of this Act from funds 
     appropriated for foreign operations, export financing, and 
     related programs: Provided further, That the United States 
     may accept from any person, foreign government, or 
     international organization, and credit to this Fund, any 
     contribution of money for such purposes: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading shall be available 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 
     10 of Public Law 91-672 and section 15 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading that are made 
     available for assistance for Iraq shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, except that notifications shall be 
     transmitted at least 5 days in advance of the obligations of 
     funds.

                       Loan Guarantees to Israel

       During the period beginning April 14, 2003, and ending 
     September 30, 2005, loan guarantees may be made available to 
     Israel, guaranteeing 100 percent of the principal and 
     interest on such loans, the principal amount, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $9,000,000,000, of 
     which up to $3,000,000,000 may be issued prior to October 1, 
     2003, or thereafter and of which $3,000,000,000 may be issued 
     subsequent to September 30, 2004: Provided, That such 
     guarantees shall constitute obligations, in accordance with 
     the terms of such guarantees, of the United States of America 
     and the full faith and credit of the United States of America 
     is hereby pledged for the full payment and performance of 
     such obligations: Provided further, That if less than the 
     full amount of guarantees authorized to be made available is 
     issued prior to September 30, 2005, the authority to issue 
     the balance of such guarantees shall extend to the subsequent 
     fiscal year: Provided further, That guarantees may be issued 
     under this section only to support activities in the 
     geographic areas which were subject to the administration of 
     the Government of Israel before June 5, 1967: Provided 
     further, That the amount of guarantees that may be issued 
     shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount extended or 
     estimated to have been extended by the Government of Israel 
     during the period from March 1, 2003, to the date of issue of 
     the guarantee, for activities which the President determines 
     are inconsistent with the objectives and understandings 
     reached between the United States and the Government of 
     Israel regarding the implementation

[[Page H2772]]

     of the loan guarantee program: Provided further, That the 
     President shall submit a report to Congress no later than 
     September 30 of each fiscal year during the pendency of the 
     program specifying the amount calculated under the preceding 
     proviso and that will be deducted from the amount of 
     guarantees authorized to be issued in the next fiscal year: 
     Provided further, That no appropriations under this heading 
     are available for the subsidy costs for these loan 
     guarantees: Provided further, That the Government of Israel 
     will pay the cost, as defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended, including any non-
     payment exposure risk, associated with the loan guarantees 
     issued in any fiscal year, on a pro rata basis as each 
     guarantee is issued during that year: Provided further, That 
     all fees (as defined in Section 601(e) of Public Law 102-391) 
     associated with the loan guarantees shall be paid by the 
     Government of Israel to the Government of the United States: 
     Provided further, That funds made available for assistance to 
     Israel under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, as amended, may be utilized by the Government of 
     Israel to pay such fees to the United States Government: 
     Provided further, That the President shall determine the 
     terms and conditions for issuing guarantees, taking into 
     consideration the budgetary and economic reforms undertaken 
     by Israel: Provided further, That if the President determines 
     that these terms and conditions have been breached, the 
     President may suspend or terminate the provision of all or 
     part of the loan guarantees not yet issued under this 
     heading.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

          International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

       For an additional amount for ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'', $25,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2004.

                     Andean Counterdrug Initiative

       For an additional amount for the ``Andean Counterdrug 
     Initiative'', $34,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2004.

     United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund

       For an additional amount for ``United States Emergency 
     Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', $80,000,000, to 
     remain until expended, notwithstanding section 2(c)(2) of the 
     Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended (22 
     U.S.C. 2601(c)(2)).

    Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs

       For an additional amount for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-
     Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'', $28,000,000: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated by this paragraph shall be 
     available notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and 
     section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

                   Foreign Military Financing Program

       For an additional amount for the ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'', $2,059,100,000: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph shall be available 
     notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and section 
     15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $406,000,000 shall be made available 
     for grants only for Jordan and $1,000,000,000 shall be 
     available for grants only for Israel: Provided further, That 
     the funds appropriated by this paragraph for Israel shall be 
     disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of this Act: 
     Provided further, That to the extent that the Government of 
     Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants 
     made available for Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed 
     to by the United States and Israel, be available for advanced 
     weapons systems, of which not less than $263,000,000 shall be 
     available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles 
     and defense services, including research and development.

                        Peacekeeping Operations

       For an additional amount for ``Peacekeeping Operations'', 
     $115,000,000.

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 1401. Assistance or other financing under this chapter 
     may be provided for Iraq notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law: Provided, That funds made available for Iraq pursuant 
     to this authority shall be subject to the regular 
     reprogramming procedures of the Committees on Appropriations 
     and section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     except that notification shall be transmitted at least 5 days 
     in advance of obligation: Provided further, That the 
     notification requirements of this section may be waived if 
     failure to do so would pose a substantial risk to human 
     health or welfare: Provided further, That in case of any such 
     waiver, notification to the appropriate congressional 
     committees, shall be provided as early as practicable, but in 
     no event later than 3 days after taking the action to which 
     such notification requirement was applicable, in the context 
     of the circumstances necessitating such waiver: Provided 
     further, That any notification provided pursuant to such a 
     waiver shall contain an explanation of the emergency 
     circumstances.
       Sec. 1402. The President may suspend the application of any 
     provision of the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990: Provided, That 
     nothing in this section shall affect the applicability of the 
     Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
     484) except as it applies to humanitarian assistance and 
     supplies: Provided further, That the President may make 
     inapplicable with respect to Iraq section 620A of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or any other provision of law that 
     applies to countries that have supported terrorism: Provided 
     further, That military equipment shall not be exported under 
     the authority of this section: Provided further, That section 
     307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply 
     with respect to programs of international organizations for 
     Iraq: Provided further, That provisions of law that direct 
     the United States Government to vote against or oppose loans 
     or other uses of funds, including for financial or technical 
     assistance, in international financial institutions for Iraq 
     shall not be construed as applying to Iraq: Provided further, 
     That the President shall submit a notification 5 days prior 
     to exercising any of the authorities described in this 
     section to the Committee on Appropriations of each House of 
     the Congress, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives: Provided further, That not more 
     than 60 days after enactment of this Act and every 90 days 
     thereafter the President shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of each House of the Congress, 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives containing a summary of all licenses approved 
     for export to Iraq of any item on the Commerce Control List 
     contained in the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR 
     Part 774, Supplement 1, including identification of end users 
     of such items: Provided further, That the authorities 
     contained in this section shall expire on September 30, 2004, 
     or on the date of enactment of a subsequent Act authorizing 
     assistance for Iraq and that specifically amends, repeals or 
     otherwise makes inapplicable the authorities of this section, 
     whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 1403. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     President may authorize the export to Iraq of any nonlethal 
     military equipment controlled under the International 
     Trafficking in Arms Regulations on the United States 
     Munitions List established pursuant to section 38 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, (22 U.S.C. 2778), if the President 
     determines and notifies within 5 days after export the 
     Committee on Appropriations of each House of the Congress, 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives that the export of such nonlethal military 
     equipment is in the national interest of the United States: 
     Provided, That the authorities contained in this section 
     shall expire on September 30, 2004, or on the date of 
     enactment of a subsequent Act authorizing assistance for Iraq 
     and that specifically amends, repeals or otherwise makes 
     inapplicable the authorities of this section, whichever 
     occurs first.

                               CHAPTER 5

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                  CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for ``Operating Expenses'' related 
     to conducting Operation Liberty Shield, $1,000,000, to remain 
     available until December 31, 2003.

                      UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

                           Operating Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'' for 
     necessary expenses related to conducting Operation Liberty 
     Shield, $30,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 
     2003.

                   BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

                     Customs and Border Protection

       For necessary expenses for ``Customs and Border 
     Protection'' related to conducting Operation Liberty Shield 
     and other purposes, $428,000,000, of which $235,000,000 shall 
     remain available until December 31, 2003, and of which 
     $193,000,000 shall remain available until expended for the 
     acquisition and deployment of portal radiation detectors and 
     non-intrusive inspection technology at U.S. ports of entry.

                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement

       For necessary expenses for ``Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement'' related to conducting Operation Liberty Shield, 
     $185,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003.

                 Transportation Security Administration

       For necessary expenses for ``Transportation Security 
     Administration'' related to conducting Operation Liberty 
     Shield and other purposes, $390,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided 
     herein, the following amounts are available for obligation 
     only for the specific purposes below:
       (1) physical modification of commercial service airports 
     for the purposes of installing checked baggage explosive 
     detection systems into airport baggage systems, $235,000,000;
       (2) reimbursements to local and state law enforcement 
     officers and National Guardsmen for increased security 
     measures at airports and other critical transportation sites, 
     $85,000,000;
       (3) port security grants, $40,000,000; and

[[Page H2773]]

       (4) surface transportation security initiatives, 
     $30,000,000.
       In addition, for expenses related to aviation security, 
     $3,178,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003: 
     Provided, That such appropriation shall be remitted to U.S. 
     flag air carriers for expenses incurred related to aviation 
     security based on the pro-rata share each such carrier has 
     paid or collected to date in passenger security and air 
     carrier security fees to the Transportation Security 
     Administration: Provded further, That such appropriation 
     shall be remitted to U.S. flag air carriers for expenses 
     related to aviation security based on the pro-rata share each 
     such carrier is expected to pay or collect to the 
     Transportation Security Administration for the remainder of 
     the fiscal year: Provided further, That payments made under 
     this heading may be used by an air carrier for such purposes 
     as each carrier determines appropriate: Provided further, 
     That payments made under this heading shall be made within 
     thirty days of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That 
     no airline receiving funding under this heading may provide 
     compensation (pay, benefits and stock options) to senior 
     executives that exceeds the base pay and benefits that such 
     executives received in 2002.

       Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for ``Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center Operating Expenses'' related to conducting 
     Operation Liberty Shield, $2,000,000, to remain available 
     until December 31, 2003.

                    Office for Domestic Preparedness

       For an additional amount for ``Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness'', $2,200,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, for grants authorized by section 1014 of 
     the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56) and for other 
     counterterrorism programs, of which $1,500,000,000 shall be 
     for formula-based grants, and of which $700,000,000 shall be 
     for discretionary grants for use in high-density urban areas, 
     in high-threat areas, and for protection of critical 
     infrastructure: Provided, That 80 percent of the funds 
     provided under this heading to any State shall be allocated 
     by the State to units of local government within the State 
     and shall be distributed by the State within 45 days of the 
     receipt of funds: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading may be used for construction or 
     renovation of facilities: Provided further, That subsection 
     (c)(3) of such section 1014 shall not apply to discretionary 
     grants made under this heading: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations at least 15 days prior to the obligation of 
     any amount of the funds provided under this heading.

                       UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'' for 
     expenses related to conducting Operation Liberty Shield and 
     other purposes, $230,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003.

                  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for ``Operating Expenses'' related 
     to conducting Operation Liberty Shield, $45,000,000, to 
     remain available until December 31, 2003.

           INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for ``Operating Expenses'' related 
     to conducting Operation Liberty Shield, $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until December 31, 2003: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations at least 15 days prior to the obligation of 
     any amount of the funds provided under this heading.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                 Reprogramming and Transfer Guidelines


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 1501. (a) None of the funds provided in this Act, or 
     provided in previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies of 
     the Department of Homeland Security that remain available for 
     obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2003, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates a new program; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases 
     funds for any program, project, or activity for which funds 
     have been denied or restricted by Congress; (4) deviates 
     significantly from a program, project, or activity described 
     in the Department's budget justification as presented to or 
     approved by Congress, including those justifications 
     submitted to Congress prior to the enactment of Public Law 
     107-296; or (5) proposes to use funds directed for a specific 
     activity by either the House or Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations for a different purpose, unless the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 
     days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided in this Act, or provided in 
     previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies of the 
     Department of Homeland Security that remain available for 
     obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2003, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for programs, 
     projects, or activities through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, unless 
     the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of 
     funds.
       (c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the agencies of the 
     Department of Homeland Security in this Act or provided in 
     previous Appropriations Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds and shall not be available for 
     obligation unless the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     transfer.

                               CHAPTER 6

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

               CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

                Disease Control, Research, and Training

       For an additional amount for ``Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention, Disease Control, Research, and Training'', 
     $16,000,000.

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

            Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Public Health and Social 
     Services Emergency Fund'', for the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, $94,000,000.
       For an additional amount for ``Public Health and Social 
     Services Emergency Fund'', for costs associated with 
     compensating individuals with injuries resulting from 
     administration of a smallpox vaccine, $50,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such amount shall 
     become available only upon the enactment of legislation 
     authorizing a smallpox vaccination compensation program.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1601. Section 1113 (d) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1313 (d)) is amended by striking ``1991'' and 
     inserting ``2003''.

                               CHAPTER 7

                           LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for salaries and expenses of the 
     House of Representatives, $11,000,000, as follows:

                          Committee Employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For an additional amount for salaries and expenses of 
     standing committees, special and select, authorized by House 
     resolutions, $11,000,000: Provided, That such amount shall 
     remain available for such salaries and expenses until 
     December 31, 2004.

                             CAPITOL POLICE

                            General Expenses

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses of the 
     Capitol Police, related emergency expenses for the security 
     of the United States Capitol complex, $37,758,000, to remain 
     available until expended, to be disbursed by the Chief of the 
     Capitol Police or his designee: Provided, That no part of 
     such amount may be obligated without prior approval of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and Senate.

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of Compliance, as authorized by section 305 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), 
     $111,000.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                  Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses for the 
     maintenance, care, and operation of buildings and grounds of 
     the United States Capitol Police, $63,868,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses for the 
     purchase and installation of a public address system, 
     $5,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.

                     Congressional Research Service

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses for the 
     implementation of an alternate computer facility, $1,863,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2004.

                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses of security 
     requirements for the General Accounting Office, $4,900,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2004.

                               CHAPTER 8

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                      Military Construction, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Navy'', $48,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out 
     military construction projects not otherwise authorized by 
     law.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air 
     Force'', $5,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, such funds may be obligated or

[[Page H2774]]

     expended to carry out planning and design and military 
     construction projects not otherwise authorized by law.

          Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', $1,800,000.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1801. None of the funds in the Defense Emergency 
     Response Fund for any fiscal year may be used to carry out 
     new military construction projects at a military installation 
     inside or outside the United States or to reimburse other 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense used to 
     carry out such construction. For purposes of this section, 
     the terms ``military construction'' and ``military 
     installation'' have the meanings given such terms in section 
     2801 of title 10, United States Code, except that, with 
     respect to military construction in a foreign country, the 
     term ``military installation'' includes, not only buildings, 
     structures, and other improvements to real property under the 
     operational control of the Secretary of a military department 
     or the Secretary of Defense, but also any building, 
     structure, or other improvement to real property to be used 
     by the Armed Forces, regardless of whether such use is 
     anticipated to be temporary or of longer duration.
       Sec. 1802. (a) Congressional Notification of Construction 
     Using Operation and Maintenance Funds.--Amounts appropriated 
     or otherwise made available for any fiscal year for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Armed Forces (including 
     reserve components) or for activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense may not be used to carry out military 
     construction at a military installation inside or outside the 
     United States unless the Secretary of a military department 
     or the Secretary of Defense, as the case may be--
       (1) in the case of military construction covered by chapter 
     169 of title 10, United States Code, complies with the 
     requirements contained in such chapter applicable to the use 
     of operation and maintenance funds for military construction; 
     or
       (2) in the case of military construction not otherwise 
     covered by such chapter, submits written notice to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 15 days 
     before obligating funds for the construction, containing an 
     explanation of the need to use operation and maintenance 
     funds to carry out the construction and the estimated cost of 
     the construction.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'', ``military 
     construction'', and ``military installation'' have the 
     meanings given such terms in section 2801 of title 10, United 
     States Code, except that, with respect to military 
     construction in a foreign country, the term ``military 
     installation'' includes, not only buildings, structures, and 
     other improvements to real property under the operational 
     control of the Secretary of a military department or the 
     Secretary of Defense, but also any building, structure, or 
     other improvement to real property to be used by the Armed 
     Forces, regardless of whether such use is anticipated to be 
     temporary or of longer duration.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, 
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
       Page 39, line 14, before the period insert ``, of which 
     $8,000,000 shall be available for transit security''.

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully offer this 
amendment that calls for $8 of the $30 million provided for surface 
transportation security included in the supplemental bill to be used 
for transit security. This germane amendment provides $8 million which 
will provide our transit agencies and transit work force the much 
needed resources to support our Nation's increased transit security 
needs. This $8 million in transit security funding will do three 
important things: first, require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
determine the percentage of frontline transit employees who are in need 
of receiving training in emergency preparedness and response training.
  Secondly, to provide funding for training programs for frontline 
transit employees, ensuring that these employees who are the eyes and 
ears of transportation systems are prepared to respond to emergency 
situations.
  Thirdly, provide funding for ongoing vulnerability assessments which 
will continuously build on information collected, allowing for easier 
implementation of new technologies that will assist in averting 
terrorist attacks on all modes of public transportation. It will also 
provide for transit agencies to purchase security enhancement 
equipment. In addition, this funding will be used for the development 
and implementation of local and regional emergency preparedness plans 
that fully utilize localities' transportation resources.
  For year, governments around the world have recognized that public 
transportation is a major terrorist target. Until 9/11 the United 
States has been largely spared the kind of terrorist campaigns waged 
against public surface transportation. However, we cannot wait for 
another tragedy to happen to prompt us to address our vulnerabilities. 
We must act now.
  An October 2001 study released by the Mineta Institute, ``Protecting 
Public Surface Transportation Against Terrorism and Serious Crime,'' an 
executive overview cites that between 1920 and 2000 there have been 
approximately 900 terrorist attacks and other significant criminal 
incidents involving public surface transportation systems. However, all 
but 14 of these attacks occurred after 1970, the year that marks the 
beginning of modern terrorism.
  Attacks against transportation and transportation infrastructures 
accounted for 42 percent of all international terrorist attacks, 
according to the most recent statistics provided by the USDOT Office of 
Intelligence and Security of 1998.
  Mr. Chairman, we must provide resources to our transit work force and 
our transit agencies to help prepare them and ensure that they are able 
to protect the communities in which they serve.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this amendment 
and find that it is constructive and we are prepared to accept it.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BOARDER AND 
     TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', insert the following:

                             Port Security

       For necessary expenses for inspection by a United States 
     inspection team in foreign ports of every shipping container, 
     before the container is loaded on a vessel bound for the 
     United States, and for boarding and searching every vessel 
     before it approaches closer than 200 miles to the United 
     States coast, $15,000,000,000.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, Islamic terrorist groups served loud notice on 9/11 
that they intend to kill as many Americans as possible. Yet the 
administration and this Congress is ignoring the most likely modes of 
attack. We are spending upwards of $100 billion on an antiballistic 
missile system supposedly to protect ourselves against a rogue nation 
like Iraq or Iran or North Korea that might want to launch two or three 
nuclear armed missiles at us. Yet such a nation would be unlikely to 
use missiles to attack us if they wanted to, because missiles have 
return addresses, and the leaders know that American retaliation would 
obliterate their country a half an hour later.
  Rogue nations and terrorists that want to attack the United States 
with atomic weapons would more likely put those weapons on ships, sail 
the ships into American ports and detonate the atomic bombs. Not 
knowing against whom to retaliate, the United States would be helpless.
  Every year 12 million shipping containers enter the United States. We 
inspect fewer than 2 percent of them. This amendment provides $15 
billion for two purposes:

[[Page H2775]]

  First, so that we can insist that no container in a foreign port is 
loaded on a ship bound to the United States until that container is 
searched, sealed and certified by American inspectors. If a country 
refuses access, it should be prohibited from shipping anything to the 
United States.
  Second, the amendment provides funds to enable the Coast Guard to 
board and search every single ship before they get within 200 miles of 
American shores, and we must inspect at the border all cargo unloaded 
from ships in other North American ports. Only by inspecting every 
container before it is loaded onto a ship in a foreign port and by 
searching every ship before it gets close enough to our shores can we 
be reasonably assured that atomic bombs will not obliterate American 
cities.
  Some will object that this will hinder commerce. But one atomic bomb 
would halt commerce instantly. Every port would be closed tight until 
these procedures could be put, too late, into place.
  This would cost money, about $15 billion a year, but we can afford 
it. Unfortunately, the administration and Republicans in Congress 
prefer to squander hundreds of billions of dollars for tax cuts on the 
wealthy instead of protecting the lives of our people. We have to 
realize we are in a serious war that may last decades and we must start 
thinking and acting seriously.
  In wartime the government must spend the money to defend the lives of 
its people or it violates the fundamental social contract. President 
Bush and Congress must honor that contract or forfeit the trust of the 
Nation.
  So I ask that this amendment be allowed to be considered. I urge the 
Congress to meet its obligation and to fully fund the security measures 
to inspect every container and search every ship that is contained in 
this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
  The amendment imposes additional duties, and I ask for a ruling from 
the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment does include language requiring a 
new determination and requiring further duties. The amendment, 
therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Wu

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wu:
       In chapter 5 of title I, in the item relating to ``BORDER 
     AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY--Transportation Security 
     Administration'', strike the paragraph beginning ``In 
     addition, for expenses related to aviation security, 
     $3,178,300,000'' and insert the following:
       In addition, for an airline ticket voucher program to be 
     carried out by the Secretary of Transportation, 
     $3,178,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003: 
     Provided, That under the program the Secretary shall permit 
     individuals purchasing tickets for air transportation by an 
     air carrier (as such terms are defined by section 40102 of 
     title 49, United States Code) to receive a 50 percent 
     discount on the price of such tickets, if such air 
     transportation will be completed on or before March 31, 2004.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
read in its entirety.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment with my 
colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott). This bill contains $3.178 billion 
as further assistance to our airlines. There is no doubt that our 
airlines are in dire financial circumstances. Passenger numbers have 
never recovered from September 11. Orange terror alerts, other factors 
have kept passengers away.
  By point of illustration, the first Gulf War more than a decade ago. 
During that time period, four commercial airlines went into insolvency, 
never to emerge. I believe that this direct handout to the airlines of 
almost $3.2 billion is not the correct way to proceed.
  Our amendment, the freedom to fly amendment, would put this money 
into the hands of passengers. It would stimulate more passenger 
traffic, put more people on more airplanes, and in so doing also 
stimulate the ancillary travel industry; that is, all the other 
components of the travel industry, whether it is hotels, restaurants, 
car rental, all the businesses that are at airports. And this would 
also help airline employees in a market-oriented commonsense approach.
  Right now approximately 25 percent of airline seats are going 
unfilled and we know that a lot of flights have already been cut. The 
freedom to fly amendment would fill these empty seats and I believe 
stimulates the airlines to bring more flights on line, preserving jobs 
and generating additional revenues both for the airlines and for all 
the affiliated travel businesses.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment which we have introduced jointly.
  The airlines are facing financial difficulties. Bankruptcies, 
layoffs, increased costs of fuel, and the war with Iraq have led the 
Republicans to propose a $3.2 billion bailout of the passenger airline 
industry in its House supplemental war appropriations bill. I believe 
it is time to have a more focused approach.
  The real problem is that every day airlines fly with thousands of 
empty seats. A recent New York Times article referred to the airlines 
problem and estimated that, on average, 25 percent of the seats on 
airlines are left unsold, even though the number of flights have been 
reduced. The reduction in flights means cuts in the number of pilots, 
airline flight attendants, baggage handlers, and additional travel 
industry jobs. So instead of just writing a check for $3.2 billion to 
the airlines, we should be considering a way to encourage the American 
public to fly and fill those empty seats in a way that will preserve 
and create jobs. This will do it.
  As a result of this amendment, air travel will naturally increase 
because the cost of consumer air travel will be cut in half. The plan 
will benefit not just the airlines but the traveling public. It will 
stimulate business for hotels, restaurants, rental car companies, 
travel agencies and other travel-related industries.

                              {time}  1800

  This is better than a subsidy. A subsidy will not create new 
passengers, will not preserve jobs. Over the past week, the airlines 
have laid off 10,000 workers; and a subsidy will not stem the tide of 
additional layoffs. Jobs in the airline industry will be no more secure 
after the subsidy than before.
  On the other hand, the proposed program will result in increased 
airline business and increased demand for workers. This will fill the 
empty seats, making them more affordable, increase revenues for the 
airlines, preserve jobs and generate additional revenues for others 
involved in travel commerce.
  We hope, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment will be adopted. I thank 
the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: an appropriation may 
not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously 
authorized by law.
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into

[[Page H2776]]

law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI; and I ask 
for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon wish to be heard on the 
point of order?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of parliamentary inquiry, I would 
inquire of the Chair, is it either required or customary for a point of 
order to be raised before discussion of the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the order of the House previously adopted today, 
points of order against amendments are considered reserved on each 
amendment.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, is that within the rule that we passed for this 
particular bill, or is that always a rule of the House?
  The CHAIRMAN. It was pursuant to the unanimous consent request agreed 
to earlier today in the full House.
  Does the gentleman wish to be heard further on the point of order 
offered by the gentleman from Florida?
  Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the plan that we 
have is a much better use of the taxpayers' money than in the 
underlying bill, and we would hope that the Chair would rule that it is 
in order to appropriately spend the money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The proponent of an item 
of appropriation carries the burden of persuasion on the question of 
whether it is supported by an authorization in law, and whether it 
constitutes a change in law.
  Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point 
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of 
appropriation or the rebate mechanism in question is authorized in law. 
The Chair, therefore, is constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2 of rule XXI. The amendment is not in order.
  Are there further amendments to this title of the bill?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 39, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,078,300,000)''.
       Page 39, line 17, strike ``That'' and all that follows 
     through ``Provided further,'' on line 22.
       Page 40, line 4, strike ``: Provided'' and all that follows 
     before the period on line 10.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today, the reason that I come 
to the floor today is that I object to the airline provisions being 
added to this bill because it is a supplemental appropriation bill; and 
within an appropriation bill, we simply cannot do the things that we 
need to do long term for the airlines. All we do is ensure that they 
will be back 6 months later for a similar appropriation.
  On an appropriation bill we cannot deal with tax relief, for example, 
and $25 for every $100 ticket is taxes and fees to the Federal 
Government. We cannot deal with that on an appropriation bill.
  We cannot deal with regulatory relief as well. There are higher 
antitrust standards that apply to airlines that do not to other 
industries. We need to look at that. There are limits as far as access 
to equity capital that apply to the airlines that do not to other 
industries. Those we cannot deal with in a supplemental appropriation 
bill.
  The reason for bringing this forward is to ensure that we simply do 
not appropriate an amount that ensures that we have the airlines come 
back and simply need the same thing 6 months, 8 months, a year from 
now; and that is surely what we will have if we go through with this.
  We are turning the airlines into folks that want to compete under a 
regular business model into folks that simply will hire more lobbyists 
and rely on the generosity of taxpayers and appropriators forevermore. 
We are creating, unless we change this process, an Amtrak in the air 
where we simply, through appropriation, keep an industry going.
  We cannot do that and for that purpose, I have agreed to enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to talk about 
what we might do in the future.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the 
very distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
would be pleased to have a discussion with my friend from Arizona. Is 
that allowed, Mr. Chairman, under this arrangement?
  I certainly think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is right 
that we need to look for a long-term settlement to this issue. To 
continue to handle it as we have, in a crisis moment, is not the right 
way to do it. To look at the long term, some tax relief is an option to 
look at the new obligations that the Federal Government has, in my 
view, to review our long-term sense of airline security.
  Until September 11, 2001, there was a widely held and generally 
defensible view that the fees that passengers paid for airline security 
were being paid for the purpose of protecting the passengers; and so it 
was a pure user fee, and it seemed to be defensible in that regard. We 
now know that we use our security system to secure people who not only 
are not on the plane that day but who may never be on the plane; and I 
think the gentleman senses that we need to review that structure to 
review the additional costs that airlines have assumed because of the 
new demands of airline security. To look for a more permanent solution 
to this is absolutely the direction we should take, and I certainly 
will commit to work with the gentleman on those issues and to try to 
solve them legislatively for the long term rather than to continue to 
have to deal with these short-term ways to deal with this issue.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
thank the gentleman for this colloquy and discussion.
  We simply cannot deal with the tremendous issues that we have to deal 
with in terms of tax relief, regulatory reform and to decide, as the 
gentleman from Missouri appropriately put it, what obligations the 
airlines actually have and what obligations should we, as general 
taxpayers or society, bear in terms of security costs; but we cannot 
have those discussions on appropriations measures.
  We cannot wait in between bailouts every year or so to decide how 
much each airline gets to enact a formula. That is why we need to enter 
into these discussions in between, when the crisis is not right at 
hand; and with that understanding, I will agree to withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to adamantly oppose the Flake 
Amendment. This amendment would eliminate $2.0 billion dollars in 
desperately needed funding for struggling US airlines. It is 
unconscionable to consider doing this while our economy suffers, and it 
is even more unconscionable to do so during wartime.
  We are witnessing the collapse of the airline industry as we know it? 
US Air and United have already been forced into bankruptcy, and other 
major airlines are contemplating the same option. Northwest Airlines 
alone has lost $1.2 billion over the past two years. Air travel is 
falling at a rapid rate and will continue to fall until this war is 
over, the economy improves, and passengers are assured that they are 
safe in the friendly skies. This month alone, the air travel is down 
11% and it is speculated that if another terrorism attack occurs, it 
will fall an additional 25 percent domestically 43 percent 
internationally.
  Since September 11, 2001, we have placed many needed safety 
requirements on the airline industry. Eliminating the funding for 
compliance puts an unnecessary burden on an already frazzled industry 
and does little to promote flying. Passengers will not fly if they 
don't feel safe.
  The airline industry is paramount to the economic vitality of this 
nation. It is critical to virtually every industry around the globe. 
Tourism, goods movement, and business travel affect virtually every 
locality in this nation. We must guarantee that goods continue to move 
in an expedited and inexpensive manner and that air travel does not 
suffer more than it already has.

[[Page H2777]]

  We must also take into consideration that the airline industry 
employs a sizable workforce globally. United, which employs thousands 
in the state of California alone, employs 85,000 worldwide! If we do 
not help the airlines during these uncertain times, many jobs will be 
lost and the economy as a whole will be further compromised.
  I oppose the Flake Amendment and stand behind the fact that we must 
do all that we can to keep the industry flying.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of the recent colloquy, let me simply say that 
I am getting whiplash from trying to follow the lead of the majority 
party and the White House on the issue that was just under discussion.
  We had before us earlier in the week this bill to essentially pay for 
the first downpayment on the Iraq war. We were trying to get additional 
money in the bill for homeland security so that we could protect 
ourselves at home from the retaliation that was likely to come from 
that involvement in the war.
  The House Republican leadership would not see its way fit to allow us 
to even debate that amendment and come to a vote on the House floor; 
and yet they arbitrarily ordered the Committee on Appropriations to 
include the $3.5 billion bailout for the airline industry that was just 
discussed a moment ago. Then, after that happened, then the White House 
issued a statement saying that, in fact, the package before the House 
for airline bailout was too generous.
  I am having a little difficulty following the lead of the majority 
and the lead of the White House because they seem to be working at 
cross purposes, and I am further confounded by the fact that this House 
is willing to consider a huge expenditure of funds like this with no 
hearings and to have it dealt with by a committee that has no special 
understanding of the problem; and it seems to me that a much better 
way, well, it just seems to me that we ought to be asking a fundamental 
question.
  It seems to me we ought to be asking the question of whether or not 
we have a viable airline industry in this country. In my view, we have 
a bunch of let's-pretend capitalists who have to come to the government 
for a bailout every time something happens in the economy.
  Now, they are essential to our national welfare and to our economic 
well-being. So I think we obviously need to keep the airline industry 
functioning, but I do not know how many times an airline has to go 
bankrupt before it is bankrupt. I do not know how many times they have 
to come to the taxpayers for additional money before we decide that a 
better way is to simply regulate them as a necessary public utility or 
as a public utility providing necessary service to the country, and 
that is what I really believe in the long term we ought to do.
  But I also must protest the slap dash way that this issue has wound 
up on the appropriation bill because I find it quaint that the House 
Republican leadership would demand the House go one way while the White 
House seems to indicate it wants to go another way. It is pretty hard 
to follow that kind of leadership, and I admire the gentleman from 
Florida for being a good soldier and responding to the instructions of 
his leadership; but I would have a difficult time trying to explain 
this to any taxpayer, any of my constituents.
  I would just hope that in the future we can do a better job of 
managing a problem like this, and I wish we could get to discuss the 
fundamentals on this issue rather than simply throwing more money at 
the problem.
  We were told that we cannot throw more money at homeland security, 
and yet we are providing billions of dollars to the airline industry 
without doing one whit to help the employees of those same airlines.
  I find that quaint. It is always the corporate part of the industry 
that gets the attention of Congress; and the working stiff sort of gets 
left in the caboose, if I can change transportation modes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this title?


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 38, line 21, before the period insert:
       ``Of which up to $10,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Student and Exchange Visitor Information System established 
     under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, including training 
     programs''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, could we have the amendment 
read for us, please?

                              {time}  1815

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the entire amendment.
  The Clerk read the entire amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we have not had a chance to 
discuss this amendment with the gentlewoman, and I wonder if we might 
be able to delay the consideration of it for a few minutes while we do 
that. I do not want her to lose her opportunity to offer it, in case 
our conversation is fruitless.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be delayed 
until after whatever is next on the agenda, and that the right of the 
gentlewoman to offer the amendment would be preserved.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman is entitled to withdraw 
her amendment, and the gentleman from Kentucky may seek unanimous 
consent to have it reoffered at another point in this title.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I am told this is the last 
amendment in this title, other than this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his request, and the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes on 
her amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee 
chairman, and as well I thank the chairman of the full committee and 
the ranking member of the full committee, as well as the ranking member 
of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will hopefully address the question that 
all of us have as a key element of our work on the floor today, and 
that is the securing of the homefront as we fight a raging war in Iraq. 
One of the key issues of 9/11, though we know that only one of the 
visas was a student visa, it highlighted the difficulty we have with 
balancing our desire to open the doors of opportunity to our allies and 
friends to educate their students in our institutions of higher 
learning. We have developed friendships through that process. We have 
developed allies through that process.
  The exchange student program has been a key part of the foreign 
policy of the United States. Yet we have a broken system where we have 
a structure that allows exchange students to come and not follow 
through on either the purpose for which they have come or allowed us to 
track them while they are here.
  In a statement by the inspector general on April 2 before the 
Committee on the Judiciary, his report noted that we found that the INS 
failed to properly train the contract investigators, test the checklist 
for usefulness and completeness, and monitor the quality of contract 
investigators' onsite reviews. It means that as we have the student 
tracking program in place, we do not have the proper training of our 
new Bureau for Citizens Affairs to oversee the contractors and, as 
well, to help the universities do their job.
  The universities have asked us to be responsible and sensitive to the 
hard problems that they have. All of us can call the names of our 
respected universities. They want to do the right thing, Mr. Chairman, 
but they cannot do it without the right training.
  This amendment, and I am very gratified that the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), has allowed this 
debate to go forward, this will allow resources

[[Page H2778]]

to provide training, and it is already authorized, specifically on how 
to oversee the SEVIS tracking system. It is new technology. We will be 
reviewing it in the Homeland Security Committee, I know.
  We know that technology in terms of homefront defense is important, 
the ability to communicate with each other. But certainly as we promote 
the idea that immigration does not equate to terrorism, would it not be 
better to have a tracking system for students that works, that is fair, 
that helps our universities and helps the Homeland Security Department 
with something that can monitor without the threat of suggesting that 
every student is a terrorist? Because that is not the case, Mr. 
Chairman.
  So I offer this amendment to give resources where they are needed, to 
focus the resources on this gaping hole with overseeing and training 
these contractors. These contractors may be well-intentioned but, in 
fact, they are not implementing this system as best as it could be. I 
hope in the discussions with this new Homeland Security Department we 
will also get a diversification of these contractors and an expertise 
that can be developed so that they can do the job right.
  So this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is simply to allow authorized 
dollars to be focused on improving the SEVIS system, that is the 
student tracking system, by enhancing the quality of training of those 
staffers that are there at the Homeland Security Citizens Bureau but, 
as well, to oversee those contractors. I ask my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would help this 
nation's security system and help to protect our borders. The Inspector 
General for the Department of Justice issued a report last month on the 
Student Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) program for 
tracking foreign students at American colleges.
  The report concludes that SEVIS has not been implemented fully yet 
and discusses a wide range of implementation problems. Unfortunately, 
full implementation will require additional funding. For instance, the 
Help Desk system for providing assistance to the school is 
understaffed.
  There are longs waits when school personnel call the Help Desk for 
assistance, and adequate funds are not available to increase the Help 
Desk staff or to send people to the schools to train school personnel 
in the use of SEVIS.
  This amendment would provide additional funding to correct the 
implementation problems that are identified in the Inspector General's 
report, with special reference to the need for additional training.
  SEVIS makes it easier for approximately 4,300 schools and 1,400 
exchange programs to comply with immigration requirements so that they 
can include bright, talented foreign students in their programs.
  International students and exchange visitor programs are enormously 
beneficial to the United States. They boost worldwide appreciation for 
democracy and market-based economics and give future world leaders 
first-hand exposure to America and Americans.
  The Inspector General's report indicates that the immigration service 
needs additional resources to overcome problems in implementing SEVIS, 
which is a complex system that requires the storage of a huge amount of 
data. We need money available to implement this system properly.
  We can create an effective tracking system that will facilitate 
bringing talented men and women from different countries to the United 
States to study and to exchange creative thought and ideas. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, 
and I would ask the gentlewoman a question. Should this amendment be 
accepted, would the other amendments, the five other amendments the 
gentlewoman has tendered, be withdrawn?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would hope in that question 
would be the opportunity to present them. I would like to present those 
amendments and then I would offer, because I realize that those 
amendments would be subject to a point of order, so I would be very 
willing at that point to withdraw them, yes. That is what I would like 
to do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was 
prepared to accept the amendment, but if we are not going to save any 
time by it, I do not see any point in accepting it. So I have no choice 
but to oppose it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, if I am not mistaken I think we had the discussion, 
because we never have an agreement, but I understood that we would 
present this one, and I did not discuss the other amendments in the 
discussion; but that we would move past this one and we would discuss 
those other amendments and then withdraw them.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, I do not see any point in moving 
further on this. I was prepared to accept this one on condition that 
the gentlewoman would just simply withdraw the others. They are subject 
to a point of order anyway, and we could save a lot of time in that 
fashion. But if the gentlewoman is unwilling to do that, then I have no 
choice but to oppose this amendment and all of the others.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I think when we were discussing this, because the 
gentleman knows how important these issues are, and one of the 
amendments deals with domestic preparedness, another with the hazardous 
materials funding which I think is extremely important.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentlewoman would like to discuss the 
other five in a 5-minute period, I would have no problem with that.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I 
believe we had discussed earlier, is that I would discuss the others in 
the 5-minute period and then, and I hope the gentleman does not mind a 
colleague saying this, that I would then reluctantly withdraw them. But 
I would do so, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. So my understanding is if we accept this 
amendment, the gentlewoman would spend 5 minutes talking about all five 
of the others?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Then I have no problem.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I wish to talk about this, Mr. Chairman. Are we 
talking 5 minutes on each of the 5 amendments, or 5 minutes total on 
the 5 amendments?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I wish, Mr. Chairman, that that was the 
case, but I believe we have agreed, because of the procedural point of 
order, that it will be 5 minutes in total. That means I talk very 
quickly with this very raspy voice.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is my 
understanding that the gentlewoman would speak 5 minutes for all of the 
five all at once, 5 minutes total?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I accept this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendments Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments, 
which are at the desk; Jackson-Lee 002, 004, 003, and 005, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman ask unanimous consent to consider 
those amendments en bloc?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
consider these amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. I believe the gentlewoman has identified four of her 
amendments. Is there another amendment the gentlewoman would like to 
include?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, 001, 002, 005, 003, and 004. Did I 
miss one? They are not in order. I apologize.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:
  Amendments offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:

[[Page H2779]]

       In chapter 5 of title I, in the item relating to ``Office 
     for Domestic Preparedness'', after the first and second 
     dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $2,000,000,000)''.
                                  ____

       In chapter 5 of title I, in the item relating to ``Office 
     for Domestic Preparedness'', insert before the period at the 
     end the following:
     : Provided further, That, of the funds provided under this 
     heading, $1,400,000 shall be for a grant to the Harris 
     County, Texas Fire Department for Hazardous Materials 
     Response Teams
                                  ____

       In chapter 5 of title I, in the item relating to ``Office 
     for Domestic Preparedness'', insert before the period at the 
     end the following:
     : Provided further, That, of the funds provided under this 
     heading, $3,000,000 shall be for grants to cities with 
     populations over 1,000,000, and rural communities with 
     populations under 200,000, for fire department hazardous 
     materials response teams
                                  ____

       In chapter 6 of title I, before the general provisions 
     under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
     SERVICES'', insert the following:

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

               Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

       For an additional amount for ``Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services'' for mental health services, $7,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
                                  ____

       In chapter 6 of title I, before the general provisions 
     under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
     SERVICES'', insert the following:

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

               Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

       For an additional amount for ``Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services'' for the Harris County, Texas Mental Health 
     and Retardation Authority, $1,200,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas to consider the amendments en bloc?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1830

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of these 
amendments, and let me say first of all that sometimes it is very 
difficult for our colleagues to follow this debate, and I want to start 
by thanking the leaders of the Committee on Appropriations. Many 
Members have points and perspectives that sometimes are lost in the 
procedural aspects of this debate. Let me make it very clear that all 
of my amendments, unfortunately, will be subject to a point of order, 
the ones that I am intending to discuss at this point.
  I am not conceding and giving up adequate debate on them, but 
obviously if they are going to be subjected to a point of order, I 
believe it is extremely important that I move forward on the 
legislation that will improve the INS services with the $10 million 
that has just passed, focus on the training issues, and work with my 
colleagues respectively on elements that I think are very important 
that are missing in this legislation.
  My amendments before us today deal with adding $2 billion in domestic 
preparedness, because I believe that we do not have enough money for 
homeland security. Additionally, I would say that we have a problem in 
our respective fire departments in the hazardous materials team. I 
offer $2 million to provide to our first responders, in particular our 
hazardous materials team, that will allow additional funds to be given 
to these teams which will be facing the worst of any biological attack.
  I think it is important to recognize that preparedness is key to what 
we are doing. Let me correct the record and say that domestic 
preparedness was $2 billion, and the hazardous material is $3 million, 
on the cities over a million, and rural communities under 200,000.
  The reason I offer these amendments is I believe we do not have 
enough dollars dealing with homeland security. Frankly, I join and I 
was hoping that the Obey amendment would be made in order because 
obviously the emergency supplemental does not comply with the Budget 
Act nor do ours; but it is interesting that these were not made in 
order but the emergency appropriations was.
  I have brought these amendments to the attention of this floor 
because I come from local communities that are suffering, not having 
enough overtime, not having enough dollars to ensure that we can 
provide the fire departments with the kind of staffing that they need 
in case these communities are subjected to biological attacks.
  I am disappointed that a point of order will be subjected to them. 
Let me also say that my other amendments had to do with providing extra 
funding for SAMHSA because of the stress that individuals are under 
with respect to mental health services. I thought it was important to 
add $7 million because in this wartime, we are all facing the kind of 
stress that requires enhanced mental health services.
  Additionally, I asked for additional funding for Harris County Mental 
Health Services because they too are suffering by closing clinics and 
having close to 1,500 clients not being able to be served. I know that 
a number of Members are not offering personal remarks and so I am 
withdrawing that along with these other amendments because I understand 
we are not being allowed that in fairness to the process.
  Let me close by saying this. I started out by saying that I was 
against the war. I maintain that the war has not been officially 
declared by this body. This body has never debated the question of war 
and declared war against Iraq, but I believe we have the responsibility 
of supporting our troops. I am disappointed that we have not fully 
discussed the question of peace on this floor today, and that there are 
no specific funds designated to begin the discussion of peace.
  I have an amendment which discusses that, and I hope in striking the 
last word towards the end of the bill, we will have an opportunity to 
discuss peace. I believe we can help our troops as they are waging war, 
brave as they are, and those that have lost their lives, and the POWs 
and their families, by recognizing that as they fight for peace, they 
can also be fighting for the freedom of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the troops deployed in Iraq. However, I am 
against this war because I believe war should have been the last 
option. We are spending $74.7 billion to fund the troops, to rebuild 
Iraq, to provide aid to our allies, and to fund drug control efforts--
this is one of the largest supplemental bills this Congress has 
considered. Most of the funds in this bill are for the Department of 
Defense, $62.4 billion. Only $3.5 billion has been allocated for 
homeland security. While our troops are on the frontlines in Iraq, our 
first responders here at home--our firefighters, our police officers--
in our states and localities are woefully underfunded. Many first 
responders do not have the equipment, technology, or training to meet 
national security needs. While we plan to construct schools in Iraq, 
schools in our nation are crumbling. While we provide humanitarian aid 
to many countries, our citizens at home lack affordable health care. 
And, while we plan to rebuild the nation of Iraq and assist our allies, 
we continue to neglect our nation's veterans.
  We provide $700 million for Jordan; $300 million for Egypt; up to $1 
billion for Turkey; and $127 million for Afghanistan through the 
Bilateral Economic Assistance account. In the Foreign Military 
Assistance account we provide $1 billion for Israel; $406 million for 
Jordan; $170 million to train the Afghan National Army; $175 million to 
assist Pakistan in counter-terrorism activities; and $115 million for 
Peacekeeping Operations.
  The Chairman's Mark provides $2.8 billion for a new Iraq Relief and 
Reconstruction Fund. There are funds for the relief and reconstruction: 
for water/sanitation infrastructure, feeding and food distribution, 
refugee assistance and other humanitarian activities. Yet the 
Chairman's Mark only provides $2.2 billion for grants to First 
Responders through the Office of Domestic Preparedness. I strongly 
support our troops, but I also believe that we must protect the troops 
right here at home--the first responders, who will be called on in any 
emergency and national security threat.
  This bill does not do enough for Homeland Security. We are 
underfunding the national security here at home. Our cities and ports 
need protection. I offered amends in the Rule Committee to increase 
funding for Homeland Security.
  My amendment would have increased by $2 billion funding to the Office 
for Domestic Preparedness. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that 
if the war and/or threat alert levels continue for six months, cities 
would incur nearly $2 billion in additional costs. These costs are on 
top of existing homeland security spending already underway or planned 
since September 11.
  State and local governments have undertaken unprecedented new, 
expensive, and expanded responsibilities in our national efforts

[[Page H2780]]

against terrorism. State and local governments have developed and 
adopted budgets reflecting these increased responsibilities in 
difficult fiscal times with very little federal assistance. I offered 
an amendment to provide funds in the amount of $3 million to be set 
aside as grants to cities with populations over one million and rural 
communities with populations under 200,000 for fire department 
hazardous materials response teams.

  Adequate federal resources must be available to assist our urban and 
rural areas to maintain a heightened level of alert and to assist our 
first responders during this time of crisis.
  First responders have been called upon to identify and to plan for 
potential threats peculiar to their particular location; these threats 
include chemical, biological, nuclear, radiation, and explosives.
  Additional funding specifically for firefighters in urban and rural 
areas would help fire departments meet the challenges of responding to 
threats of terrorism. Firefighters have emergency needs for clothing, 
equipment, and interoperable communications.
  I am troubled that we are in a position today where we are spending 
money we don't have, on a war we didn't need. Of course, I will cast my 
vote in support of this bill because this predicament is not the fault 
of our soldiers. U.S. troops are fighting valiantly in Iraq and they 
will be victorious. I want them to have all the resources they need to 
get the job done efficiently and effectively, so that we can bring them 
home safely to their families and loved ones. I don't support this war, 
but I support our men and women in uniform--100 percent.
   Mr. Chairman, I believe sometimes one must stand for what they 
believe. I know that there are times when a great nation must answer 
the call of war to defend itself and its people. Sometimes we must 
defend our values so that many more can be saved. This is not one of 
those situations.
  Even before the dust had started to settle at the site of the Twin 
Towers, this war plan seemingly was being devised. From mid-September 
2001, this Administration seemed to be resolved to march into Baghdad. 
The plan was forged before we knew that Saddam Hussein had no known 
connection to the attacks of 9/11; before we knew that far more 
insidious dangers lurked in North Korea; before we realized that backed 
with a true diplomatic and military coalition, inspections could work 
to disarm Iraq. Even as the true nature of the picture in Iraq came to 
light, the Administration held its resolve to go to war. But resolve 
does not equate with reason.
  I, and many of my colleagues, and millions of people taking to the 
streets around the world, have been trying to inject reason into this 
debate for over a year now. I started by voting against the use of 
force resolution last Congress. There were two reasons: (1) I did not 
feel that force was yet justified in the case of Iraq, and (2) I 
believe that it is unconstitutional for Congress to give the President 
the power to start a war without a true Declaration from the Congress. 
Whereas the President controls the military and our nation's 
intelligence gathering services, before the President takes our 
soldiers into war he must come to Congress and make the case for war. 
It is then the duty of Congress according to Article I, Section 8 of 
the Constitution to make the decision of whether it is in the best 
interest of the people we represent to make the Declaration of War. 
That was never done. I, and 154 of my colleagues, supported the Spratt 
amendment to the Use of Force Resolution, which would have required the 
President to come back to Congress before marching to war. But we did 
not prevail.
  Therefore, I have continued to call for a debate here on the Floor of 
the House to make that decision--between war and peace, and between 
life and death. Early this year, I offered a bill, H. Con. Res. 2, a 
bill to revisit and to debate the question of going to war with Iraq. 
Although I questioned the war in Iraq, I have always been in full 
support of our troops in the region. Indeed I have argued that keeping 
a force in the region to support weapons insepctors--50,000 soldiers-
strong--was absolutely appropriate and prudent. That is because I 
believe that the threat of force can prevent violence, However, the use 
of force is violence. The use of force must always be the very last 
resort. However, we must be realistic in these times to recognize the 
threat both here and abroad. The threat is real in our local 
communities. Therefore, any Emergency Wartime Supplement Appropriations 
bill ought to provide resources to our local and state governments. We 
must support our military. They are men and women who risk their lives 
for our civil liberties, but we cannot give the President a blank check 
with which to reward our allies and to neglect domestic priorities.
  Many argued that going to war was preferable to doing nothing in 
Iraq. Perhaps, I agree. But I have never argued that we should do 
nothing, nor have any of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. 
Working with ecumenical leaders from across the county, I developed a 
5-point comprehensive plan--a third option--for improving stability in 
the Middle East. In addition to using a 50,000 soldier-strong force to 
coerce Iraqi compliance with rigorous inspections, the plan also 
included re-engaging our estranged allies, who some seem to be 
ridiculing at every chance, and forming a coalition to establish a 
warcrimes tribunal to indict and bring Saddam Hussein to justice. The 
plan included an immediate and generous humanitarian aid effort for the 
people of Iraqi, who have suffered for so long under Saddam's regime. 
It included a re-invigoration of the Middle East peace process and of 
the international fight against terrorism. And it provided for an 
international effort to rebuild and help to stabilize Iraqi 
infrastructure.
  I still remain firmly against the proposition that war was the only 
option for disarming Iraq. In fact I believe there are still options to 
carrying this war to a violent conclusion in the streets of the ancient 
city of Baghdad. I hope that now that we are in a position of strength, 
we can force a peaceful resolution to this conflict and satisfy our 
national security goals without further bloodshed. I feel that such 
restraint would earn back some of the lost respect and moral authority 
we had in the eyes of the world community, and improve our homeland 
security in the long run.
  For we are living in a glass house these days, and are throwing 
stones left and right. We are making enemies around the world and 
under-funding the domestic forces who would protect us from them. I 
have offered several amendments to today's supplemental bill, to make 
sure that in addition to supporting our troops overseas, we also take 
care of security issues here at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to the fiscal year 2003 
supplemental appropriations bill to help our Nation's security and to 
provide funds to the people on the frontlines in our own homefront--
first responders.
  I believe that our domestic priorities and our first responders must 
not be overlooked as we consider this supplemental appropriations bill. 
I know my amendments violate the Budget Act, but the supplemental 
appropriations bill itself violates the Budget Act. My amendment would 
provide additional funds for first responders in our nation's cities 
and rural communities.
  My amendment would increase by $2 billion funding to the Office for 
Domestic Preparedness. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that if 
the war and/or threat alert levels continue for six months, cities 
would incur nearly $2 billion in additional costs. These costs are on 
top of existing homeland security spending already underway or planned 
since September 11. While the Chairman's Mark provides $2.2 billion, 
$200 million over the President's request, for grants to local and 
state governments, this amount is still not adequate to fund the 
domestic security needs of our Nation's states and localities.
  As you know, state and local governments have undertaken 
unprecedented new, expensive, and expanded responsibilities in our 
national efforts against terrorism. State and local governments have 
developed and adopted budgets reflecting these increased 
responsibilities in difficult fiscal times with very little federal 
assistance.
  Adequate federal resources must be available to assist our urban and 
rural areas to maintain a heightened level of alert and to assist our 
first responders during this time of crisis.
  First responders have been called upon to identify and to plan for 
potential threats peculiar to their particular location; these threats 
include chemical, biological, nuclear, radiation, and explosives.
  Additional funding specifically for firefighters in urban and rural 
areas would help fire departments meet the challenges of responding to 
threats of terrorism. Firefighters have emergency needs for clothing, 
equipment, and interoperable communications.
  First responders stand ready to answer the call of our nation. We 
must provide them with adequate resources for equipment, training, and 
supplies. In particular, fire departments are in desperate need of 
funding. I have heard from my fire department in Houston and hope to 
secure funding for the fire fighters there for hazardous materials 
response teams.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw these amendments, 
recognizing that I hope we can do more for domestic preparedness, for 
the hazardous materials teams and our fire departments, and we 
recognize that we have a crisis in this Nation and we need to help 
those facing mental health crises by providing more mental health 
funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, unanimous consent is not required. The 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) withdraws the amendments 
offered en bloc.
  The amendments were withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to this title?

[[Page H2781]]

  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    TITLE II--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

       Sec. 2001. Division F of Public Law 108-7 is hereby amended 
     under the heading ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     State and Tribal Wildlife Grants'' by striking ``$3,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$5,000,000''.
       Sec. 2002. The matter under the heading ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, Health Resources and Services'', in Public 
     Law 108-7 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Heart Beat, New Bloomfield, PA'' and 
     inserting ``Heart Beat, Millerstown, PA'' in lieu thereof;
       (2) by striking ``Tressler Lutheran Services, Harrisburg, 
     PA, for abstinence education and related services'' and 
     inserting ``DIAKON Lutheran Social Ministries, Allentown, PA, 
     for abstinence education and related services in Cumberland 
     and Dauphin counties'' in lieu thereof;
       (3) by striking ``Community Ministries of the Lutheran Home 
     at Topton, Reading, PA, for abstinence education and related 
     services'' and inserting ``DIAKON Lutheran Social Ministries 
     of Allentown, PA, for abstinence education and related 
     services in Berks county'' in lieu thereof;
       (4) by striking ``$298,153,000'' and inserting 
     $296,638,000'' in the first proviso; and
       (5) by inserting after ``a study regarding delivery of 
     pediatric health care in northeastern Oklahoma,'' ``$225,000 
     is available for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant 
     County, Ft. Worth, TX, to provide school-based mental health 
     education to schools in Tarrant County, $200,000 is available 
     for the AIDS Research Institute at the University of 
     California, San Francisco for a Developing Country Medical 
     Program to facilitate clinician exchange between the United 
     States and developing countries, $1,000,000 is available for 
     the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA, to establish 
     centers of excellence for the treatment of autism,''.
       Sec. 2003. The matter under the heading ``Office of the 
     Secretary, Public Health and Social Services Emergency 
     Fund'', in title II of the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2003, (Public Law 108-7, div. G) is 
     amended by striking ``, to be available until expended'' 
     after the ``$5,000,000''.
       Sec. 2004. Section 207 of the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-7, div. G) is 
     amended by striking ``or any other''.
       Sec. 2005. (a) In addition to the authority provided in 
     section 215 of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-7, div. G), in order for the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry out 
     international health activities, including HIV/AIDS and other 
     infectious disease, chronic and environmental disease, and 
     other health activities abroad during fiscal year 2003, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services may exercise authority 
     equivalent to that available to the Secretary of State in 
     section 2(c) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)). (b) The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall consult with the Secretary of State and 
     relevant Chief of Mission to ensure that the authority 
     provided in this section is exercised in a manner consistent 
     with section 207 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 
     U.S.C. 3927) and other applicable statutes administered by 
     the Department of State.
       Sec. 2006. (a) The matter under the heading ``Department of 
     Education, School Improvement Programs'', in Public Law 108-7 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$508,100,000'' and inserting 
     $537,100,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$4,132,167,000'' and inserting 
     ``$4,233,167,000''.
       (b) In the statement of the managers of the committee of 
     conference accompanying H.J. Res. 2 (Public Law 108-7; House 
     Report 108-10), in the matter in title III of Division G, 
     relating to the Fund for the Improvement of Education under 
     the heading ``School Improvement Programs''--
       (1) the provision specifying $150,000 for Illinois State 
     Board of Education, Springfield, IL, for computers, hardware 
     and software for the implementation of Fast ForWord reading 
     program to the Pleasant Plains Community Unit District #8 and 
     Pleasant Plain Illinois District #18 shall be deemed to read 
     as follows: ``Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, 
     IL, for implementation of Fast ForWord reading program to the 
     Pleasant Plains Community Unit District #8 and for improving 
     mathematics achievement in Peoria School District #150 and 
     Jacksonville School District #117, $150,000'';
       (2) the provision specifying $2,000,000 for Pinellas County 
     Florida School District, St. Petersburg, FL, for technology 
     for Title I schools shall be deemed to read as follows: ``St. 
     Petersburg College, St. Petersburg, FL, for the Pinellas 
     County EpiCenter, $2,000,000'';
       (3) the provision specifying $500,000 for the St. Louis 
     Children's Museum, MO, for a collaborative project with the 
     St. Louis Public Library to create interactive exhibits and 
     educational programs shall be deleted;
       (4) the provision specifying $25,000 for the Boys and Girls 
     Club of El Dorado, AR, for drug prevention and after school 
     programs shall be deemed to read as follows: ``Boys and Girls 
     Club, Southeast Unit, El Dorado, AR, for drug prevention and 
     after school programs, $25,000'';
       (5) the provision specifying $400,000 for the Milwaukee 
     Public Schools, WI, to expand before- and after-school 
     programs shall be deemed to read: ``Milwaukee Public Schools, 
     WI, for before- and after-school programs, $400,000'';
       (6) the provision specifying $200,000 for Tensas Reunion, 
     Inc., Newellton, LA, for instructional technology training, 
     and after school programs at the Tensas Charter School shall 
     be deemed to read: ``Tensas Reunion, Inc., Newellton, LA, for 
     the TREES Project in Tensas Parish, including activities such 
     as the purchase of computers and educational software, 
     tutoring, and workshops to promote parental involvement, 
     $200,000'';
       (7) the provision specifying $250,000 for Community School 
     District 8, Flushing, NY, for after-school programs shall be 
     deemed to read: ``Community School District 8, Bronx, NY, for 
     after-school programs, $250,000'';
       (8) the provision specifying $20,000 for Westside High 
     School, Bakersfield, CA, for equipment shall be deemed to 
     read: ``West High School, Bakersfield, CA, for equipment, 
     $20,000'';
       (9) the provision specifying $1,000,000 for the National 
     Science Center Foundation, Atlanta, GA, for educational 
     technology and other purposes shall be deemed to read: 
     ``National Science Center Foundation, Augusta, GA, for 
     educational technology and other purposes, $1,000,000'';
       (10) the provision specifying $200,000 for the Golden Gate 
     National Parks Association, San Francisco, CA, for 
     environmental education programs at the Crissy Field Center 
     shall be deemed to read: ``Golden Gate National Parks 
     Conservancy, San Francisco, CA, for environmental education 
     programs at the Crissy Field Center, $200,000'';
       (11) the provision specifying $100,000 for the University 
     of South Florida, Tampa, FL, for the Tampa Bay Consortium for 
     the Development of Educational Leaders and the Preparation 
     and Recruitment of Teachers shall be deemed to read: 
     ``University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, for the Tampa Bay 
     Consortium for the Development of Educational Leaders, 
     $100,000'';
       (12) the provision specifying $25,000 for the Meredith-Dunn 
     Learning Disabilities Center, Inc., Louisville, KY, for 
     technology shall be deemed to read as follows: ``Meredith-
     Dunn Learning Disabilities Center, Inc., Louisville, KY, for 
     school counseling services, $25,000'';
       (13) the provision specifying $40,000 for Father Maloney's 
     Boys Haven, Louisville, KY, for technology shall be deemed to 
     read as follows: ``Father Maloney's Boys Haven, Louisville, 
     KY, for an educational program, $40,000'';
       (14) the provision specifying $50,000 for the Joel II 
     Restoration Ministries for education programs shall be deemed 
     to read as follows: ``Joel II Restoration Outreach, Inc., for 
     education programs, $50,000''; and,
       (15) the provision specifying $1,500,000 for the City of 
     Upland, CA, for after school programs shall be deemed to read 
     as follows: ``YMCA of the City of Upland, CA, for after-
     school activities, $1,500,000''.
       Sec. 2007. In the statement of the managers of the 
     committee of conference accompanying H.J. Res. 2 (Public Law 
     108-7; House Report 108-10), in the matter in title III of 
     Division G, relating to the Fund for the Improvement of 
     Postsecondary Education under the heading ``Higher 
     Education''--
       (1) the second reference to the provision specifying 
     $1,000,000 for the University of Massachusetts-Boston to 
     purchase research equipment and technology infrastructure 
     shall be deleted;
       (2) the provision specifying $100,000 for Slippery Rock 
     University, Slippery Rock, PA, for Knowledge Pointe at 
     Cranberry Woods, as part of an initiative to provide life-
     long educational services to Pittsburgh's regional industry 
     and community residents shall be deemed to read as follows: 
     ``Regional Learning Alliance, Marshall Township in Allegheny 
     County, PA, as part of an initiative to provide life-long 
     educational services to Pittsburgh's regional industry and 
     community residents, $200,000'';
       (3) the provision specifying $100,000 for Slippery Rock 
     University, Slippery Rock, PA, for the North Hill Educational 
     Alliance shall be deleted; and,
       (4) the provision specifying $250,000 to the National 
     Aviary Conservation Education Technology Integration in 
     Pittsburgh shall be deemed to read as follows: ``National 
     Aviary Conservation Education Technology Integration in 
     Pittsburgh, for the Remote Audio-Visual Engagement Network 
     (RAVEN) project, $250,000''.
       Sec. 2008. Section 336 of Division I of Public Law 108-7 is 
     amended by striking ``Transportation Management'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Urbanized''.
       Sec. 2009. Amounts made available to carry out sections 
     1212(k) and 5117(b)(6) of 112 Stat. 107 et seq. shall be used 
     to carry out item number 1278 of the table contained in 
     section 1602 of such Act (112 Stat. 263).
       Sec. 2010. The matter under the heading ``Corporation for 
     National and Community Services, Domestic Volunteer Service 
     Programs, Operating Expenses'', in Public Law 108-7 is 
     amended by inserting after ``in this Act'' the following: 
     ``for activities authorized by section 122 of part C of title 
     I and part E of title II of the Domestic Volunteer Service 
     Act of 1973''.
       Sec. 2011. To liquidate obligations previously incurred, 
     $64,000,000 is provided to

[[Page H2782]]

     the National Service Trust of the Corporation for National 
     and Community Service: Provided, That the second proviso 
     under the heading ``Corporation for National and Community 
     Service'' in Division K of Public Law 108-7 is deemed to be 
     amended by inserting after ``section 501(a)(4)'' the 
     following: ``with not less than $2,500,000 for the Office of 
     the Chief Financial Officer to enact financial reform in the 
     Corporation, notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     501(a)(4)(B) of the Act''.
       Sec. 2012. Section 115 under the heading ``Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, Administrative Provisions'' in Public Law 
     108-7 is amended by striking ``2 and''.

                TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

       Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Crowley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.____. Of the amount provided in chapter 4 of title I, 
     in the item relating to ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'', not more than $100,000,000 may be made available 
     to Pakistan.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) as the 
proponent and myself as the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of the amendment at the desk put forth 
by myself and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  India has been a strong ally in the war on terrorism, and has also 
felt the pain of terrorist attacks, as we have felt those same pains 
here in the United States. The most recent attack on India was last 
weekend, resulting in the brutal murder of 24 Hindus known as Pandits. 
The 24 murdered included women and children. This act of terrorism 
occurred in the Indian state of Jammu-Kashmir.
  As we all know, last year Pakistani Islamic militants entered the 
Indian Parliament and opened fire, killing some of our colleagues in 
the Indian Parliament. I happened to be in India only 2 weeks after 
this horrific attack, and I can tell Members that I saw the bullets 
holes and blood-stained ground where militants killed our colleagues.
  Even in the face of these facts, within the supplemental, Pakistan 
will receive $175 million for border security for their support on the 
international war against terrorism. They support the United States in 
our war against terrorism in Afghanistan and central Asia, but they are 
supporting the militias and terrorists who are crossing into India 
territory in Jammu-Kashmir every day and carrying out attacks on Indian 
civilians.
  One hundred seventy-five million dollars for Pakistan is an award of 
support, when the true record shows that in spite of our substantial 
assistance to Pakistan, if President Bush and Prime Minister Blair 
pushed for a vote at the U.N. Security Council for the war on Iraq, the 
best we could have hoped for from Pakistan is they would have 
abstained.
  While Pakistan has worked with the United States of late, they have 
continually also served as a destabilizing force in central Asia, 
including testing nuclear weaponry, threatening her neighbors, and 
funding and supporting terrorists who have crossed the border from 
Pakistan into India to perpetrate terrorist acts against Indian 
citizens.
  Pakistan has made efforts to combat al Qaeda, and some members of 
that organization have been apprehended with their assistance. But 
other terrorist organizations allowed to operate within Pakistan's 
borders continue to spread extremist ideology and a visceral hatred of 
the United States.
  Today I am asking that we limit foreign military financing aid to 
Pakistan to $100 million, in large part due to the failure of Pakistan 
to meet its commitments to combat terrorism. Last June General 
Musharraf pledged that he would halt all movement of Islamic militant 
infiltration into Kashmir and crack down on Pakistani supporters of 
militant organizations in the Kashmir region. While the general 
appeared to keep his word initially, last week's brutal attack on women 
and children demonstrates that his pledge has been forgotten.
  Leaders of Pakistani terrorist organizations, organizations which 
have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations by our State 
Department, and who were previously arrested because of their terrorist 
activities, have since been released. The United States should not have 
two definitions of terrorism.
  Terrorist organizations operating freely inside Pakistan, often with 
the tacit support of elements of the Pakistani Government, are focused 
on harming the United States and represent a grave threat to our 
national security interests.
  I ask Members, is this the type of partner we want fighting with us 
in the war on terrorism, a country that is ruled by someone who came to 
power not by being elected but by seizing it, someone who has not 
clamped down on radical Islamic terrorism on his own soil, someone who 
has greatly contributed to the destabilization of that area of our 
globe through his testing of weapons of mass destruction and his 
refusal to rule out a first strike? It seems we are putting our 
immediate interests in front of our values.
  India is the largest democracy in the world, and as the oldest 
democracy, we need to assist them so they can be free of terrorism, 
just as all nations want to be free of terrorism. This is a broad goal, 
but by not providing India with any funding or support in this bill, 
when they are affected by terrorism every day through cross-border 
incursions, I fear we are sending the message to other countries it is 
okay to support terrorists as long as they are not attacking the United 
States yet. Is this the message that we want to send to the world?
  Today we have the opportunity to show the world that we will not look 
the other way while one nation allows terrorist acts to be committed on 
another sovereign nation.
  Congress has a crucial responsibility to play in ensuring that U.S. 
funding is provided to countries fully committed to the war on terror. 
If we provide Pakistan with hundreds of millions of dollars, we must 
demand accountability and concrete actions that that country is doing 
all it can to eradicate terrorist organizations within its borders. We 
are providing $175 million for a partner that has been at best less 
than helpful and a destabilizing force in south Asia. I urge Members to 
limit Pakistan's foreign military assistance aid to $100 million from 
this account until we see real reforms in Pakistan, and pass these 
savings on to the homeland security account.
  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for sponsoring 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) for offering this amendment, which I support.
  As was said, the amendment would strike $75 million of the $175 
million in the foreign military finance funding for Pakistan in this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, although Pakistan has provided assistance to the United 
States in our fight against terrorism and in our efforts against al 
Qaeda, I cannot support military aid to Pakistan. Since a military coup 
stages by President Musharraf in 1999, Pakistan has been run by a 
military dictatorship. As a result of the coup, democracy sanctions 
were put in place that barred any U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. 
However, just 1 month ago,

[[Page H2783]]

under waiver authority that was granted to President Bush by Congress, 
he waived this coup-related sanction to allow $50 million in military 
assistance to Pakistan for their antiterrorism measures. Given the 
current military dictatorship and given that Pakistan just weeks ago 
received a significant sum of money in military aid, I support striking 
$75 million in military assistance in this bill and perhaps either 
returning it to the FMF fund or to reallocate this amendment to first 
providers or towards other priority homeland security needs.
  In addition, it is encouraging that the Bush administration is 
starting to publicly acknowledge Pakistan's role in transferring 
nuclear equipment to North Korea. I would like to thank the Bush 
administration for imposing both contracting and licensing sanctions on 
the Khan Research Laboratories nuclear firm in Pakistan. They are no 
longer authorized to export to the United States. And I am encouraged 
by this first step on the part of the administration to both publicly 
recognize Pakistan's role in supporting North Korea's covert nuclear 
weapons program and to impose punitive sanctions accordingly.
  Normally, because of Pakistan's nuclear transfer to North Korea, 
Symington sanctions barring U.S. military assistance to Pakistan would 
be automatic. However, Symington sanctions have been waived by the 
President, and military assistance continues to flow to Pakistan. I am 
disappointed that the administration continues to support military 
assistance to Pakistan when it is clear that Pakistan exchanged 
equipment with North Korea most likely for missiles to challenge India.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I cannot argue against the fact that Pakistan 
has been a friend of the U.S. in fighting against global terrorism. 
However, the case is much different when we look at Pakistan's own 
backyard of Kashmir. Terrorism and violence by Islamic militants in 
Kashmir have escalated to a devastating degree, and I am very concerned 
that military assistance to Pakistan will be used to perpetuate the 
terrorist acts in Kashmir and elsewhere throughout India.
  Mr. Chairman, based on the history of our laws in place that prevent 
the U.S. from providing military assistance to Pakistan in certain 
situations, such as military dictatorship or transfer of nuclear 
equipment to other countries, and for all the related reasons that I 
have just detailed, as has the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), 
striking $75 million in military assistance to Pakistan from this bill 
today is more than justified; and most importantly, it is important to 
recognize that any dollars that would be cut can be redirected to our 
own homeland security or to our own first responders and that really 
should be a priority rather than giving this money to Pakistan.
  I support the amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley); and I would hope that the administration would pay 
more heed to these issues of Pakistan's anti-democratic policies and 
its transfer of nuclear technology.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, the distinguished chairman of the full committee.
  I understand that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) does 
intend to withdraw this amendment at the conclusion of this debate, but 
I do not think the remarks that were made with regard to Pakistan 
should stand without some comment, without some kind of rebuttal. I do 
understand and I do desire, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) have spoken so 
eloquently about the conflict in South Asia between Pakistan and India, 
I desire as much as they do to have a satisfactory resolution to this 
conflict, to see that Kashmir no longer divides these two countries and 
provides a source of conflict of two nuclear superpowers on the Asian 
subcontinent.
  But this is not about an amendment about favoring Pakistan over 
India. This is an amendment about Pakistan, and Pakistan is one of the 
most critical front-line states in this global war against terrorism. 
It has paid a very high price, including the lives of its soldiers 
because of its decision to side with the United States in the fight 
against the al Qaeda and terrorism. Their cooperation on terrorism has 
been excellent. Our nations have coordinated to apprehend nearly 500 
suspected al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, including the operational 
commander, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the September 11 conspirator, 
Ramzi bin al-Sheibh.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not blood money. Some have talked about that 
with relation to some of the other countries for which money is being 
provided. This is not money to get their support in the war against 
Iraq. This is funds to help Pakistan help us prosecute the war against 
terrorism. The $175 million in foreign military financing in the 
committee's recommendations is going to increase Pakistan's capability 
to apprehend and disable terrorists hiding and operating on its own 
territory. In the regular 2003 appropriation bill, we included money 
for fixed and rotary wing transport, including C-130s and Cobra/Huey 
helicopters. This supplemental provides urgent items needed to counter 
al Qaeda and Taliban pockets in the border area with Afghanistan. Key 
equipment identified for counterterror operations during the most 
recent bilateral defense consultation discussions last fall include 
ground radars and communications equipment. Surveillance systems are 
needed for the border, and communications can improve with 
interoperability between our forces and those of Pakistan. The 
supplemental will also provide for procurement of 10 OH-58 D helicopter 
reconnaissance systems to interdict the terrorists and to provide for 
drug interdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by repeating what I said a moment 
ago. This is not about giving something to Pakistan because they have 
been supportive of us. This money is being given to help prosecute the 
war against terrorism. That is our war, and Pakistan is deeply engaged 
in that war, as has been evidenced by the seizures of people that we 
have made along the border. We need their continued involvement, and we 
need their support; and this amendment ought not to be adopted.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs for yielding.
  I rise simply to share with my colleagues from New York and New 
Jersey that I feel very, very strongly about our ally India and the 
role she may play in our future. For no reason that my colleague would 
know, I spent a decent amount of my life in India. I consider it to be 
my second country. In the case before us, however, we are talking about 
Pakistan, who has been our great ally in this war on terrorism. To mix 
the two at this moment could be a very dangerous procedure for us to 
follow. I am very appreciative of the fact that the gentleman is going 
to withdraw this amendment. I would hope that we could carry forward 
this discussion, though, in another forum at another time for there is 
a lot of work that needs to be done here. India is our ally and our 
friend and a great democracy. In turn, Pakistan today is helping us in 
a very special way in the war against terrorism.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and 
I think they summarize precisely my point, which is really this is not 
about India. It is about Pakistan and having them continue to be 
involved in the war against terrorism. And I agree with him that India 
remains a great democracy in the region.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I appreciate the discussion. 
At this time I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York withdraws his amendment.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H2784]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

  TITLE IV--UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR DISPLACED AIR TRANSPORTATION 
                               EMPLOYEES

     SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Air Transportation 
     Employees Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 4002. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``eligible individual'' means an individual 
     whose eligibility for temporary extended unemployment 
     compensation is or would be based on the exhaustion of 
     regular compensation, entitlement to which was based in whole 
     or in part on qualifying employment performed during such 
     individual's base period;
       (2) the term ``qualifying employment'', with respect to an 
     eligible individual, means employment--
       (A) with an air carrier, at a facility at an airport that 
     involves the provision of transportation to or from an 
     airport, or with an upstream producer or supplier for an air 
     carrier; and
       (B) as determined by the Secretary, separation from which 
     was due, in whole or in part, to--
       (i) reductions in service by an air carrier as a result of 
     a terrorist action or security measure;
       (ii) a closure of an airport in the United States as a 
     result of a terrorist action or security measure; or
       (iii) a military conflict with Iraq that has been 
     authorized by Congress;
       (3) the term ``air carrier'' means an air carrier that 
     holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, 
     United States Code;
       (4) the term ``upstream producer'' means a firm that 
     performs additional, value-added, production processes, 
     including firms that perform final assembly, finishing, or 
     packaging of articles, for another firm;
       (5) the term ``supplier'' means a firm that produces 
     component parts for, or articles and contract services 
     considered to be a part of the production process or services 
     for, another firm;
       (6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Labor; 
     and
       (7) the term ``terrorist action or security measure'' means 
     a terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 
     2001, or a security measure taken in response to such attack.

     SEC. 4003. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   BENEFITS FOR ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES.

       In the case of an eligible employee, the Temporary Extended 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 
     116 Stat. 21), as amended by Public Law 108-1 (117 Stat. 3), 
     shall be applied as if it had been amended in accordance with 
     section 4004.

     SEC. 4004. MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of section 4003, the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21), as amended by Public Law 
     108-1 (117 Stat. 3), shall be treated as if it had been 
     amended as provided in this section.
       (b) Program Extension.--Deem section 208 of the Temporary 
     Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, as amended by 
     Public Law 108-1 (117 Stat. 3), to be amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), an agreement 
     entered into under this Act shall apply to weeks of 
     unemployment--
       ``(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is 
     entered into; and
       ``(2) ending before December 29, 2003.
       ``(b) Transition for Amount Remaining in Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in the case of 
     an individual who has amounts remaining in an account 
     established under section 203 as of December 28, 2003, 
     temporary extended unemployment compensation shall continue 
     to be payable to such individual from such amounts for any 
     week beginning after such date for which the individual meets 
     the eligibility requirements of this Act, including such 
     compensation payable by reason of amounts deposited in such 
     account after such date pursuant to the application of 
     subsection (c) of such section.
       ``(2) Limitation.--No compensation shall be payable by 
     reason of paragraph (1) for any week beginning after December 
     26, 2004.''.
       (c) Additional Weeks of Benefits.--Deem section 203 of the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, as 
     amended by Public Law 108-1 (117 Stat. 3), to be amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``50'' and inserting 
     ``150''; and
       (B) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``39''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``\1/3\ of'' after 
     ``equal to''.
       (d) Effective Date of Modifications Described in Subsection 
     (c).--
       (1) In general.--The amendments described in subsection 
     (c)--
       (A) shall be deemed to have taken effect as if included in 
     the enactment of the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 2002; but
       (B) shall be treated as applying only with respect to weeks 
     of unemployment beginning on or after the date of enactment 
     this Act, subject to paragraph (2).
       (2) Special rules.--In the case of an eligible individual 
     for whom a temporary extended unemployment account was 
     established before the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (as 
     amended by this title) shall be applied subject to the 
     following:
       (A) Any amounts deposited in the individual's temporary 
     extended unemployment compensation account by reason of 
     section 203(c) of such Act (commonly known as ``TEUC-X 
     amounts'') before the date of enactment of this Act shall be 
     treated as amounts deposited by reason of section 203(b) of 
     such Act (commonly known as ``TEUC amounts''), as deemed to 
     have been amended by subsection (c)(1).
       (B) For purposes of determining whether the individual is 
     eligible for any TEUC-X amounts under such Act, as deemed to 
     be amended by this section--
       (i) any determination made under section 203(c) of such Act 
     before the application of the amendment described in 
     subsection (c)(2) shall be disregarded; and
       (ii) any such determination shall instead be made by 
     applying section 203(c) of such Act, as deemed to be amended 
     by subsection (c)(2)--

       (I) as of the time that all amounts established in such 
     account in accordance with section 203(b) of such Act (as 
     deemed to be amended under this section, and including any 
     amounts described in subparagraph (A)) are in fact exhausted, 
     except that
       (II) if such individual's account was both augmented by and 
     exhausted of all TEUC-X amounts before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, such determination shall be made as if 
     exhaustion (as described in section 203(c)(1) of such Act) 
     had not occurred until such date of enactment.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is long overdue. 
Those who are here would recall that in the aftermath of 9-11 when this 
House was rushing to approve a $15 billion package to help the airlines 
that we were told that there was not room or time, because it was so 
urgent to be done before the end of the week, to include the employees; 
but the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the then-minority 
leader, and Speaker Hastert engaged in a colloquy where assurances were 
made that in the very near future in, and this was in September of 
2001, that we would consider a bill for employee relief including 
financial assistance, ability to retain health insurance, training for 
those in the airline industry.
  Since that time 150,000 airline industry employees have been laid off 
or furloughed, and we are told now by the industry that even if this 
package is approved, there is a high likelihood that we will see 
another 70,000 layoffs. Boeing is looking at 30,000 layoffs; and then 
there are a whole lot of associated industries, travel agents and 
others, who have been devastated. So this legislation would begin to 
redress that oversight by this Congress.
  The interesting thing about this amendment is it is not in order 
under the bill, I am going to hear shortly, but this amendment, we 
would not have to borrow the money to pay for it. We have to borrow the 
money to send to Pakistan. We have to borrow the money to send to 
Turkey. We have to borrow for every other function of this bill. We 
have to borrow the money to build 6,000 schools in Iraq. We have to 
borrow the money to begin to provide universal health care in Iraq. But 
to provide extended unemployment benefits to 150,000, headed to more 
than 200,000, airline employees, we would not have to borrow a penny 
because the money is already on deposit in the unemployment trust fund.
  It is true that the administration does not want to spend the $20-
some-odd billion balance in that fund and does not want to extend this 
benefit to airline employees who have exhausted their unemployment; but 
the fact is we would not have to borrow the money to do it and it helps 
Americans. We are borrowing money to help people all around the world. 
Can we not do something for the airline employees?
  The Senate has acted on this issue, and hopefully we will come to a 
conference agreement that will provide for this long-overdue benefit; 
but if the House would send a message tonight, if the committee would 
accept this and waive a point of order against it, again, not having to 
appropriate funds, only to authorize expenditure of funds from the 
trust fund, we would begin to help these people who have been sorely 
hurt by 9-11 and now by this war in Iraq.

[[Page H2785]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. DeFazio's amendment 
to provide an additional 26 weeks of unemployment compensation to 
workers in the air transportation industry.
  This industry and its workers have borne the brunt of the continuing 
war on terrorism and have been wracked by our sluggish economy.
  In fact, the industry is expected to lose $6.7 billion this year.
  In addition, approximately 200,000 airline workers have lost their 
jobs since September 11, 2001, and another 70,000 workers are expected 
to be laid off.
  This week, the world's largest carrier, AMR corporation's American 
Airlines, averted Chapter 11 bankruptcy by negotiating $1.8 billion in 
labor concessions.
  And U.S. Airways only recently emerged from bankruptcy after winning 
approval for a $900 billion Federal loan guarantee.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the 
industry and just hours ago I met in my office with airline workers' 
representatives.
  The industry and workers know that their fate is inextricably linked; 
that one cannot survive without the other.
  Members on both sides of the aisle understand this and want to help.
  The fact is, this amendment would incorporate into this supplemental 
appropriations bill bipartisan legislation that was introduced 
yesterday by Mr. English and Mr. Oberstar--H.R. 1553, the ``Air 
Transportation Employees Assistance Act''.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee has already passed a similar plan 
to extend unemployment insurance benefits in its version of this 
legislation.
  The members of this body should do the same thing to aid this 
struggling industry, and its workers and their families.
  Let's help this vital industry and its workers navigate unprecedented 
turbulence.
  That's precisely what this amendment extending unemployment insurance 
benefits would do.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An 
amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if 
changing existing law.'' The amendment directly amends existing law. I 
ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I did last evening go to the Committee on 
Rules. There was a Republican member who was a principal sponsor of 
this legislation who was supposed to come to the Committee on Rules and 
ask for a waiver. He did not, but in his stead I asked the committee to 
protect this or, even better, to open up this section of the bill which 
goes to aviation and allow it to be amended outside of the rules of the 
appropriations process since this section of the bill was written 
totally, basically, behind closed doors. Unfortunately, apparently the 
Committee on Rules saw fit not to do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) may be 
heard on the point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for being persistent in this very important 
initiative.
  He is correct. In fact, I was in the Committee on Rules when the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) asked for a waiver, and as noted, 
this amendment was to be presented, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  Let me just cite as a precedent that the emergency appropriations 
that is before us does not itself comply with the budget resolution, 
and therefore that legislation was given a waiver.

                              {time}  1900

  It would seem that now precedent has been laid that when we see a 
crisis, and that is what this is, an emergency appropriations, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is defining his amendment as a 
crisis, as an emergency. Because I even spoke to some of the leaders of 
airlines today who indicated that they were aware that employees were 
being laid off as we speak.
  Mr. Chairman, if I might give an anecdotal comment in speaking to the 
point of order, just 7 days ago, flying Delta Airlines, I was asked to, 
one might say for many reasons, but I was asked to leave the plane 
because the plane was going to another location than what I thought it 
was going to, causing me to miss an important connection, because they 
canceled a flight and they had to go to another city to pick up some 
other, if you will, passengers. That meant that they canceled the work 
of other employees who would have been on that plane. Those employees 
did not work. They were canceled out.
  So there is a crisis when airlines are telling passengers we are 
canceling flights, we are laying off employees; these employees have no 
unemployment benefits.
  If we are operating under an emergency, Mr. Chairman, then I believe 
that this employment amendment that deals with extending the employment 
benefits for employees is a crisis, and we should be subject to a 
waiver to allow for this debate and to allow for this amendment to be 
presented, so that these employees, in an industry that is under 
crisis, can likewise have the relief they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a waiver be given under the same 
precedent of which we debate the emergency appropriations, and that is 
that it is an emergency, that it is a crisis; this amendment represents 
a crisis, and I would ask that this amendment be allowed to be debated 
on the basis of a waiver.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Does anyone else care to 
address the Chair regarding the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this 
amendment directly amends existing law. The amendment therefore 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of the bill insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     initiate or launch military actions except as authorized by 
     Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that this amendment would be 
accepted as noncontroversial. It would, at the end of a bill, insert a 
new section which basically simply recognizes the Constitution of the 
United States and the provisions of Article I, section 8. This has been 
reviewed by and edited by the Parliamentarian's Office and I understand 
that in its current form, it is in order. I had a previous version 
which was not in order.
  It is very simple, and I will read it. Often we debate things that 
are too long to read, but this says, ``None of the funds in this Act 
may be used to initiate or launch military actions except as authorized 
by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.''
  Now, what does that mean? That means that we already have an 
outstanding authorization for these activities, which I opposed, which 
was not a declaration of war, but Congress did pass an authorization 
under the War Powers Act for current activities in the Middle East and 
any activities that might be pertinent to that. We have another 
outstanding authorization for anyone who has engaged in, aided, or 
abetted, or harbored those involved in 9/11. I think that pretty well 
covers any potential terrorist threat or harboring of terrorists or 
fugitives responsible for those sorts of actions around the world 
between those two resolutions.
  So this simply says before the administration might use any of the 
$75 billion in this bill, which we are borrowing and delegating to them 
for a number of purposes, to engage in a military action outside of 
those two authorizations dealing with another part of the world or 
another country, that it would have to be compliant with the 
Constitution of the United States of America. I believe this is 
extraordinarily noncontroversial, and I would give the chairman an 
opportunity to accept it and save 2 minutes;

[[Page H2786]]

I probably have 2 minutes left. But he is not jumping to his feet, so I 
will keep talking for another 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe that this House, the people's 
House, would not feel that in borrowing and transmitting huge amounts 
of funds to the administration, would not want to protect its 
constitutional prerogatives and make certain that those funds were not 
used beyond the purposes of the already existing authorizations. So I 
would be puzzled if this House would reject this amendment, and I would 
wonder what they know that I do not know, or what plans to use this 
money in ways that are not already authorized by law might be out 
there; and that would cause me grave concern, particularly when I 
sometimes listen to the Secretary of Defense, who was then contradicted 
by the Secretary of State.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
DeFazio amendment.
  The gentleman and I both offered two similar pieces of legislation, 
and I applaud this initiative which spoke to the question of whether or 
not this war was authorized by Article I, section 8, and whether or not 
this Congress has ever debated the up-or-down question of whether or 
not we go to war with Iraq.
  Might I say that as the gentleman from Oregon well knows, we have 
repeatedly said that we support the troops. As I started out with this 
debate earlier today, many have trivialized that comment and suggested 
that we are unpatriotic to even be discussing this at this time.
  I might cite many comments by some of our generals who offered to say 
that our troops, brave as they are, understand the distinction between 
the question of dissent against policy and dissent against them. Not a 
single one of us are not praying for the return of the POWs or are not 
joyfully celebrating the return of the young lady from West Virginia, 
the young soldier, the brave soldier. But I think really the question 
is, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not we adhere to our values and our 
Constitution. Our Constitution clearly points to a debate on this 
question.
  So I would hope that even as we discuss the emergency supplemental, 
which, Mr. Chairman, I may ultimately support, that it is the 
responsibility of this Congress to both declare war, but it is also the 
responsibility of this Congress to raise up armies. We are doing that 
today because we do not want to abandon our troops while they are in 
the middle of battle, but we are asking or raising the question of 
whether this is authorized.
  Might I just cite for my colleagues the statements made by former 
Secretary MacNamara some 20, 30 years after Vietnam, wishing that these 
concerns had been raised during the debate about Vietnam. Is it not 
important that we raise these discussions now?
  Might I also say that I am concerned, and certainly have been 
concerned for a period of time, that the issues of peace were never 
parallel to the questions of war. We have a War Powers resolution and 
frankly, if we were under imminent attack, the President could defend 
us, the Commander in Chief could defend us and report to the Congress. 
But we went through a series of policy changes and many of us did not 
know what this war was about: regime change, disarmament, or exile for 
Saddam Hussein. I think a vigorous debate on this question would have 
been warranted on behalf of the American people.
  To these families and to these troops who are now valiantly fighting, 
we say we are in support of your survival and your effort for the 
values of this Nation. But it is important, as we send funds to make 
sure that our troops are protected, that we remind the Nation that we 
have never had a debate on this floor to raise up the question under 
Article I, section 8 to ask the question of whether or not we go to war 
with Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the DeFazio amendment because, in fact, it 
asks us within a turnaround period to debate that question as we, if 
you will, provide these funds, so that our troops might be protected.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider the DeFazio amendment and to 
consider the responsibilities and duties of this particular Congress 
and this Nation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I had prior proposed legislation which 
would have required this House to fulfill its constitutional duties for 
this particular action, and some 30-some odd people saw fit to put 
their names on that. This amendment simply refers to the funds in this 
bill and future actions that are not authorized. So this is actually 
even more limited in its scope, but it does go directly to the 
obligations and duties of this House under Article I, section 8.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
simply say that we are only suggesting by previous legislation, and 
suggesting today, that Congress must debate this question, even as we 
provide funds to protect our troops.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I am not exactly sure what the gentleman has in mind when he offers 
it, but I think I know what the effect would be. The effect would be if 
the U.S. troops managed to take Baghdad, but that they have not 
finished the operation in Basra, that they might not be able to move 
from Baghdad to Basra as a new military operation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear what we are saying here. 
Military actions except as authorized, none of the funds may be used to 
initiate a launch. This is beyond those already authorized. I had other 
language which went to that; the Parliamentarian stripped it out. But 
this is clearly saying we have already authorized the current actions, 
we authorized them under the 9/11 resolution, Afghanistan and other 
actions. Those are authorized. This would be future actions outside the 
scope of the Iraq war, outside the scope of the Afghanistan war and/or 
the war on terrorism, whatever those might be, and Secretary Rumsfeld 
has an active mind.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand 
what the gentleman is saying, but oftentimes what one intends in a very 
simple amendment is not really the effect.
  Now, if the gentleman is talking about no further military action 
without a declaration of war, and I think that is what he is talking 
about, because Article I, section 8 refers to declaring war, let me 
make the point that the United States has not declared war since World 
War II. Korea was a massive war, but there was no declaration of war. 
Vietnam was a massive war, but there was no declaration of war. We 
worked on resolutions passed by the Congress to authorize the President 
to take whatever steps necessary to protect American interests or 
whatever the purpose was at the time.
  So what I am suggesting is that this is a mischievous amendment for 
those who are opposed to this war in Iraq. They certainly have a right 
to oppose the war, and I wish we did not have to go to war as well. But 
I know that if we do not take care of the problem before it gets out of 
control, then it becomes out of control.
  Now, I want to say something about those who are opposed to the war, 
and again they have the right to be opposed to the war, although I do 
not think that they are supporting our troops very effectively.

                              {time}  1915

  I wanted to tell the gentleman that since the wounded soldiers have 
started coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq, something that my wife 
and I do on a regular basis is visit these soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
Marines, Coast Guardsmen in the military hospitals at every 
opportunity, especially if they have no family there with them. We have 
been doing that quite actively very recently.
  I want to tell the gentleman a story about a young soldier who, when 
we entered his room, began to cry. Soldiers usually do not cry, but 
this soldier cried. My wife went over and hugged him and tried to 
console him. She did not do too well, although she normally does.
  I went and talked to him, and asked, Are you in pain? He said, No, I 
am not

[[Page H2787]]

in pain. I said, The injury could be repaired? He said, Yes, they told 
me they could fix the injury. I asked, Well, why are you crying? He 
said, I am crying because I am watching the television, and I am 
watching the people out there on the streets objecting to my colleagues 
and myself being in harm's way.
  He was crying because of the antiwar protestors. Again, they have the 
right to protest, but they offended this soldier, who had been wounded 
defending their right to do it. Now, I am not suggesting that this 
amendment is anything like that; but I am suggesting that it does lend 
credence to those who would like to portray the United States as being 
totally wrong in what we are doing.
  I want to say to the gentleman, whatever his position is on this war, 
if we do not fight the terrorists there is no doubt what would happen. 
We have already proved that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are in bed 
together. That has already been proved in this military action. But if 
we do not prevent another September 11, another destruction of two main 
towers in New York or the Pentagon with the loss of thousands of lives, 
if we do not do something now to prevent it and it happens again, none 
of us will be able to excuse our way out of it for not having done what 
was necessary to keep it from happening again.
  I am determined to do everything that I can do, and I hope that all 
of my colleagues in the House will as well. I heard their speeches 
after September 11, stating that they would do everything possible to 
prevent these events from ever happening again, and to rid the world of 
the threat of terrorism and those who support terrorism.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page ____, after line ____, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available in chapter 3 
     of title I for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' 
     by, and reducing the amount made available in chapter 4 of 
     title I under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC 
     ASSISTANCE'' for ``Economic Support Fund'' (and the 
     allocation within that amount for grants for Turkey) by, 
     $207,000,000, which, in the case of the additional amount for 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', shall be 
     available to establish National Guard Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Civil Support Team as authorized by law, 
     including section 12310(c) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in order to carry out the requirement in section 1403 of 
     Public Law 107-314 (116 Stat. 2676), that an additional 23 
     such teams be established, for a total of 55 such teams, with 
     at least one team established in each State and territory.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will take part of the time to respond to 
the chairman, since he did not give me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I resent the broad-scale implications about the 
``proven linkage'' between Saddam Hussein. They have been able to put 
Saddam Hussein in the same sentence with al Qaeda; but the CIA, DIA and 
others have not been able to find or prove a single link, except for 
the group that he did not control up in the northern part of the 
country behind the Kurds, who have now been eradicated.
  But there are proven links to the Saudis, there are proven links to 
the Pakistani intelligence service, there are proven links to others 
who in fact will receive assistance under this bill.
  That aside, and we will not get back into that debate again here 
tonight, but I believe the gentleman mischaracterizes my amendment. 
This was raised in light of Secretary Rumsfeld threatening to take 
action against Syria. We have heard that ``real men go to Tehran'' and 
other things from this administration. I am concerned what adventures 
they might have in mind in terms of further preemptive wars.
  I was trying to make the statement that before we fight any more 
preemptive wars, that we would live up to our authority under article 
1, section 8, which we failed, and we failed the troops and the 
American people in the Congress in the matter of this current action, 
although it was authorized under other auspices by this Congress.
  My other amendment is really simple. I know it will be opposed, but 
here it is.
  This Congress authorized that we would make the American people safe 
by setting up National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support 
teams in every State of the United States and the territories. Guess 
what, we have not delivered on that. We do not have enough money. We 
have been told there are budget constraints. We cannot afford a 
National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support team in 17 
States, including my own and that of the ranking member of the 
committee and a number of other States. We cannot afford it; yet we can 
send $1 billion unsolicited to Turkey.
  As I said earlier on the floor tonight, the ambassador of Turkey said 
these funds were not solicited; they were a unilateral action on the 
part of the United States of America; essentially a gift or bribe, 
however we want to characterize it.
  Would the American people not be better served by just reducing that 
by 20 percent? So 20 percent of the $1 billion that we are going to 
borrow and send to Turkey would be spent here in the United States of 
America for the National Guard to prevent destruction by weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Now, I know we are going to hear, this would be an insult to the 
Turks and others. But is it not an insult to the American people that 
we are not making them as safe as we could? If Members want to talk 
about patriotism, damn it, protect our people here at home. If Members 
want to cast aspersions on me, I want this money to be spent in the 
United States of America. They want to send it to Turkey, plain and 
simple.
  We are going to vote up or down on this. It is real simple. They will 
get up and say, oh, the Turks, the Turks. We either fund under the law 
what we said we would or what we were mandated to do, which we say we 
do not have the money to do, or we do not. This is the simple way to do 
it. The Turks would still get $800 million that they did not ask for.


                Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that 
they are to refrain from the use of profanity on the House floor.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been through this debate earlier today. We had 
a definitive vote on the issue of whether or not we should eliminate 
these funds for Turkey.
  The case, I think, was made very effectively here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives about the importance of Turkey in this fight 
against Iraq, in this fight to protect our soldiers who are operating 
in northern Iraq.
  One of the points I did not get to make today, however, is about the 
fragility of the Turkish economy. It is very fragile. They have been 
battered for years by the oil sanctions. They have been battered by the 
costs of the number of refugees who have come in from Iraq into Turkey. 
They have been battered by the loss of tourism. They have been battered 
by the world recession. This is a country that has a huge amount, over 
$75 billion of public debt.
  There is no one that thinks that this $8 billion of loan guarantees 
that the funds we are talking about would buy for them can save them on 
its own; but it can buy them time until we can get past this conflict, 
until we can begin to make the economic reforms with the new government 
in that country, until we can get an agreement with the IMF and with 
the World Bank, until we can restructure some of those loans that they 
have.
  But that cannot happen, Mr. Chairman, unless we have these funds made 
available to Turkey. Taking 20 percent of it out means at least a 
reduction of $2 billion in those loan guarantees. This is important 
money. It is important for the security of our troops who are operating 
in northern Iraq, it is important for the resupply of them, it is 
important for the supply of the humanitarian assistance going into 
northern Iraq, and it is important to maintain

[[Page H2788]]

the coalition that we find so important in fighting this struggle.
  I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment as soundly as 
they defeated the previous amendment. We ought not to be reducing this 
money that is very important to maintaining our relationship with 
Turkey and maintaining Turkey's involvement in the war against 
terrorism and the war against Iraq.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply point out to the House that 
there are still, as near as I can count, 14 amendments remaining. If we 
are going to debate 14 amendments, Members can calculate for themselves 
how long we will be here.
  That is all I have to say.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rothman

  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rothman:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . The Transportation Security Administration shall 
     place into effect flight restrictions, substantially similar 
     to those applicable to the Washington, DC, area, that 
     prohibit general aviation aircraft within a 15 mile radius of 
     the City of New York, New York.

  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, under current Transportation Security 
Administration restrictions, no general aviation aircraft can fly 
within 15 miles of the Washington Monument. So why, then, does New York 
City, the other target of the worst terrorist attack in the history of 
the United States, not have the very same safeguard being provided to 
it by the Transportation Security Administration against general 
aviation aircraft within 15 miles of New York City?
  Before I continue, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I am 
not talking about commercial aircraft, the 737s, 767s, and so forth 
that so many Americans depend on each day for travel into our Nation's 
major airports. What I am talking about are the smaller private 
aircraft that primarily operate out of smaller, general aviation 
airports such as Teterboro Airport in my congressional district in New 
Jersey. Those airports do not have the same Transportation Security 
Administration security procedures that the major airports have.
  While these general aviation aircraft by themselves, because of their 
size, may not seem to be able to inflict a great deal of damage even if 
they were diverted into a building, if they were filled with chemical 
or biological agents they could potentially cause a tragedy greater 
than the one we had on September 11.
  The restrictions that I am calling for, which would be the same 
restrictions that are now in place for Washington, D.C., would keep 
general aviation aircraft from flying within 15 miles of New York City, 
the other major target of al Qaeda. That would mean that no general 
aviation aircraft would be able to fly over Times Square, fly over the 
Empire State Building, over Giants Stadium in New Jersey, or over the 
Continental Arena.
  There would be exemptions provided, and if one was provided to a 
general aviation aircraft, that aircraft, and by the way, these 
exemptions are available here in Washington, D.C., it simply requires 
those general aviation aircraft first to fly into what is called a 
gateway airport outside of the 15-mile restricted zone. There, the 
plane, pilot, passengers, and luggage would be inspected by 
Transportation Security Administration officials before these general 
aviation aircraft would be allowed to continue on to Teterboro or these 
other airports within 15 miles of Manhattan, such as JFK or LaGuardia. 
Again, these same restrictions are now in place for Washington, D.C., 
but not New York City.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support my 
call for Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and the Bush 
administration to immediately put into effect these new restrictions 
and protect the people of the New York metropolitan area, just as they 
have chosen to protect the people of Washington, D.C.
  Government's number one responsibility is to protect the people. 
Security is the reason why general aviation aircraft are restricted in 
coming into airports within 15 miles of Washington, D.C. My amendment 
would seek the same restriction for general aviation aircraft which 
would seek to fly in without first being inspected outside the 15-mile 
zone flying into New York City.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Chair will rule that this amendment 
is not in order to be voted on tonight, so I will, for this evening, be 
withdrawing my amendment. But let it be clear, Mr. Chairman, I will 
continue to press my case and to press for the Transportation Security 
Administration and the Bush administration and the Department of 
Transportation to protect the people of the New York metropolitan area 
by enacting the same restrictions that they have deemed necessary over 
Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  1930


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute 
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
  The amendment imposes additional duties and I ask for a ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ROTHMAN. As the Chair and my distinguished chairman may have 
heard earlier that I have withdrawn my amendment on the basis that the 
gentleman may very well be correct on that point of order, and I simply 
wanted to restate my intention to pursue this issue notwithstanding its 
order this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey withdraws his amendment.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
       In section 2011 of title II, after the aggregate dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $64,000,000)''.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, thousands of our Nation's troops woke up 
today with the express task of defending our country against Saddam 
Hussein's reign of terror in order to protect the safety and freedom of 
his people, neighboring countries and other nations like ours across 
the globe.
  Our Nation's founders tasked Congress with the authority and power to 
wage war and the responsibility to fund these efforts. The bill before 
us today appropriates additional money to fund the work of our men and 
women fighting in this war. This bill provides critical dollars for 
efforts to protect and defend the homeland security of the United 
States. It provides vital resources to first responders, law 
enforcement officials, and public health workers across the Nation who 
have developed safety plans to counter the increased national threat 
posed by terrorism.
  The President asked that we keep this a clean bill. Unfortunately 
this emergency wartime supplemental appropriations bill also seeks to 
fund an extraneous program entirely unrelated to national defense, 
homeland security or counterterrorism efforts. Included in this 
supplemental is a $64 million deficiency appropriation for the 
Corporation for National and Community Service in order to make the 
corporation's AmeriCorps trust fund solvent.

[[Page H2789]]

  The $64 million shortfall was incurred because of poor tracking 
procedures at the corporation and a recent decision by the Office of 
Management and Budget to change the way the corporation has been 
determining the amounts of funds available in the National Service 
Trust.
  The funding was put into the defense supplemental at the 11th hour 
without the knowledge of the Speaker, the majority leader, the majority 
whip or the authorizing committee. I chair the subcommittee which has 
responsibility for oversight for the corporation. It said that this $64 
million, if not appropriated in this supplemental, kids in the 
AmeriCorps program will suffer. We had an oversight hearing this week. 
That is not what the chairman of the Corporation for National Community 
Service told us this week. He said they have plenty of time to work 
through this with the authorizing committee to explain exactly what the 
accounting problems are, what the accounting issues have been, and most 
importantly, what they will put in place to make sure that this does 
not happen again. It is time for us to continue holding the corporation 
accountable for its performance.
  I am pleased that they have now had a couple of years of clean 
audits. That is significant progress after the mismanagement of the 
corporation through much of the 1990s. But this latest example of where 
what the corporation is trying to do in managing its dollars and 
managing the resources and the commitments that it makes to young 
people across the Nation reinforces the need that the corporation needs 
oversight and that it has to get its books in order.
  We have the time to make sure that we fully understand what is 
happening here and how the corporation intends to fix it. We do not at 
this point in time have to allocate $64 million to the trust fund on 
this supplemental bill.
  The President wanted a clean bill. He said, let us focus on national 
security. Let us focus on the war. And let us focus on homeland 
security. That is what the President came to Congress with. That is 
what he said. This is not the bill. It gives $64 million. They may need 
it, but they have testified that they can get this money sometime in 
the future and make sure that they do not deprive any of our young 
people of the grant and the scholarships that they have earned through 
the AmeriCorps program.
  We are working through a reauthorizations process. We want to get 
this program reauthorized. We want to reform it. This is one of the 
elements that should be part of a reform package and should not be 
dealt with in this supplemental package. Let us make sure that we do it 
right. Let us make sure that the corporation does it right before we 
give them $64 million through this supplemental. In the past they have 
shown that they have not been able to manage the corporation well. They 
have made improvements, but before we at the 11th hour sneak something 
into a supplemental bill, before we give them $64 million dollars, let 
us make sure that they get it right. Let us make sure that they are 
managing this agency in the way that we expect our dollars to be 
allocated.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and vote for this money 
when we determine that this is absolutely essential.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I chair the subcommittee on appropriations with 
responsibility for the Corporation for National Service and AmeriCorps, 
and for that reason this appropriations issue is within our 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  The gentleman who just spoke is the authorizing subcommittee chair, 
and so he has the authorizing jurisdiction. This is clearly an 
appropriations issue, not an authorization issue. And I just wanted to 
try to explain exactly what has happened.
  The gentleman said that this is being done in the dark of the night, 
that the Speaker did not know, the majority did not know, the whip did 
not know. Well, that is just not the case.
  I have a letter here on White House stationery, signed by the 
President of the United States. The letter was dated March 4 and it is 
to the Speaker. So the Speaker has had this about a month now. And the 
letter says:

       ``Dear Mr. Speaker, I ask the Congress to consider the 
     enclosed request for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service. The request is needed to liquidate 
     legitimate prior year obligations for eligible participants 
     in the AmeriCorps program, to complete the implementation of 
     a comprehensive corrective action plan developed by CNCS to 
     strengthen financial management, and to provide flexibility 
     to support more than 50,000 AmeriCorps members in fiscal year 
     2003. This request will not increase fiscal year 2004 
     requests. The details of this request are set forth in the 
     enclosed letter from the director of OMB.'' Which I also 
     have.

  Now, I understand the gentleman's frustration with this department. I 
have it also. I share responsibility with him, but that is no reason to 
deny the President's request. The President specifically asked that we 
move on this, and that is what I have done. These funds are set aside, 
are funds that are provided in a trust fund to these young people who 
volunteer to give their time to their community, to their country, and 
then they benefit from it at the end by receiving these funds. It is a 
stipend for their education. It is a wonderful program, full of 
idealism and altruism.
  And imagine if you completed your service and realized that the 
commitment that was made to you to provide these stipends was not 
there. All that altruism, all that idealism, I think would turn pretty 
sour pretty fast.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying I respect the gentleman. I 
respect his thoughts on this. We work together very closely on this, 
but this is a direct request by the President of the United States and 
we are responding to that. So I would urge a no vote on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and myself as the opponent.
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I know that 
there are a number of people on this side of the aisle who want to 
participate in debate on this amendment. So I would ask whether the 
time arrangements could be adjusted so we would be guaranteed some time 
on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is opposed, 
correct?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half 
of my time be delegated to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will 
be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing forward this 
amendment. For myself I am not sure this is a proper way to spend 
AmeriCorps funding, but certainly it is not the proper place as part of 
this bill. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) correctly 
pointed out, for moving forward we need to have a vehicle where you can 
actually reform, where you can actually make changes, where you can 
actually do good things moving ahead. You cannot do that as part of the 
supplemental. Just like it was with the airline money. You cannot 
reform. You cannot do what you need to do as part of an emergency war 
supplemental.
  What kind of message are we sending to our constituents and taxpayers 
across the country when we say that AmeriCorps funding, $64 million, 
needs to be part of a war supplemental? That just breeds the cynicism 
that it ought to. We should not be doing this. The amendment is 
justified. I would urge support of it and I thank the gentleman for 
bringing it forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, if you follow the logic of the last speaker, what you 
are saying is that we should provide in this bill $3.25 billion to the 
airline industry,

[[Page H2790]]

which we do not owe, but that we should not provide the funds in the 
bill to reimburse the volunteers for services, for which we do owe. I 
find that that makes no sense whatsoever.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is absolutely right. This is 
an obligation which government has. We should not blame the recipients, 
we should not blame the participants in this program for the screw-ups 
of the agency on their bookkeeping balances.
  The fact is that this is totally defensible at a time when we are 
trying to encourage volunteerism, at a time when we are trying to 
encourage a sense of self-sacrifice. It would be a strange message 
indeed to say that we are not going to meet our obligations to the 
volunteers under this program.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I have heard my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra), object to the inclusion of $64 million for the Corporation 
for National Service in a wartime supplemental appropriations bill.
  I take the opposite view. I think including this funding in this bill 
is entirely appropriate precisely because we are at war against 
terrorism, and national service is a vital part of winning that war. 
National service is the right prescription during these times because 
the best antidotes to terror and hate in society are acts of kindness 
and service. For instance, just last week, the U.S.A. Freedom Corps 
launched a new resource for people seeking to support our troops, their 
families, and their communities called ``On The Home Front.''
  The point of the program is that while hundreds of thousands of men 
and women from all over America are serving in the Armed Forces and 
away from home, those on the home front can make a difference too. 
Partnering with the Department of Defense, the U.S.A. Freedoms Corps is 
offering resources to Americans who want to express their support for 
members of the military and helping their families in a meaningful way.

                              {time}  1945

  As a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the 
most productive and cost-effective investments our government can make. 
Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to 
their community and their country which will provide value for the rest 
of their lives.
  National service benefits both the recipient and the giver. 
Volunteers not only address an immediate need; they lead and teach 
through example, and through that example, they learn the value of 
serving and helping others. We need to harness the energy and 
commitment of those anxious to contribute to their country. We should 
not only defeat this amendment, but we should finally pass the Citizen 
Service Act.
  Let me just say, as a former Peace Corps volunteer, we were paid a 
minimum wage so we could live, and we were given a small stipend. I 
have failed to understand, as long as I have been a part of this party, 
why we would object to people earning a degree, an opportunity to go to 
school, instead of just being given a grant. I do not understand why we 
would not be eager and thrilled to have more people participate in 
national service.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond 
to my colleague from Connecticut.
  As he well knows, this $64 million appropriation has nothing to do 
with enlisting people for this year to be a part of national service. 
That is a distortion of where this $64 million is going.
  This $64 million is going for mismanagement of the trust fund and 
accounting changes that have not been fully examined by the authorizing 
committees to determine whether the problems have been fixed. My 
colleague knows very well that I support the reauthorization of the 
corporation, and we are working together on the reforms that need to be 
put in place so that we can be proud of the organization and the 
promise that they make to our young people.
  This is to fix abuses within the program that have occurred, and this 
is not saying no to community service. This is saying a big yes to 
community service, but let us make sure that we do it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoekstra 
amendment striking the provision that provides the Federal AmeriCorps 
program with $64 million in funding. I have been a strong advocate for 
keeping this legislation clean, preventing the addition of costly, 
extraneous or unrelated spending.
  The supplemental funding bill was meant to support our troops. It was 
meant to ensure that the men and women in uniform, like those from Fort 
Campbell in my home district, have every bit of support they need.
  Funding for AmeriCorps simply does not belong in the legislation by 
any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, there is a long history of 
financial mismanagement at the Corporation for National and Community 
Services, which includes the AmeriCorps program. The corporation has 
not been able to account for expenditures in recent years. It has had 
repeated difficulties with audits and a troubling tradition of not 
matching its funding commitments against the moneys appropriated by 
Congress. The AmeriCorps program has attempted to clean up its act, but 
the problem still persists.
  AmeriCorps does not merit additional funding of $64 million at a time 
when we are asking agencies to make across-the-board spending 
reductions. This supplemental package should not be a funding rescue 
for AmeriCorps.
  The supplemental was intended to provide for our men and women in 
uniform, to give them the equipment and supplies they need to bring 
freedom and democracy to Iraq. Let us keep this legislation focused on 
the troops.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan's (Mr. Hoekstra), amendment today because it cuts 
national service and breaks promises to thousands of American men and 
women who voluntarily choose to serve their country and communities.
  I agree that we must hold the national service corporation 
accountable for any improper accounting or tracking procedures that 
they have engaged in. However, we should not punish thousands of 
innocent Americans who seek to serve their country and communities. 
They are responding to the President's call asking for volunteers to 
serve their country.
  The Hoekstra amendment would slash funds to national service just as 
a record number of Americans are engaging in community and public 
service opportunities. The Hoekstra amendment would eliminate funds for 
AmeriCorps education awards. Upon completion of their service term, 
AmeriCorps members earn an education award.
  The Hoekstra amendment breaks a promise made to thousands of 
AmeriCorps members who proudly chose to serve their country. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Hoekstra amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong opposition to the 
Hoekstra amendment. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my 
colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  This amendment does, in fact, do great damage to those who have 
already earned their educational stipend. As my colleagues have pointed 
out, these individuals that have joined the Freedom Corps have joined 
AmeriCorps for the purposes of rendering service to our country and a 
bargain that we struck at the end of that service, a stipend that would 
be available.
  Yes, it is true that apparently there has been some mismanagement in 
this program, but this administration has made this request for two 
reasons: one, they say to clean up and deal with the problems that have 
been discovered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and 
others; and the other is to pay the commitments that they already have.

[[Page H2791]]

  These people have rendered their service. The stipend is due, and we 
ought not to break that faith because what we want to do is we have 
seen after 9-11 more and more people have offered to participate in the 
Freedom Corps, more and more people have offered to participate in 
service to the country; and for many of these individuals, that 
educational stipend is terribly important. It is now put on the footing 
that maybe a person got the stipend, maybe they do not. We are going to 
damage the reputation of this corps.
  As my colleagues have pointed out, any of my colleagues who have 
visited these programs, these are rather remarkable young people from 
very different walks of life, from a cross section of our community; 
but for whatever reasons, they decide they are going to make this 
commitment of service and they do it to the elderly. They do it in 
education. They do it in public safety. They do it in health care. They 
do it in so many areas where our communities are in need.
  Then when we meet them later in life, like so many of our Peace Corps 
volunteers, they have a little bit different cut to their jib, little 
bit different style because they have rendered that service and the 
pride that they carry with them of the time they spent with their 
colleagues in national service.
  We ought to be encouraging this, and it would be a terrible, a 
terrible comment if we accept this amendment to simply take this money 
out and an amount of money at the time the administration is telling 
the Congress that we are trying to deal with those problems, but we are 
also trying to honor our pledges to these young people who have joined 
national service.
  We have had debates in this Congress time and again about expanding 
national service, about having mandatory national service, having an 
alternative to the draft or to military service; and people on both 
sides of the aisle have recognized the value that is rendered by the 
people who engage in this service.
  Yes, it is expensive; but we have constantly thought about how do we 
expand this so people invest in America. So they invest in their 
communities. So they invest in service to this country. This is not a 
message that we want to send. This is not a message we want to send 
after 9-11 when people are screaming to volunteer. This is not a time 
we want to send this message when people are offering, as was pointed 
out by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and others, to help 
and assist some of these families.
  Maybe it is working fine in Fort Campbell, but a lot of other 
facilities are in communities that do not have that kind of impact on 
the community; and these services are very helpful, certainly for those 
communities where the National Guard have been called up or the 
Reserves have been called up and families are away, their soldiers are 
away, and in those communities, they do not necessarily live in a 
military community, but they are rendering a service. Many of these 
people are trying to help them through these times. It is a very bad 
amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoekstra 
amendment. This Supplemental Appropriations Act is for one main 
purpose, and that is, to support the troops in this ongoing war and 
also in support of homeland security.
  This shortfall in AmeriCorps funding, which has occurred over a 
number of years, $64 million, this is something that should be taken 
care of in the appropriate manner, within the authorizing committee, 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  There are some serious questions about the management of the 
AmeriCorps trust fund, and this clearly needs to be looked at carefully 
in the regular administrative process, through the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce; and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
in support of the Hoekstra amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, whenever there are problems such as this 
$64 million shortfall, we need to have clear answers and a remedy for 
such a problem. I am definitely in support of the Hoekstra amendment 
because I do not believe that it is appropriate at this time for us to 
do this $64 million bailout when we do not have even an explanation as 
to why it exists.
  When we look at current law, it explicitly states: ``The corporation 
may not approve positions as approved national service positions for a 
fiscal year in excess of the number of such positions for which the 
corporation has sufficient available funds in the national service 
trust for that fiscal year.''
  We are looking at a critical problem here, and it should not be 
addressed in this way, in this particular legislation. This funding to 
eliminate the shortfall should only be addressed after Congress can be 
assured that the tracking failures will not be an ongoing problem.
  Again, I support the Hoekstra amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The myth has been repeated often that what we are doing tonight is 
taking money from young people who have served. That is not accurate.
  In February, we put $100 million back into the trust, and the way 
that this works is that these young people work. They then have the 
opportunity within the next 7 years to claim their educational award. 
There is plenty of money in the trust fund to take care of any awards 
that are going to be coming due in the coming months.
  The money is there. What is not there is the policies and the 
procedures within the corporation that will ensure that this does not 
happen again. It is called an antideficiency provision, where it is 
very possible that in the last year the corporation had made 
commitments for which there was not money that had been appropriated by 
this Congress.
  That is a serious issue; and before we give the corporation $64 
million, we ought to make sure that they have the proper procedures in 
place so that this does not happen, so that sometime in the future when 
young people do come to claim their education awards, that the money 
will not be there.
  We do know right now that the money will be here. We had Les 
Lenkowsky come in and testify this week in front of the authorizing 
subcommittee, and he indicated this is not an immediate problem. This 
is something that we can work through. This is something that we can 
get done right; and rather than making sure that we get it done right, 
put it in the authorizing language, put it in the reauthorization, 
because I am expecting that there is going to be a significant 
bipartisan majority that is going to vote to reauthorize the 
corporation to make sure that we take this program, we reform it, we 
move it forward and we expand it.

                              {time}  2000

  There is no debate about whether this is a good program or not. This 
is an issue about management that says when we give an organization $64 
million, we are going to make sure that they spend it in an appropriate 
way and that this Congress has done the appropriate oversight to make 
sure that the problems that we have uncovered in the past do not repeat 
themselves in the future. That is what this is about. Are we going to 
make sure that it is done correctly or are we going to give them more 
money before they are held fully accountable for their performance in 
the past?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my friend that the President 
of the United States requested these funds be made available as soon as 
possible. Here is the letter, it is a month old, to the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives.
  The bill was circulated a week ago to all committees of jurisdiction. 
There

[[Page H2792]]

was no intent to do this in the dark of night. This was an honest 
response to an honest request from an honest President.
  To paraphrase Mitch Daniels' letter, the Director of OMB, the $64 
million requested is to liquidate legitimate prior-year obligations for 
eligible participants in the AmeriCorps program and to address this 
longstanding problem.
  Mr. Chairman, after 9/11, the President appealed to our better 
instincts. He called on volunteerism across the country. This is the 
vehicle. It is the best vehicle. And now he has asked us to provide 
these funds to keep a promise. A promise is a promise. Support a 
wartime President who has the vision to see beyond the war. Vote ``no'' 
on the Hoekstra amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoekstra 
amendment to strike a non-emergency provision in this bill that 
provides $64 million in new funding for the Corporation for National 
Community Service.
  Last month, the Administration requested $64 million in new funds for 
the Corporation to ``liquidate obligations incurred in previous years'' 
in the National Service Trust.
  The Administration requested these new funds to make up for a 
shortfall that was incurred because of poor tracking procedures at the 
Corporation with regard to AmeriCorps participants and a recent 
decision by the Office of Management and Budget to change the way the 
Corporation has been determining the amount of funds available in the 
National Service Trust.
  The purpose of the Administration's request is to ``complete the 
implementation of a comprehensive corrective action plan developed by 
CNCS to strengthen financial management of the Trust, change reporting 
procedures, and restore [National Service Trust] fund balances.''
  While I will continue to work with President Bush and Mr. Hoekstra to 
reach agreement on a bill to reauthorize our national service laws--
this is not the right time or place to address Corporation financial 
difficulties.
  Mr. Hoekstra is currently working on this very issue in his 
Subcommittee. In fact, he held a hearing this week on ``Performance, 
Accountability, and Reforms at the Corporation for National and 
Community Service.'' There was significant discussion on this $64 
million shortfall.
  I am concerned about adding money to the National Service Trust at 
this time because, we can't exactly figure out why there is a $64 
million shortfall in the Trust, especially considering the language in 
section 129(f) of current law. Section 129(f) explicitly states that 
``the Corporation may not approve positions as approved national 
service positions . . . for a fiscal year in excess of the number of 
such positions for which the Corporation has sufficient available funds 
in the National Service Trust for that fiscal year . . .''
  In addition, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has been 
examining this issue and this provision was added to the supplemental 
without prior consultation with our Committee.
  Accordingly, I believe that funding to eliminate the shortfall should 
be addressed after Mr. Hoekstra and other Members on our Committee have 
had time to make sure that these financial problems do not continue at 
the Corporation. This is a specific issue that will be examined during 
reauthorization and I ask my Colleagues to let the Committee do its 
work and to support the Hoekstra amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the House, only the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member may move to 
strike the last word for the purpose of debate, or their designees.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of 
order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I could not hear the unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. STUPAK. To proceed out of order. According to the ruling of the 
Chair, only yourself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can 
move to strike the last word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Maybe the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
would move to strike the last word.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am told that I am asking permission to 
strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for getting us over 
that procedural hurdle, and I will not take the entire 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment tonight on health 
care, but I decided not to because I am sure it will be ruled out of 
order under the process we are provided with here tonight. But I wanted 
to make this point here on the floor tonight.
  There is a provision in the supplemental that just sort of baffles 
me. What the Republicans are proposing is that we provide universal 
health care coverage for the Iraqi people. This Republican supplemental 
proposes, and I quote, ``to facilitate rapid universal health care 
service delivery to the Iraqi population.''
  I must ask why are they willing to do this when they have staunchly 
opposed universal coverage for the American people for years now? I 
understand that special provisions need to be included to care for the 
Iraqi citizens injured in war. But if we are going to provide universal 
health care to the Iraqi population, we should do the same for our 
people here at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the rest of my statement, along with my 
proposed amendment, for the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, the 41.2 million Americans who lack coverage should not 
have to suffer from lack of quality health care any longer. And our 
heroic soldiers, who will soon become veterans, should not be denied 
future health care.
  The GOP Budget Resolution, that we passed 2 weeks ago, will deny and 
increase the cost of VA care. In my home state of Michigan, 25,000 
veterans will be adversely affected and 5,000 of these veterans reside 
in my district.
  Instead of honoring their commitment to our soldiers, the Republicans 
are proposing universal health coverage for Iraq?
  Maybe now they will finally stop blocking Democratic attempts to 
cover the 41.2 million Americans who go without health insurance, and 
maybe now they will join in our other efforts on the health care front, 
such as providing American seniors access to a true prescription drug 
benefit through Medicare.

                  Amendment to H.R. 1559, as Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Stupak of Michigan

       Page 59, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 3002. None of the funds made available under chapter 4 
     of title I of this Act may be used for the provision of 
     universal health care to the Iraqi people beyond those 
     amounts needed to cover related physical injury to the Iraqi 
     people resulting from the war in Iraq and other diseases or 
     injuries caused by public health conditions resulting from 
     the war in Iraq.

  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments and would simply say this. I share 
the wonder that we can be in the process of planning to provide 
universal health care in Iraq and provide a lot of education 
reconstruction as well.
  I guess my view of it is this. If we are going to be bombing the 
devil out of a country, I suspect that we have a considerable moral 
obligation to the population afterwards to help repair the damage and 
to help repair the human misery. So I do not begrudge what we will be 
trying to do for the people of Iraq after this miserable war.
  What I do hope, however, is that we will be able to reduce and 
perhaps eliminate future tax cuts that are contemplated right now here 
at home so that we can in fact provide universal health care for the 
people at home; so that we can in fact provide some school construction 
in our own districts; and so that we can in fact modernize hospitals in 
our own country. I think that is the proper way to do it, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I will ask that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, be yielded to.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2793]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. I thank both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and I am pleased to engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young).
  First of all, I want to thank both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the Committee 
on Appropriations for bringing this supplemental appropriations measure 
to the floor. As my colleagues know, I was going to offer an amendment 
that would have provided $30 million for research, development, and the 
initial deployment of technology to protect our commercial aircraft 
from the threat posed by shoulder-fired missiles.
  A terrorist attempting to attack a commercial aircraft is most likely 
to use a small portable surface-to-air missile. Unfortunately, there 
are thousands of these weapons worldwide that are available and 
obtainable on the black market. At least some 27 nonstate groups have 
these weapons. But there is military technology to defend against this 
particular potential threat, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Israel) can elaborate on this issue.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for recognizing the 
threat and their leadership in addressing this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, time is of the essence. Thirty terrorist organizations, 
including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, are already believed to 
own such missiles, and some say it is only a matter of time before they 
are filtered into the United States. They have the weapons and we have 
the technology to protect against those weapons.
  The threat is real, but so is the defense. It is operational on U.S. 
and British military transports. Technology that the U.S. military uses 
to protect transports from missile attacks could be quickly and easily 
adapted for our own commercial air fleet. All Americans deserve that 
defense.
  I had intended to offer an amendment on this issue, but in view of 
the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) on this, I will withdraw it.
  Mr. Chairman, let me once again thank these gentlemen for their 
leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with them in 
the future.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
believe it is absolutely critical that Congress understand the threat 
of shoulder-fired missiles and respond now accordingly. Therefore, the 
focus of my amendment was to reduce the cost and use existing military 
technology and adapt that technology to the commercial aviation 
environment.
  I have, however, decided not to offer the amendment tonight because I 
understand this issue will be addressed in conference, and it is also 
my understanding that the gentleman from Kentucky has agreed to support 
language in the conference report that would require the Transportation 
Security Administration to report to Congress within 30 days and that 
report will specify the financial and technical requirements of 
reducing the costs and also adapting existing military missile defense 
technology for deployment on our commercial aircraft.
  I just want to thank again the gentleman from Kentucky and would ask 
the gentleman from Kentucky whether this is his understanding as well.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Florida 
will continue to yield, I would respond that the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the chairman both of the full committee and of the 
subcommittee.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Allen

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allen:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new sections:

     SEC. ____. FULL FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       There is appropriated an additional $9,500,000,000 for 
     programs under section 611 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411).

     SEC. ____. FULL FUNDING FOR THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 
                   2001.

       There is appropriated an additional $5,165,000,000 for 
     programs authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
     (Public Law 107-110).

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental bill provides emergency 
funds for the war in Iraq, but right here at home, our States and our 
school systems are facing an emergency as well. I understand that the 
amendment that I have offered can be ruled out of order and I will 
withdraw it, but I am here because I cannot find another way to make 
the point that I am trying to make.
  Our school systems in Maine are struggling and our school 
administrators and school board members do not know what to do because 
the Federal Government is not fully funding the special education law 
that was passed in 1976 and we are not fully funding the No Child Left 
Behind Act, so all of these school systems, all of these people are 
basically faced with laying off teachers or raising property taxes. 
What is going to happen is some combination of the both of them.
  So tonight we stand here trying to figure out how to pay for a war in 
Iraq that we have to pay for, we have to support our troops, but we 
have these emergencies here at home that we are completely neglecting. 
I wish there was some way for me to bring this issue up on the floor at 
one time and say on the one hand the Republicans in this Congress are 
proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the richest 
people in the country and on the other hand not adequately funding our 
schools. That is the priority.
  I know that I cannot bring an amendment before this body and say 
reduce the tax cut by $9.5 billion this year and actually fully fund 
special education. We could do that. It is a piece of cake, if you do 
both at once. It would take $5 billion. Reduce the tax cut and you 
could fully fund the obligations that we are imposing on States through 
the No Child Left Behind. Again, it is simple math. It could be done. 
But the truth is we are barred from doing that. We cannot make that 
happen.
  I came here tonight to say that is what we ought to be doing. That is 
what we ought to be doing with legislation like this in some form so we 
could deal with our expenditures and our revenues at the same time, the 
way people deal with their personal budgets and the way businesses deal 
with their budgets: look at the revenues, look at the expenditures and 
make them come out roughly balanced. We can do that. We can support 
education. But not without reducing the President's tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 7.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Waters:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


requirement that united states urge the inter-american development bank 
                       to resume lending to haiti

       Sec. ____. The Secretary of the Treasury shall direct the 
     United States Executive Director at the Inter-American 
     Development Bank to use the voice, vote, and influence of the 
     United States to urge the Inter-American Development Bank to 
     immediately resume lending to Haiti, and disburse all loans 
     to Haiti that have been approved by the Inter-American 
     Development Bank.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide development 
assistance loans to Haiti. The amendment would require the United 
States to use its voice, vote, and influence to urge the Inter-American 
Development Bank to immediately resume lending to Haiti and disburse 
all previously approved loans.
  There is no money being requested in this amendment. It is simply 
language. The Inter-American Development Bank is denying Haiti any 
access to loans for development assistance. Haiti has already had 
$145.9 million in development

[[Page H2794]]

loans approved by the IDB. These loans include $50 million for rural 
road development, $22.5 million for reorganization of the health 
sector, $54 million for potable water and sanitation, and $19.4 million 
for basic education programs.
  Haiti could also qualify for an additional $317 million in new loans 
for development projects as well as a $50 million investment sector 
loan. However, the IDB is refusing to consider Haiti for any additional 
loans and has not even disbursed the loans that have been approved. The 
IDB effectively is denying Haiti access to critical development 
assistance.
  This bill contains $1.7 billion to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. The 
bill provides funds for health care services for 13 million Iraqis and 
finances repair or construction of 25,000 schools, 20,000 houses, and 
3,000 miles of roads in Iraq. This bill also contains $105 million for 
Colombia, $300 million for reconstruction in Afghanistan, and $1 
billion each for Israel, Jordan and Turkey.
  Furthermore, the bill contains $85 million for the Eastern European 
countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Bulgaria.

                              {time}  2015

  The bill even includes funds for the Centers for Disease Control and 
assistance to America's airline industry. The Haiti amendment will not 
increase the cost of this bill to the American taxpayers; it will 
simply instruct the IDB to resume normal lending to Haiti and disburse 
the loans that have already been approved.
  Haiti is one of the most impoverished nations in the western 
hemisphere. It is more impoverished than Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and 
most of Eastern Europe. The Haiti amendment would allow Haiti to build 
roads and infrastructure and provide basic education and health care 
services to the Haitian people. Haiti deserves to be included in this 
bill.
  It may be ruled out of order, and the Members on the other side of 
the aisle are not even listening. Haiti is not important. It is just 
another little black country in this western hemisphere. The members of 
the Congressional Black Caucus have done everything. We have pleaded. 
We are watching people starve and die right next door to us.
  This Congress does not give a darn about Haiti. It would be very 
simple to waive the rules and include the language in this bill. It 
does not cost a dime. That would say to IDB just move the money that 
has already been approved. It may not be done, but it is wrong and it 
is immoral for us to sit and watch the children dying, the 
infrastructure in total disrepair, and to do nothing even though the 
loans have already been approved to Haiti for the past 5 or 6 years. It 
can be ruled out of order, but I will not go away on this issue; and 
this Congress ought to be ashamed of itself.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rules state in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) wish 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the point of order deals with the question of a waiver 
on this particular amendment, and I would just say that in the context 
of the emergency supplemental, we waived the issue of legislating on 
the appropriations because we said it was a crisis. And in waiving 
that, we allowed $700 million for Jordan, $300 million for Egypt, and 
$1 billion for Turkey, which I just voted on, and the reason is I 
believe we are in a crisis.
  The point we would make in waiving it for Haiti is that Haiti 
represents a loophole in defense, if you will. They represent a 
potential loophole for terrorism, and not that they are housing 
terrorists, but if you have a country that is near collapse and there 
is no appropriating of monies here, clearly I believe this should be 
considered a crisis and be subjected to a waiver because as we help 
Turkey and Egypt, so should we help Haiti because it provides for the 
security of this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain further arguments from the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the point of order.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I think the point 
was well made earlier today when our ranking member talked about the 
way we have been treated; and while the chairman and the majority party 
have waived points of order, have waived the rules so that they could 
have their amendments so they could do whatever it is they want to do 
on this bill, they basically closed us out.
  Then of course the point that was made by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) that they have waived the rules when they have wanted 
to, are points that are well made. On the point of order, while it 
could be considered legislating on an appropriation, it is not that it 
has not been done, it is not that it will cost any money, it is not 
that it will cost anything except the will of this body to say to the 
IDB, go ahead and disburse the money that has already been 
appropriated. It is not too much to ask of the other side of the aisle. 
On the point of order, I believe if the chairman was of the mind to do 
so, he could do so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  As the Chair noted earlier today, the fact that points of order under 
clause 2 of rule XXI were waived against provisions in the bill does 
not under the precedents permit amendments adding further legislation.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Waters:
       At the end of title ____, insert the following new item:

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development

                       community development fund

       For an additional amount for the ``Community Development 
     Fund'' for assistance to States and units of general local 
     government for carrying out a variety of development and 
     renewal projects, $5,000,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such funds may be used only for 
     urban and rural development and renewal projects that are 
     designed to provide resources to urban and rural communities, 
     to create jobs and economic opportunities, and to facilitate 
     community growth, including projects for housing 
     rehabilitation and construction, construction and development 
     of health clinics, water projects, and transportation 
     systems, acquisition and demolition of dilapidated buildings, 
     and urban reconstruction and environmental cleanup: Provided 
     further, That in administering such funds, the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development may waive, or specify 
     alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or 
     regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with 
     the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient 
     of such funds (except for requirements related to fair 
     housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 
     environment), upon a finding that such waiver is required to 
     facilitate the use of such funds: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may request the head of any appropriate agency to 
     administer the use of the funds for any project, in lieu of 
     or in conjunction with the Secretary, if the Secretary 
     determines that such agency has more appropriate experience 
     and expertise with respect to such project: Provided further, 
     That such funds shall not adversely affect the amount of any 
     formula assistance received by any State or unit general 
     local government or any categorical application for other 
     Federal assistance: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of any 
     statute or regulation that the Secretary administers pursuant 
     to title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974, as amended, no later than 5 days before the effective 
     date of such waiver: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations on the proposed 
     allocation of any funds and any related waivers pursuant to 
     this section no later than 5 days before such allocation: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

[[Page H2795]]

                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rules state in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment imposes additional duties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) wish 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. WATERS. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would insist on the comments 
being directed to the point of order rather than to the issue.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida can insist on 
whatever he wants to insist on; I choose to speak on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) on the point of order.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is exercising his right to 
make this point of order. He has not been doing it this way all 
evening. I would dare say that he has indeed waived the rules when he 
found it convenient to do so. This would not be a precedent this 
evening.
  This particular amendment that I am addressing would simply point out 
all of the funding that is being done in this supplemental 
appropriation, and it would raise the question of why if we are 
building schools and providing universal health care, if we are doing 
it in Afghanistan and Iraq, doing it in other countries that are not 
even associated with the war, why not do it right here at home in 
America?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Waters:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.____. (a) Limiting Conflicts of Interest.--If an 
     officer described in subsection (b) was, at any time during 
     the covered period, a member of the board of directors of a 
     company or a senior management official of a company, such 
     officer may not--
       (1) be present at, or participate in any way in, any 
     negotiation of a contract for the procurement of goods or 
     services by the Federal Government with such company or any 
     exercise of authority in connection with an existing contract 
     with such company (other than to delegate authority to 
     another officer); and
       (2) otherwise directly or indirectly communicate with such 
     company, or any officer or employee of such company, during 
     the period any such negotiation is in progress or the 
     exercise of authority is being considered.
       (b) Designated Officers.--The following officers are 
     described in this subsection for purposes of subsection (a): 
     the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, 
     the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the 
     Senior Advisor to the President, the Director of Central 
     Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development.
       (c) Covered Period.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     term ``covered period'' means the 4-year period preceding the 
     beginning of a negotiation of a contract or the exercise of 
     authority in connection with an existing contract.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an entitled amendment 
that would eliminate conflicts of interest, and would ensure that 
senior level executives in the administration could not use the 
conflict with Iraq to obtain financial benefits for companies with 
which they have been affiliated. Specifically, the amendment prohibits 
senior level officials in the administration from being present at or 
participating in any negotiations of contracts with companies in which 
they were senior managers or members of the board of directors within 
the last 4 years.
  There has been a considerable amount of suspicion about the motives 
of this administration in pursuing a war with Iraq. Many Americans have 
expressed concerns that our country initiated military action in order 
to secure control of Iraqi oil fields and other Iraqi resources. While 
these suspicions are based on rumors and allegations, we in Congress 
should not do anything that would contribute to doubts about the 
sincerity of our country's motives.
  Prior to the 2000 election, Vice President Dick Cheney spent 5 years 
as the chief executive of the Houston-based energy services company 
Halliburton. On March 24, 2003 Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton 
subsidiary, announced that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to put out fires and make emergency repairs in 
Iraq's oil infrastructure. Prior to the onset of hostilities, 
Halliburton was one of the several company the administration invited 
to bid on up to $900 million in contracts to rebuild roads and bridges 
and other facilities in Iraq.
  Although Halliburton declined to bid for a primary contract for 
reconstruction work in Iraq, the company's officials have indicated 
their interest and they are going to do it another way. They want to do 
it through subcontracting. Halliburton contracts and subcontracts in 
Iraq would create the appearance that the Vice President may be using 
his position to increase his former company's profit in time of war.
  My amendment would protect the individuals who are advising the 
President on matters of war and peace from conflicts of interest. It 
would also help to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest at 
a time when the administration's decisions are affecting millions of 
lives around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure this will be ruled out of order, and it may 
be embarrassing to some folks. It is a mild amendment. It does not 
prevent any company from getting a contract. It would simply take the 
person out of the room who is an adviser to the President who may be in 
the President's cabinet, who may be in a strategic position to help 
influence contracting. They would have to recuse themselves from those 
particular meetings.
  Now, if we had the will and if we were interested about our image, 
and if we were interested in allaying the allegations and the fears 
that something is going on in the back room, we would indeed adopt this 
amendment.
  I want to tell Members that there are too many people who believe 
that there are committees and advisory committees that are serving 
people in very key places and that on these committees we have folks 
who are looking for contracts who represent the defense industry. We 
have cronies and associates who are well placed.
  This amendment would go a long way in improving our image and sending 
a message to the American people that we are not divvying up the spoils 
of this war in Iraq, and it would certainly say to our young men and 
women who are fighting for what they believe is protecting the freedoms 
of American people, it would say to them that they are not fighting so 
that someone could end up with some contracts.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rules state in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment imposes additional duties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) wish 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order again, I make the 
point that the chairman has on other occasions this evening waived the 
rules, and certainly this would not be a precedent. He could do it if 
he had the will to do it. Again, I think just as on my other two 
amendments, he has failed to give an opportunity to have some very 
serious issues heard. He is doing it, again, not because there should 
not be room for this kind of amendment, but simply because in this case 
he wants to protect the administration and allow them to continue to

[[Page H2796]]

divvy up the spoils and give contracts to cronies.

                              {time}  2030

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds this 
amendment includes language imparting direction. The amendment, 
therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Rodriguez

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rodriguez:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available in chapter 4 of 
     title I for ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' by, and 
     appropriating under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
     AFFAIRS'' an additional amount for ``Veterans Health 
     Administration--Medical Care'' of, $90,000,000, of which, in 
     the case of the amount appropriated for ``Veterans Health 
     Administration--Medical Care'', $70,000,000 is for additional 
     health care, as authorized by Chapter 17 of Title 38 and Sec. 
     8111A of Title 38, and $20,000,000 is for implementation of 
     section 7325 of title 38, United States Code (relating to the 
     establishment of medical emergency preparedness centers in 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs).

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that since the 9-11 
attacks the VA has been forced to address issues and has never received 
any funding to undertake that. My amendment would allow the VA to be 
able to get additional resources that they need in order to take care 
of some of that cost and be able to respond to the time of war, also in 
part to the National Disaster Medical System.
  The VA is responsible for several roles within the Federal response 
plan. The VA is currently diverting its scarce funds from the VA 
patient care mission to fulfill this mission.
  I know that the other side would indicate that $122 million has been 
allocated, but it is coming from existing patient service. In fact, the 
VA has recently come out with a report, and on that report it basically 
indicates, and I have the figures here, that there is a real need for 
right now, just in terms of getting ready to prepare and what it costs, 
$248 million dollars, and that report was put together by the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs Principi. So I would ask that as we look at 
providing the supplemental that we not only look at our veterans but 
the fact that the VA is also responsible to taking care of the 
healthcare of our military personnel.
  There are also already some real costs involved with the war, and 
that cost has been estimated at a very conservative figure of $70 
million since 9-11. So part of the $90 million is $70 million that I am 
asking that we take and be able to provide to the VA that has a system 
of hospitals and clinics throughout this country in order to prepare.
  The other thing that I want to add is that in responding to the war, 
they have lost a number of nurses, a number of personnel, and they have 
had to be able to reach out and contract out for additional staff. So 
that cost has not been there. It is basically using existing resources 
to get prepared for the war. So this $90 million will go a long way in 
helping.
  The other $20 million that is part of that $90 million allows an 
opportunity to identify four centers throughout the country; and those 
four centers will be ready to respond in case of a major disaster.
  I also want to indicate that the VA has many areas of expertise in 
such diverse topics as biomedical research, as post-traumatic stress 
disorders, as war-related illnesses, environmental hazards and others.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his amendment.
  The VA has many programs they have put in place to address returning 
servicemembers' health care needs, to train their personnel, and to 
ensure that the VA providers and patients have access to adequate 
supplies of necessary drugs and state-of-the-art protective gear for 
decontaminated equipment.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) would 
ensure that the VA is adequately funded for these purpose; and as he 
indicated, it would allow the VA to establish four new centers of 
excellence in bioterrorism. These centers, created by legislation 
introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and me would allow the VA to draw 
from expertise that it has had in the past such as environmental 
hazards, post-traumatic stress disorder; and I understand the VA has 
lifted a bar on the provision of medical care funds for these centers, 
but they were underfunded.
  We cannot continue to erode resources for VA's medical health care 
system.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that the VA is hurting 
right now. Our veterans are reaching that age where they need our help 
and assistance. The resources are needed and would appeal to both sides 
of the aisle to take into consideration this issue. I am not going to 
ask for a vote, but I want them to seriously consider what we are doing 
with our veterans. I know I have had a chance to dialogue with you on 
this issue. We really need those preparative centers now. We need about 
$20 million to start them and get those contracts going throughout this 
country, and I ask the Committee on Appropriations to seriously 
consider that issue.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, and I do so regretfully. The gentleman has great concern for 
America's veterans, and he has always showed that concern; and he does 
so in this amendment, and I share that concern. I am also pleased that 
he has decided not to request a vote on this.
  I think there is logic to his argument. I would just like to say that 
we on the subcommittee have taken great pains to provide the veterans 
medical centers with the resources that they need. In fact, the 
Committee on Appropriations has provided record increases to VA medical 
care in the last 3 years. We provided $122 million to the VA for 
medical care for emergency preparedness activities in the fiscal year 
2003 bill which we just passed several weeks ago, fully funded. We 
fully funded the pharmaceutical cache requirement at $26 million; so no 
additional funds are required there. We fully funded the computer 
cybersecurity initiatives for $75 million. We fully funded the personal 
protective equipment and training needs of $15 million.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield since I am not 
asking for a vote?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is sincere about 
indicating $122 million, but I also understand that $122 million comes 
from existing programs that were taken away from services to veterans. 
I would hope that we just kind of take that into consideration.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I beg to differ with the 
gentleman. These funds were appropriated in the 2003 bill to provide 
for resources across the board for a VA medical center; and it was 
supported very strongly, close to 400 votes by the House. So I oppose 
the gentleman's amendment for those reasons.
  We received a letter just a week ago requesting $5 million as opposed 
to the $20 million being requested today. I know the $5 million will be 
made available to the VA because I placed language in this bill to do 
so, and that will give the VA the time and the money they need to plan 
these medical emergency preparedness centers, and I spoke with the 
Secretary about it. He is pleased with that number. So I would ask that 
we oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I would like to rise in support of the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. 
Rodriguez) amendment. We happen to come from the same State and are 
facing some of the same crises because Texas has one of the highest 
numbers of veterans among about four or five States. I know that he has 
a veterans facility in his congressional district or

[[Page H2797]]

near there, and I have one as well. The reality of it is that we are 
trying to provide new money because what we are facing, Mr. Chairman, 
is that many of our veterans are being de-enrolled or not allowed to be 
enrolled for veterans medical services. In addition, if one talks to 
the paralyzed veterans, they will say that they are getting fewer 
services, and since we are standing on this floor debating on an 
emergency appropriation to help our troops, the real question will be 
how will we treat these troops who will be returning who will need 
medical services along with their families. What is the aftermath? What 
is the after-attention that we will give the very young men and women 
who are fighting for us?
  We already know we are going to have the wounded and some severely 
wounded. These individuals will be hospitalized in our veterans 
facilities. We are already closing the door on these veterans, and the 
money that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is talking about is 
money that is going to help in homeland security, and I think that is a 
key element that he is adding to the centers dealing with 
biotechnology. And I might add that when we had Hurricane Allison in 
Houston, my veterans hospital was a lifesaver because it opened its 
doors to the patients who had to be evacuated from the medical center. 
So these facilities are crucial to the community. They do require, I 
think, our attention; and I believe this money is well needed.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 
Let me just indicate that my understanding is that that $122 million is 
not new dollars. It is existing dollars coming from existing services 
for veterans. In addition to that, and once again I appeal to both 
sides, the demographics on veterans is growing. Our World War II, 
Korean veterans are reaching that age where they need us now. They were 
there for us. We need to be there for them now. So we need to be able 
to provide those resources; and in all honesty, it does not make any 
sense for us to look at providing resources for health care for Iraq, 
which is needed and I do not disagree, but the fact is we also need it 
for our veterans and for those soldiers that are coming back because 
one of the objectives also is to serve the individuals in active 
military. In addition to that letter that the gentleman received for $5 
million, I am hoping that that is in there because if that is not in 
there, then he is going to hear from me once again.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me 
just say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) I thank him for 
his very hard work. What we are seeing is that the doors of veterans 
hospitals are being closed in the face of our veterans, and what are we 
going to do when the young veterans come home after they have valiantly 
fought for our freedom or our values? Whether we agree or disagree with 
what this war is about, we certainly agree with our troops. And I 
believe that this amendment from the distinguished gentleman from Texas 
allows the doors of veterans hospitals to be open; and minimally, Mr. 
Chairman, I cannot imagine that we would not want to say that the 
expanded centers that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is 
talking about, these expanded centers cannot be a helpful element to 
our fight against terrorism and homefront security.
  So I would ask that we support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas and add the additional funding for Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I will use only a small 
part of the allotted time.
  Let me just first say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) 
that I really respect his support for veterans. I know it comes from 
his heart, and I know how strongly he feels about it and how hard he 
has worked on behalf of veterans everywhere in the United States, and I 
truly do respect that.
  The gentleman from New York has talked about this from the veterans 
standpoint. Let me just say about where this money would be taken from, 
and that is from the nearly $2.5 billion that is set aside for the Iraq 
relief and reconstruction. I think even the gentleman from Texas would 
concede that the amount that we have provided for Iraq relief and 
reconstruction is probably only a small part of what is ultimately 
going to be required. It is certainly not enough to do the job 
entirely.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would rise in opposition to this amendment 
because I think it does significantly devastate or reduce the ability 
of our forces on the ground and our relief and reconstruction teams on 
the ground to do the job that they need to do for relief and 
reconstruction by reducing this amount. This is not the place, not the 
time for us to start whittling away at that account. If anything, we 
are going to need to come back and add to it later, and for that reason 
I would oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague, Mr. 
Rodriguez, and his amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill 
for FY03.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs has enormous responsibility 
resting on its shoulders. Not only is the VA responsible for providing 
veterans with medical services once they return home from war, but 
during wartime, the VA backs up the DOD, activates their critical care 
nurses, and provides training and preparation in case unforeseen 
emergencies arise.
  After 9/11, the biomedical expertise of the VA was tapped, and the VA 
was designated to begin operating four bio-terrorism centers. This 
responsibility was granted to the VA by unanimous consent. However, 
this responsibility was delegated to the VA without the critical 
funding necessary to operate these facilities.
  Two years ago, it would be a luxury for the Federal Government to 
enable the VA to provided training, equipment, and research for medical 
centers in case of a biological or chemical attack. Two years ago it 
would be an added bonus to provide the VA with additional funds to 
research the effects of war on veterans' health. Today, we are post 9/
11 and fighting overseas, and enhancing our security is not a luxury 
but a necessity. We have learned that there is no price tag for the 
safety and security of our Nation.
  The VA is shouldering an increasingly heavy burden. Let's provide 
them with the $90 million in funds that it needs to carry out its 
responsibilities during this time of war in Iraq and time of war on 
global terrorism.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been told all day numerous times that we could 
not afford to provide the funding that we wanted for homeland security; 
yet the leadership of this House has insisted that we include over $3 
billion in ``relief'' for the airlines. I just thought the body would 
be interested in this article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. I 
want to read the first three paragraphs:
  ``A group of 30 retired Delta Airline executives told current 
management last winter that spending millions of dollars to insulate 
top executive pensions from potential bankruptcy claims was `morally 
wrong' and `unconscionable.'
  ``The group, which included two former No. 2 executives at the 
Atlanta company, also warned the move would hurt Delta's reputation, as 
well as its ability to seek Federal aid and uphold employee morale.
  ``Their warning came in a January 22 letter to Delta Chairman and 
Chief Executive Leo Mullin.''

                              {time}  2045

  Some of the retired executives decided to make the letter public 
after last week's formal disclosure by Delta that it spent $25.5 
million in 2002 to start creating protected pension trusts for Mullin 
and 32 other top executives.
  Now, if this is not a spectacular idea or example of rip-off 
capitalism, I do not know what is. This is enough to give capitalism a 
bad name.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that before we are so anxious to 
provide the funding that the Republican leadership in this House 
insists that we provide to these companies, I would suggest that 
Members recognize that the story tells us that there ought to be a few 
more stringent conditions on the use of that money by those airlines.
  This kind of conduct is outrageous. It is an example of why 50 
percent of

[[Page H2798]]

Americans do not vote, because they do not think that their elected 
representatives will protect the interests of working people nearly as 
eagerly as they will protect the interests of the corporate elite of 
this country. Delta Airlines management should be ashamed of itself, 
and anybody who comes into a congressional office looking for a bailout 
after they are trying to protect these kinds of pensions should be 
thrown bodily out of congressional offices.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     reconstruction efforts in Iraq may be used to procure goods 
     or services from any corporation or other business entity 
     organized under the laws of France, Germany, the Russian 
     Federation, the People's Republic of China, or Syria.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order, points of order are reserved 
for all amendments.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as an opponent, and 
that I be permitted to yield 10 minutes of my 15 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I was having 
difficulty hearing here. The chairman is indicating that 15 minutes 
would be reserved for the gentleman from Washington, 5 minutes for the 
gentleman from Florida, and 10 minutes for yours truly? Is the 
gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, I am.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for 5 
minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time 
agreement.
  I rise in support of this amendment, which has one fundamental 
premise attached to it. That is, it is a limitation amendment that says 
that American dollars to be used in the reconstruction of the post-
Saddam Hussein Iraq will not be able to be expended to countries that 
were the coalition of the unwilling: France, Germany, the Russian 
Federation, or Syria.
  It is a commonsense amendment. It is an amendment that was discussed 
at length in the Committee on Appropriations earlier this week, and it 
underscores one fundamental concept, and that is that in the postwar 
Iraq, there will be American dollars expended for reconstruction, and 
in that reconstruction effort, it seems only commonsensical and 
advisable that American taxpayer dollars be spent for American 
corporations that are doing business there, to create jobs in this 
country, and also to provide corporate and contract authority to 
companies and entities that are part of the coalition of the countries 
that assisted America and Great Britain and the rest of her allies in 
this joint effort to try to liberate the country of Iraq. It seems to 
me to be common sense. It seems to me to be well expected with respect 
to a responsible expenditure of dollars, American taxpayer dollars in 
postwar Iraq.
  It also recognizes that there will be many kinds of expenditures and 
contributions across this world to help the people of Iraq get back on 
their feet. This amendment does not prevent the French or the Germans 
or the United Nations or anybody else from participating in that 
reconstruction effort. The limitation is not with American tax dollars.
  So I am pleased to present this amendment. I believe it has broad 
support, and I am happy to acknowledge the cosponsorship of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Culberson), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), Mr. Kennedy the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Crenshaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise today in support of the Nethercutt amendment.
  Last month I introduced legislation to block any French company in 
particular from participating or receiving any U.S. Government aid or 
financing in any reconstruction of Iraq in the post-conflict setting. 
From the beginning, in particular, the French position on the war with 
Iraq encouraged Iraqi defiance of the United Nations Resolution 1441. 
In fact, the French position was probably well received in Baghdad 
itself, and resulted in the opinion of most people in encouraging 
Saddam Hussein to continue to fail to cooperate with the U.N. 
inspectors and into compliance with Resolution 1441.
  I heard on the news just the other day that the French continue their 
diatribe against the coalition forces and, in fact, have received some 
current publications from France that I would like to share with the 
Members in case there is any doubt about the situation involving the 
French attitude.
  Here is a magazine called The Observateur, and the cover headline is 
``Iraq: The Traps of a Crazy War.'' The article that follows is 
entitled, ``The Insane Ones of God'' and goes on to say that they are 
crazy, meaning anyone who has ever supported a use of force to disarm 
Saddam Hussein, saying they are crazy and do not have an ounce of 
judgment. That refers to a lot of people who voted to support the use 
of force who happen to be here in this Chamber.
  Another publication called L'Express has an article entitled, 
``Baghdad: Victory at What Price?'' And then we have Le Point. They 
refer to this action in disarming Saddam Hussein as ``the tragedy.'' It 
is the cover story, and uses words such as ``arrogance'' and 
``propaganda'' to describe the U.S. position.
  So I commend the gentleman for moving forward with this amendment and 
I ask everyone to support it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My understanding is that there is some confusion at the desk about 
the text of the amendment. It was originally designated as number 11. I 
substituted another text of language that was, my understanding was 
number 11.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the text that was 
substituted well ahead in place of the original amendment be considered 
as read.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to try to 
sort this out.
  The gentleman's amendment number 11 indicates that he has written 
this thing 11 times. I know that we started working on this issue at 
the committee markup. I support and agree with what the gentleman is 
trying to do. But frankly, I am not satisfied that the language that he 
offers does not adversely affect other U.S. interests. That is the 
reason I rose in opposition to his amendment. It is just that I think 
there is too much confusion on that amendment as we speak, and the fact 
that we are considering an amendment that is different than the one the 
gentleman thought he offered I think just further worsens that 
situation.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  What I did was put number 11 on the text, expecting that that is what 
the Chair was considering at the time that I called up the amendment. 
So I guess,

[[Page H2799]]

my sense is, Mr. Chairman, we have two number 11s, and my understanding 
was that the Chair was clear with respect to what amendment we called 
up. There is only one amendment with a slightly modified text, and that 
is the one that we should be debating and that is what I am expecting 
to be debating.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would simply respond briefly to the gentleman 
that the gentleman claimed to offer and the Clerk reported the only 
amendment numbered 11 which was at the desk. The other amendment which 
the gentleman had at the desk was not numbered.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is in violation of clause 2, rule XXII.
  Mr. Chairman, the minority has been told all day and all evening that 
we had to abide by the rules, even though the rule waived points of 
order against the majority bill. Now we have a situation where a 
majority Member chooses to try to substitute another amendment for the 
amendment that was presented by the Clerk. I am sorry, but if we are 
going to stick by the rules, I am sticking by the rules, and I make a 
point of order against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering to withdraw the amendment 
which has been designated 11 by the Chair with the expectation that the 
real amendment number 11 will be offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) in due course under the same circumstances, 
so we will be able to debate in full the issue before the House, rather 
than be denied on a technicality.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated for the procurement of goods or services without 
     the use of competitive procedures in accordance with the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation and the U.S. Agency for 
     International Development Acquisition Regulation.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, Kellogg, Brown & Root, the 
engineering and construction division of Halliburton, was granted a 
contract to put out Iraqi oil fires. This contract was awarded without 
competitive bidding. The contract also contained no set time limit or 
cost limit. This means that U.S. taxpayers will have to pay for 
whatever Halliburton chooses to charge; that is, whether they are the 
prime contractor or a sub-prime contractor. There is danger to the 
taxpayers when contracts are awarded without competitive bidding.
  USAID, which gave out the contract, stated there was no competitive 
bidding for this contract because the job involved a ``complex 
emergency'' and ``national security'' issues. According to the Federal 
acquisition regulations and AID acquisition regulations, such waivers 
exist.
  Okay, maybe that is understandable. But what about contracts for the 
postwar reconstruction of Iraq?
  The uncontested contract acquisition of Kellogg, Brown & Root to put 
out Iraqi oil fires raises serious concerns over the administration's 
continued ties with big oil. The fact that the Department of Defense's 
Army Corps of Engineers did not conduct competitive bidding for this 
contract implies that an uncomfortably cozy relationship still exists 
between Halliburton and the administration.

                              {time}  2100

  Also, given there is no time limit or cost limit, it raises further 
concern that the contractor could increase the costs unchecked.
  For the postwar reconstruction effort, waivers of emergency and 
national security will no longer be applicable. The reconstruction of 
schools, hospitals, airports, roads, bridges, and even oil refineries 
are not emergencies. If these types of efforts are not considered 
emergencies here in America, then they most certainly should not be 
considered emergencies in Iraq.
  As such, contracts for the postwar reconstruction of Iraq should be 
awarded exclusively on the basis of competitive bidding in order to 
protect U.S. taxpayers from corruption. These long-term contracts, 
which USAID has categorized into eight areas, seaport administration, 
airport administration, capital construction, logistical support, 
public health, education, personnel support, and local governance, must 
be subject to competitive bidding.
  It is not news that this administration has deep-pocket connections 
with big oil and defense companies. The President was CEO of Arbusto, 
CEO of Spectrum 7, and on the board of directors at Harken Energy. The 
Vice President was CEO of Halliburton. The Commerce Secretary was the 
CEO of Tom Brown, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company. The 
National Security Adviser was a director of Chevron Oil. The Veterans 
Affairs Secretary was chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin.
  Then there is the Defense Policy Board, whose nine members have won 
more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. There is 
Mr. Perle, who until last week was chairman of the board, and has been 
accused of profiting from the war in Iraq because of his corporate 
connections with Trireme and Global Crossing.
  It is because this administration has so many corporate ties that 
could lead to the misuse of taxpayer funds that it is important to 
stress the use of fair and competitive bidding. What this legislation 
would do and what we should be advocating is that officials in our 
government should not use their connections to secure these contracts.
  The purpose of competitive bidding is to ensure that the acquisition 
of contracts is completely fair. It is because of these corporate ties 
that this administration should be going out of its way to reaffirm 
their commitment to competitive bidding.
  The amendment would reaffirm already-existing law for this 
supplemental bill, stating that all contracts acquired for the 
reconstruction of Iraq must be subject to competitive bidding, as 
stated in the Federal acquisition regulations and the AID acquisition 
regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I think Members of this Congress, having been informed 
of this conversation this evening, should take steps in our various 
congressional committees to assure appropriate oversight; to make sure 
that competitive bidding laws are used to protect the American people, 
to protect the taxpayers of the United States.
  This is an issue that really goes far beyond this particular piece of 
legislation in the supplemental, but I wanted to use this opportunity, 
Mr. Chairman, to let Members of both side of the aisle know that this 
issue is not going to go away and that the appropriate forum for 
dealing with it would be congressional investigative subcommittees or 
committees which could call the administration to an accounting. In the 
meantime, this forum is an appropriate place to demand competitive 
bidding.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows: 
       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in the Act for 
     reconstruction efforts in Iraq may be used to procure goods 
     or services from any entity that includes information on a 
     response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) that indicates that 
     such entity is organized under the laws of France, Germany, 
     the Russian Federation, or Syria.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on the pending amendment offered

[[Page H2800]]

by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) be limited to 30 minutes, 
to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could I 
suggest that the gentleman, since it is late and we do have other 
amendments to dispose of, how much did the gentleman suggest in time?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. My suggested time is 30 minutes, to be divided 
between the proponent and an opponent.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I suggest that we cut it to 20?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would be happy to change that. Mr. Chairman, 
I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) be limited to 20 
minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. OSE. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. May I clarify, Mr. Chairman, do I have just 
5 minutes and no time to yield time outside of the proposal?
  The CHAIRMAN. At this point, the committee is operating under the 5-
minute rule. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) is recognized 
for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this 
amendment. This is an amendment that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) has worked very closely on, responding to concerns that 
have been raised by many Members, including myself, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  The concern that we have is that we have a broad coalition of the 
willing supporting our efforts. There have been many that have tried to 
undermine those efforts. Well, we encourage their involvement in the 
reconstruction of Iraq; but during the time period when we are putting 
U.S. dollars into the reconstruction, we want those to be spent with 
those that have been supportive of us, as opposed to those that have 
been detrimental to us.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a situation where, when we go to other 
countries and we have asked for their support and we have not received 
it, and received from 48 other countries the largest coalition of 
support outside of World War II, I think it is appropriate that there 
are many people out there that can help us in the rebuilding of Iraq 
using our dollars without requiring that that be going to those who 
have actively opposed the efforts we have made to liberate Iraq.
  It is important to note that this amendment does protect American 
jobs, even though there may be some subsidiaries from these countries 
that are operating in the U.S. In the way the amendment is worded, we 
will not be putting any American jobs at risk. It is important that, 
given the great strides that America has put forth to liberate Iraq, 
that anything that is resulting from this that does require the use of 
the resources that America has available would be receiving that 
benefit, and that any other expenditures would be done on behalf of 
those that are part of our coalition of the willing, I would hope.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to not only support this amendment 
but also to support the underlying supplemental appropriation.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Let me ask all Members to think about this, because there are some 
things we all agree to. We all agree that we are winning the war, but I 
think we all believe that it is going to be harder to establish the 
peace. That is our concern now. We have won the war, but we have to be 
successful in winning the peace.
  We all agree, both sides of the aisle, that we are facing anti-
American sentiments. We should ask ourselves, where have those 
sentiments come from? They have come from the regime in Iraq, but they 
have also come from those that have supported them. France, Germany, 
Russia, Syria, the people named in this amendment have caused a great 
deal of the anti-American sentiment that we are now facing.
  I ask Members to picture themselves a citizen of Iraq. We hear what 
the French and Germans have said, that we are there to get the oil. 
Then we see the American tanks; we see the American bullets. There is a 
lot of work for Americans to do after that. The last thing we want is 
then to see the French coming in and the Germans coming in and 
rebuilding Iraq; America coming in and conquering or invading, 
according to the French, and then the French rebuilding. That is going 
to do nothing to dissolve the anti-American sentiments.
  In fact, we know the French intentions are not good. We know what 
they said; we know what they have done. It would add tremendous insult 
to the injury that American families have had, those who have sent 
loved ones into Iraq and lost those loved ones, for us now to send the 
French in behind them to capture the good will and the hearts of the 
Iraqi people.
  It is the American people; it is the British. We are the ones that 
ought to be at the forefront and those visible in building the peace 
and rebuilding Iraq; not those who have made our job harder, those who 
have openly promoted anti-American sentiments, not only in Iraq but 
around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, let us not compound the immense 
problem we have today in establishing the peace and in trying to 
restore our credibility with the people of Iraq. Let them see Americans 
rebuilding Iraq. If the French want to be there, we ought to invite 
them to be there; and the French taxpayers can pay for the French 
companies who come in and rebuild. But with our money, it ought to be 
Americans because of this tremendous amount of ill will in the world, 
and particularly in Iraq.
  If we lose this opportunity, we will always be viewed as those that 
came in with tanks and bullets and guns, and the French and the Germans 
will come behind us and self-promote themselves as those that came in 
and repaired the damage.
  I close by simply saying this: If the French had not supplied Iraq 
with many articles of war, and the Germans, if they had not encouraged 
Saddam Hussein to stand and fight, our job would be a lot easier. They 
have caused some of the damage in Iraq. They have not acknowledged 
that. Even today in their newspapers they are continuing to stir up ill 
feelings. Let us not take our money and give them an opportunity to 
continue to do that.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the best evidence of the President's success in 
winning this war against terrorism is the silence outside, the absence 
of any attack on our homeland since September 11, when terrorists used 
737s as fuel air bombs and flew them into buildings, two in New York 
and one here.
  I think it is proof of the President's good judgment, the fact that 
we can trust this good man; that he has so successfully fought this war 
against terrorism, war on terrorism that he has prevented any further 
attacks in the United States. With the knowledge that he has of the 
scope of the threat and where it lies around the world, the President 
of the United States made the measured judgment to go after the 
dictator in Iraq, not only to enforce the sanctions that the United 
Nations imposed, not only to free the Iraqi people from this terrible, 
brutal dictator; but, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the President of 
the United States of America is fighting this war to protect Americans 
here at home.
  This war is being fought and will be won to free the Iraqi people, 
enforce the U.N. sanctions; but most of all, and I cannot stress this 
enough, the President is fighting this war to protect our constituents, 
to protect our families, to protect Americans in their neighborhoods 
from further terrorist attacks.
  So when the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Syrians stood up

[[Page H2801]]

and actively opposed American intervention, British intervention in 
Iraq, the French were, in essence, endangering our own homeland, 
endangering our constituents and our families.
  It is absolutely unacceptable that the French, the Germans, the 
Russians, the Chinese, and the Syrians who have opposed the United 
States' efforts to protect ourselves against terrorist attacks should 
be allowed to profit from the reconstruction of Iraq.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment with the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) to make sure that, as the guardians of the Federal 
Treasury, that the Congress of the United States will not permit any 
Federal tax dollars to be used to purchase goods or services from any 
company or any business from France, Germany, China, Syria, or Russia, 
because those countries actively engaged in preventing United States 
from protecting ourselves, freeing the Iraqi people, and enforcing the 
U.N. resolution.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution and urge all Members 
to vote for it.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, on Veterans Day 2000 I was privileged to 
lead a CODEL to the beaches of Normandy. At that time it was very 
moving to meet with a number of French mayors, be at Omaha Beach and 
Utah Beach cemeteries, to visit some of their local cemeteries, the 
people who sacrificed their lives defending the freedom of the French 
people, trying to liberate Germany. The people at Normandy said they 
would never forget.
  But clearly the people in Paris forgot. So did the people in Germany. 
I know Germany has protected our bases. I know they have helped root 
out terrorist cells. I know they have allowed movement of troops 
through their country, which others countries have not. That is a good 
argument not to move all of our bases from Germany, and that should be 
factored there. But not after the insulting remarks of some people in 
the administration towards our President, after the insulting remarks 
of people in their government about our country, should they use 
American tax dollars to help rebuild. Nor should Russia.
  Russia, Syria, Germany, and France gave aid and comfort to Saddam 
Hussein at a time when American men and women were at risk of losing 
their lives through sweat and blood. They destroyed the last hope for 
peace, which was to have a united U.N. go in, encourage Saddam to leave 
and to turn over the government to people who wanted democracy and 
freedom in that country and get rid of weapons of mass destruction. But 
they encouraged him to go on. The blood is on their hands of Americans.
  Our men and women who are now risking their lives should not also 
have their tax dollars go to companies from those countries that 
brought us into this war. Furthermore, many of those countries, 
particularly Russia and Syria, as well as France and Germany, have 
given and sold weapons illegally into these countries. Furthermore, at 
least Russia and Syria, and possibly others, have been giving 
consulting and helping monitor tracking systems during the war.
  Now, what I want to know is what am I supposed to say to the people 
in my district, such as Mr. Harrison Triplett who has two sons in Iraq? 
He was out the other day with an American flag in one of the main 
sections of Fort Wayne, asking people to support his son and the 
troops. So I am supposed to say while his sons are over there risking 
their lives, that after this is over we are going to use our tax 
dollars to give the people who provided the weapons, who provided the 
aid and comfort to the people against him.
  And what am I supposed to say to Jerry Shultz? He is over there also. 
He was just on the CBS Morning Show the other week because he proposed 
to his sweetheart back in Fort Wayne on national TV. She is at a pizza 
parlor in Albion. She cannot put her ring on until he gets home. But he 
is being shot at, in part because of France and Germany and Russia and 
Syria and others who gave aid and comfort to Saddam. They gave weapons 
to Saddam. He may be getting shot at at this moment by weapons that 
were developed and provided illegally from these countries.
  Furthermore, and even more tragically, I have a young corporal from 
Warsaw, Indiana, who was a track and football star, who was moved, 
according to his dad, by the events of 9/11. Corporal David Fribley 
volunteered for the military. He was sent over to Iraq. He was one of 
the American soldiers who was shot under a white flag. Murdered by 
Iraqis. We do not know whether those weapons were provided by the 
French or the Germans or the Russians or the Syrians. We do not know 
whether this battle would have occurred without that; but what I know 
is I will not face his parents and say that their tax dollars are going 
to be used to go to companies that are headquartered in those 
countries, rather than to American companies, to people who fought with 
us in the coalition, to the British, to the Spanish, to the 
Australians, to those who are with us this moment.
  France, Germany, Russia, Syria, other countries are important in 
trade. I voted for the trade agreements. I know we need to have trade 
with these countries. We are not cutting off relations, but not one 
cent of my tax dollars or the dollars of the parents who have their 
sons and daughters over there at risk, and we need to pass the Kennedy 
amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, every Member in this Chamber is familiar with my 
position on the administration's actions in moving towards war against 
Iraq. And I think that while we have our respective position, we should 
be careful not to expand the conflict which the United States finds 
itself in and not to take people who have been allies consistently for 
this country and turn them into something other than allies.
  The world community has differences with the United States and we are 
going to have to heal those rifts. But it is more than interesting to 
have Members standing up condemning the French when we would not be in 
this Chamber today if it was not for one of the heroes of the 
Revolutionary War whose image and picture looks upon our every action. 
I am talking about Lafayette. And we are familiar with Lafayette.
  Lafayette is not only a place in Indiana, Lafayette is one of the 
heroes of the American Revolutionary War. And the father of our country 
to my right, George Washington, and Marquis de Lafayette one of the 
great American and French statesmen, look upon us and watch these 
debates.
  We need to reconcile ourselves with all of the nations of the world 
who may be disagreeing with this administration. We cannot be standing 
here singling out Russia and France and China and Syria as if they are 
outside the world community, because when this war is over, we must be 
the repairers of the breach. Let us not forget that the very symbol of 
liberty which generations of Americans sailed into New York harbor 
under, that Statue of Liberty came from France. There are deep 
spiritual connections between France and the United States.
  I happen to agree that this country should not have proceeded in war 
against Iraq, and I love this country. And I think there are French men 
and French women who still love America despite the action that the 
administration has taken. So let us start looking ahead. Let us not 
condemn nations if they are not agreeing with the administration. Let 
us find a way to be the repairers of the breach. Let us find a way to 
look to the next challenge for America to bring the world communities 
together once again. We have had a genius for that in this country.
  We need to remember where we came from. And we came from a 
relationship with Great Britain, who is now our ally, a relationship 
which was transformed through the Declaration of Independence, and we 
fought a war of liberation in this country with the help of the French, 
and we should never forget it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H2802]]

  Mr. Chairman, I want to say this to the previous speaker: I certainly 
agree with him, the French have had a great role in our history and I 
certainly am a proud fan of Lafayette. I want to say Lafayette was a 
man of freedom, and there is no question in my mind whose side in this 
conflict Lafayette would be fighting for, and that is for the 
liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people. And that is why his portrait 
is here. That is why we have a square named after him in my hometown of 
Savannah. That is why we even have a city named after him in the 
gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Collins) district. Only we pronounce it 
the correct way. We call it Lafayette, if you all ever want to come to 
visit.
  The thing about the French, and I like the French but I dislike the 
French rhetoric that we have heard for the last 6 months. I dislike the 
French politics, which I think the rhetoric has fueled the politics and 
it is maybe some EU positioning that is going on.
  The things that Mr. Chirac has said about my country are offensive. 
And the reality is there were not that many French businesses that were 
standing up and saying, Mr. Chirac, tone it down a little bit. And 
there certainly were not any Russian companies or Syrian companies that 
were standing up for the United States over the last 4 months. And it 
is such a shame, because I think they could have helped prevent this 
conflict if they would have said, Saddam Hussein, we stand against you 
in a unified world, in the community of freedom and the community of 
common law; we think what you are doing to the people of Iraq is 
outrageous. But instead, for whatever reason, they chose to apparently 
be on the side of oppression and the side of Iraq, and therefore we 
have American and British soldiers and 49 different countries, a 
coalition, fighting Iraqi oppression right now.
  I had an interesting issue last week with a company from France that 
is actually providing food to the American Marine Corps. A French 
company actually caters to the American Marines. They have contracts 
worth $881 million. And I find it somewhat outrageous, and I have 
raised the question and many of you have joined me in raising that 
question to the DOD. But you know what, I will say, to that company's 
credit, they have written me a letter and said, you know what, we are 
on the side of America in this conflict. And I tell you what, they get 
it. And I am glad to see that they are exercising what I would say 
would be good corporate responsibility. I want to have further 
conversations with them.
  But there are also rumors, and it was reported by Sean Hannity, who 
is pretty doggone careful of what he reports, but he was saying that 
there are apparently and sadly some French companies who have been 
providing, up to the conflict, helicopter and jet parts to the Iraqi 
regime. There were Russian companies that were apparently selling night 
vision goggles to the Iraqis.
  Now, that is per one reporter. But I hope that as this conflict 
unfolds, we do not find that some of these countries who were opposing 
us in the Security Council had a profit motive of their own. I hope we 
find that their opposition to us in the Security Council was founded in 
idealism and passivism and not in, wait a minute, we have got some 
business deals at stake here; we got to stand for the sides of the 
Iraqis.
  I think that what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) have done is offer a 
reasonable amendment so that we can offer our objections as a 
collective body to these people who, when they had the chance to stand 
up for America and stand up against oppression, they chose instead the 
path of politics and rhetoric against America. And I hope that we pass 
this. And I hope down the road we have an opportunity to redress it.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) who I think a lot of, was 
telling me, you know what, after the war is fought, that is the time to 
consolidate everybody and get them on the side of the new tomorrow to 
rebuild Iraq. And you know what? I think he has some good points to it 
because we do not want to have a fissure between us and Russia and 
Germany and France and Syria and China or any of these other countries 
forever.
  Indeed, we have 49 countries in our coalition right now. We do want 
to bring the world together to rebuild a democratic republic, a free 
republic of Iraq after this. And I hope that these folks will come on 
board. I hope that they not only bring their know-how, but I hope they 
bring some of their own dollars to the table. And if they can, and at 
that point, I think they absolutely should be welcome to help rebuild 
this country, the country of Iraq.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to express my appreciation to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) for his good work. I have some 
concerns about the proposed amendment. It is not broad enough in its 
constitution. For example, when we construct the list of those who have 
been intransigent and unwilling to listen to the rational thoughts of 
those of us in America trying to free people from oppression, we have 
left off the list the country of Turkey who refused to let our troops 
cross their territory to bring about freedom to those oppressed people 
from Iraq.
  It was only a few years ago when we conducted our operation in 
Afghanistan, when we asked those in Mexico to stand by our side. They 
refused to send troops. But when they were on the verge of bankruptcy, 
the President of the United States went around the Congress and sent 
billions of dollars to rescue them from financial calamity.

                              {time}  2130

  Vincente Fox has been unusually quiet in the recent weeks and days as 
America's young men have placed their lives at risk.
  Yes, this group of identified nations should be known as an axis. It 
is called the ``axis of weasels,'' those who refuse to take a stand in 
defense of freedom, in the face of tyranny and oppression.
  Tonight, as we sit and debate this resolution, the axis of weasels is 
watching as our young men and women storm the streets of Baghdad, 
trying to free young men and women from the fear of oppression and the 
Fejadin taking the lives of kids.
  Is there any doubt? Is there any question? Is any Member of this 
House standing here tonight listening to this debate in question about 
what should be done about the axis of weasels? Are we going to tax the 
American workers, take their money and send it back to people to 
rebuild Iraq who criticized our efforts from its outset?
  What are we thinking? They are our allies who have laid their lives 
on the line, who have more than adequate resource and contracting 
capability to join with American hardworking people and give back the 
people of Iraq the standard of living to which they are entitled, which 
was taken from them not by a coalition forces, but by the despot Saddam 
Hussein, whose fortunes I hope are not favorable this evening.
  We have to join together in this House, stand up not only to this 
axis of weasels, but to all of those who stand in the face of Americans 
who fight only for one thing, to bring democratic opportunities to poor 
people around the globe.
  Oh, I know there are those who say this was fought for the case of 
big oil. If we wanted oil, we would have simply taken Kuwait. If we 
wanted to oppress, we would not have left Afghanistan. Look at our 
record. We stand here tonight united as a Congress not for the cause of 
dominating the world interests. We stand united in the face of tyranny 
to free people who are oppressed.
  It was only a few short months that the women of Afghanistan got the 
right to drive a car, to teach their children how to read publicly. 
Their tyranny cannot be fully comprehended, but what we are about 
tonight is the beginning of a new day, a day that brings justice and 
responsibility to those who refuse to give dignity to humans.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we used to have a Member of this body by the name of 
Jimmy Burke, and Jimmy Burke said once to the freshman class incoming, 
he said, oh, I understand your problem; you think this place is on the 
level. Well, I want to tell you that does not matter what you do on 
this amendment. This amendment ain't on the level. This amendment is 
consumer fraud masquerading as legislation, and it ain't going to do 
nothing to nobody and let me tell you why.
  If you look at the language carefully, the language purports to send 
the message that what we are doing is, oh, oh,

[[Page H2803]]

look at the muscles. We are telling those Frenchies and those German 
companies, you cannot participate; but if you look at the actual 
language, the language allows those companies to get around this 
limitation by doing the same thing that corporate expatriates have done 
in this country by simply setting up a mailing address in Bermuda or 
any other offshore place.
  So it is what I call a holy picture amendment. The politicians pause 
for holy pictures, boy, we really did something. But you have got 
language that does not do nothing to nobody.
  This language has absolutely no effect whatsoever except that it 
makes the job of the White House and the State Department more 
difficult, which is I assume why we have the letter from the State 
Department which says that such an amendment would jeopardize the type 
of support we are attempting to build within the United Nations, 
support which aims to unite the international community in a forward-
looking effort to build a better future for the people of Iraq.
  Now, if we were wise, and I know that is beyond reasonable 
expectations often in a legislative body, but if we were wise, what we 
would, in fact, be doing is looking at tomorrow rather than yesterday.
  We are going to, whether we like it or not, need to rebuild the 
alliances which have been temporarily shaken by our divisions in this 
war. We are going to have to rebuild the United Nations and rebuild 
NATO so that we are more unified in dealing with postwar Iraq and the 
rest of the world; and we are going to have to overcome the fact that 
because of divisions we have right now, pro-U.S. responses in public 
opinion polls throughout Europe have dropped by about 20 percent.
  Now, to me, the way that we overcome that, the way we overcome the 
world's cynicism is by demonstrating traditional American magnanimity, 
which is what we did in the Marshall Plan and what we have done so many 
times in our country's history.
  So I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, who am I to stand in the way, if 
majority party members want to make life a little more difficult for a 
Republican administration?
  Now, I stand here, I hope as a patriot; and I believe that this 
amendment does cause the administration additional problems. I am so 
proud of the chairman of this committee because this committee produced 
legislation which guaranteed that the executive branch could not cross 
the line and trample on legislative prerogatives, and I congratulate 
and I honor the chairman for having the guts to do that.
  But we also, we also as legislators from time to time have to 
restrain ourselves and recognize that sometimes we do the Nation no 
good when we impinge upon executive branch prerogatives, as this 
amendment I believe does.
  So I am standing here as a Republican who has a minimum of, as the 
Democrat, as my friends know, I started out life as a Republican but 
then when I learned to read I switched parties.
  But let me simply say, I stand here, I hope, as a patriot, and I 
think that this is one place where George Bush needs some running room. 
If you do not have enough confidence in him to let him make the right 
choice, then by all means vote for this amendment; but you know, it 
does not do nothing to nobody except enable politicians to pose for 
political holy pictures. What is new around here?
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Wisconsin just recited a very 
amusing tale about learning to read and becoming a Democrat. When I 
learned to count, I became a Republican.
  The night is late, the hour is late, and we have many, many 
challenges in front of us. We have people arrayed across the world 
protecting our interests; and in the face of that, I do something 
tonight that I rarely do and that is come to the well and speak in 
favor of the Nethercutt amendment and the Kennedy amendment.
  I have heard a lot of citations to our indebtedness, to our friends 
Lafayette and others, the German Hessian soldiers and the like; and yet 
across this world there is but one country that uniformly puts its 
young people and its treasure on the line for the protection of freedom 
and democracy for people who do not even live here. Think about that. 
Think about what we are doing in this short period of time in 
particular.
  We have young people, particularly in Iraq today, putting their lives 
on the line to bring freedom and democracy to people who have not 
enjoyed it for many, many decades.
  It comes before us tonight on an appropriations bill with an 
amendment proposed by my good friends from Minnesota and Washington to 
say to the world that the Americans know who we are; that we believe in 
the concept of accountability; and that we will not vote to continue to 
spend American lives on a goal that benefits those lacking the courage 
to do the necessary thing, lacking the commitment to stand with those 
who will confront evil where it is found and lacking the qualifications 
to judge those of us who will.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at a point that is at the heart of who we are. 
Are we a country that sends our young people across the world to defend 
the interests of freedom and democracy, to then yield those same 
interests to someone who simply seeks 12 pieces of silver?
  I urge this body to think long and hard about the standard of 
accountability that we want in this world and the standard we set for 
our children and the generations to come.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding, and I would just like to respond to the ranking 
member to say, yes, we have carefully crafted this amendment in a way 
that protects American jobs and does not put those jobs at risk, that 
does give the State Department to a degree a modicum of flexibility, 
and we do need to rebuild those entities around the world; but we need 
to rebuild them with the understanding that America does remember who 
stands with America and America does remember who stands opposed to 
America on our efforts to defend peace and freedom and to liberate 
oppressed people around the world.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  This has been a very heated debate and a welcome one, especially for 
me. As I look at this body, both sides of the aisle are right; but here 
is my problem.
  My problem is respect. I think that the core of the gentleman from 
Minnesota's (Mr. Kennedy) amendment is about respect. Every once in a 
while a person has to stand up and get some respect.
  However one feels about this war, I want my colleagues to think about 
World War II; and I want my colleagues to think about a country, 
France, a country that would not pick up a rifle to defend its ownself, 
when 10,000, 10,000 of our troops hit the shores of Normandy and gave 
their life in one day to stand for a country's freedom, that would not 
stand and fight for its own freedom. That is the price that many of our 
American soldiers pay.
  Maybe that would not be so bad with me if it were not for what they 
did. It is one thing to have your say, but it is another thing to go 
and help a country visibly with weapons, with arms, with their support 
at a time when we are sending our boys and girls into battle.
  That World War II landing was very personal with me because one of 
those troops that put their lives on the line in World War II, to go 
help free France, was my own father. That is amazing, but that is 
important.
  This amendment may or may not go anywhere. We are all here to stand 
up to say a word in support for our troops. I am going to vote for this 
amendment. I am going to vote for it for the respect of those World War 
II veterans who fought and thousands died for France, but France did 
not come to our aid, for those who are giving their lives and dying in 
Iraq today.

                              {time}  2145

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I think over my right shoulder stands George Washington, known to 
many of us as the Father of this Nation. As he looked in the eye of the 
British soldiers seeking to preserve the freedom of the 13 colonies, he 
looked for allies where he could find them. My history tells me

[[Page H2804]]

that one of those happened to be a country called France. It is 
interesting that as we have grown to be the singular power of this 
Nation, we seem to have lost both the decorum, the respect, and the 
dignity of many of our Founding Fathers.
  Now, it is well known that I came to this Nation first in the bottom 
of the belly of a slave boat, but I realize that I live now in the most 
powerful Nation in the world, a Nation that first started with the 
language ``to form a more perfect union.'' What that means, my 
colleagues, is that we are looked upon to have the dignity, the 
decorum, the understanding of world diplomacy, and the appreciation of 
democracy and sovereign nations. And with this power comes 
responsibility. With this privilege comes burden.
  It is interesting that in the course of the time where our troops are 
moving toward Baghdad, where they are embedded with our values, our 
values of freedom, we would make mockery on the floor of the House. 
This is not about France. This is about patronage and payback to the 40 
babies that say they are part of the willing coalition. What is this, a 
Las Vegas gambling game? That if you are in the stakes, you get a piece 
of the action? This is not what this war is about.
  I am against the war as it is presently constructed, as they would 
say. But we are here supporting these troops in this legislation. What, 
are we handing out dollars to people just because they are part of the 
coalition? It is the question to the United States that if we are to 
rebuild our world alliance and our position in this world, then however 
we do the peacekeeping it must be in a coalition, whether it is the 
United Nations, NATO, or whether we engage the European Union. We 
cannot do this alone. Because if you have a military occupation, you 
can be assured we are doomed to failure, not because of the military's 
lack of excellence, they are excellent, but because of the world's 
perception that we are occupiers as opposed to people who have come to 
induce democracy.
  This is fraudulent that we would undermine the dignity of those who 
knew what coalitions were all about. And I am particularly offended 
that my colleagues would cite Mexico as an unwilling ally. We should 
not denigrate our friends, my colleagues, because we do not have 
permanent friends, but we have permanent interests. And every one of 
these people that have been denigrated rose to the occasion on 9/11. 
They cried with us, prayed with us, and joined the war on terrorism. 
What an insult that we would deny the sovereignty of these nations and 
not believe that they have the right to, in a democratic way, to 
object.
  Oh, there may be politics. There may be contracts abound. Looks like 
everybody has a hand out in this. The baby NGOs do not get a chance to 
do their real work because they do not have any money. Small 
businesses, minority businesses, women-owned businesses do not get 
anything. The big guys are knocking everybody over. Is that what it is 
about; money? We have to move in the world tomorrow and next year, and 
the decade after. We should not burn our bridges that we have to cross 
again.
  This would not be the kind of debate that would be befitting of a 
Nation premised on a constitution that says ``to form a more perfect 
union.'' What an insult that we do not tolerate the sovereignty of 
nations. I can assure my colleagues that there will be weeks and years 
and days to come when we will look to the allies that we denigrate now.
  Coming from Texas, I am particularly insulted that one would question 
Mexico, who has tried to work with us over the years on border issues, 
and crying and sending troops during 9/11. We begin to get on shaky 
ground when we begin to attack individuals and nations who have 
differences of opinion on this war.
  This war itself should be questioned, and I hope that we will be able 
to move in peace for those of us who have opposed the war and supported 
the troops; and move in dignity reflective of the Constitution and 
reflective of this founding Nation and our Founding Fathers.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery they 
are here as guests of the House, and any manifestation of approval or 
disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in 
violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I do think it 
is important that we put this debate into perspective. This is a good 
thing we are doing. We should be debating issues of expenditure of 
taxpayer dollars. This is not holy pictures. This is an important time 
for our country to talk about how we spend billions of dollars in this 
country.
  Why in the world would our legislative body cede the authority for 
that to the administration? I respect this administration, but this is 
a congressional responsibility. And just because there is a difference 
in position on the issue that is before the House does not mean that 
this is posing for holy pictures. I think that is an objectionable 
declaration about what this is. This is in the best traditions of this 
House.
  On the Committee on Appropriations just this week we had a fabulous 
debate on this precise issue and on an amendment that was very near to 
this one. It was a broader amendment, frankly, that gave the President 
great waiver authority to decide whether exceptions could be made with 
respect to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for reconstruction in 
Iraq. So beyond being something that is frivolous, this is very serious 
business, and I would argue to my colleagues that this is in the best 
tradition of this House to talk about this issue of how we spend the 
money that the taxpayers send to us to decide how to spend.
  It is not unreasonable that we make a judgment about what foreign 
countries should benefit with taxpayer dollars that are sent to 
Washington by loyal Americans. But it is the Congress' decision to 
decide whether a priority might be American jobs and American companies 
and allied countries, companies, and jobs. So what is wrong with having 
friends in the world and communicating with those friends and 
especially creating jobs in this country?
  I would argue that anybody who votes against this has the potential 
to favor French job creation rather than American job creation. How in 
the world are we going to feel in 2 months, when perhaps our country 
would award a contract to a German or a French or a Russian company to 
the exclusion of American interests, to an American company that could 
do the job just as well? I would argue, my colleagues, that we should 
be concerned about that.
  So this is a good debate. This is a good amendment. It is the 
amendment that I intended to have before the House before a point of 
order was raised. So that is fine. I appreciate the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) being there to offer this amendment. But we 
should never confuse a good debate and a difference of opinion on the 
issues as being unworthy or worthy. We can make our judgments about the 
validity of our arguments, but to say that this is not worthy of the 
House or not an appropriate debate as to how taxpayer dollars will be 
spent misses the mark.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This is what we 
are sent here to do, to guard the Treasury of the United States. This 
is the taxpayers' money. This is the people's House. The House of 
Representatives decides the appropriations for this country. I urge us 
to exercise our obligation and to vote for this amendment, and I 
believe it will pass.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I agree with the last speaker that 
this is a topic which should be debated, and I think this debate has 
shown what is some of the very best and perhaps what sometimes can be 
the worst in a legislative body in a great democracy like ours.
  Passions can flare, passions can drive legislation. Passion is 
important. As legislators, as people who make policy, passion is 
important. We ought to believe in what we do. But as legislators we 
also have a responsibility to temper our passions, to temper our 
passions with careful thought, to make sure that passions do not alone 
drive us, drive our legislative proposals. So that

[[Page H2805]]

sometimes what looks good, what feels good, what sounds good, may not 
be good.
  These are just some of the concerns that I have about the 
legislation, the proposal which is before us at this time, and I would 
just share some of these thoughts. I know these thoughts do not carry 
any of the weight of the passions that people feel. But I also think as 
legislators we need to keep these things in mind.
  For one thing, we are deeply involved in the World Trade Organization 
with a number of trade agreements that we have entered into and this 
body has approved, and I have serious concerns that this violates a 
number of those obligations that we have freely entered into. No 
country has fought harder for the government procurement provisions in 
the World Trade Organization than the United States, because we are the 
largest exporter of contracting services. We have the most to benefit, 
and similarly, perhaps, the most to lose if others retaliate against 
us.
  Secondly, I am concerned about the application of this as it applies 
to the defense part. This just does not limit it to the foreign 
assistance part, but to the defense side. There are times when you need 
to be able to buy equipment, to buy spare parts, to buy goods, and 
those may come from a foreign company. I am concerned about the foreign 
assistance part of it as it applies to spare parts. Let us say an 
American contractor is given the job of rebuilding hospitals in Iraq. 
We know that a lot of medical equipment comes from countries like 
Germany. What if we are trying to replace a part in an x-ray machine 
and we have to order those parts under this provision? I presume it 
would be forbidden to do so. So we would have to pay all the money to 
buy a new piece of equipment instead of being able to repair another 
piece of equipment.
  Lastly, let me just ask this. Does this provision apply to a company 
like Chrysler, DaimlerChrysler? I think it might. It is not at all 
clear. I guess if they do not put that return address on their 
envelope, their RFP, maybe it does not. But if they happen to put the 
RFP as coming from the corporate headquarters in Germany, then indeed 
it would. And thousands of American jobs could be lost as we try to buy 
equipment from what is essentially an American company but happens to 
be a subsidiary of a country that is organized in Germany.
  These are just a few of the considerations that I have and I think we 
need to take into account. If this amendment passes this evening, I 
will be looking at these very carefully. And I hope my colleagues on 
the conference will look at them as well and that we will work to make 
sure that we have a piece of legislation, when it comes from 
conference, that does not do more damage to American jobs, more damage 
to American contractors, than it would if we had this piece of 
legislation not included in the bill.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are nearing the end of this debate and 
getting ready to pass this bill. I think there is one other amendment 
that we will deal with very quickly after we conclude this. So I want 
to take a few minutes to say a word of compliment to the Committee on 
Appropriations members and the staff. We got this request just a little 
over a week ago. We were able to read it, vet it, understand it, hold 
hearings with all of the major agencies involved, write the bill, go to 
full committee, amend it and bring it to the floor in a little over a 
week. I think the committee and the staff, especially the staff, they 
spend more time than the Members, did a tremendous job.
  Secondly, Mr. Chairman, you have been in the chair for nearly 12 
hours today and have done an outstanding job. That applause is very 
well deserved. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) is very fair, 
and has managed this debate extremely well.
  And now I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the evening the distinguished 
ranking member read accurately from the Atlanta Journal Constitution a 
news article regarding the actions of the board of directors of Delta 
Airlines. The ranking member also accurately reflected his 
disappointment and disappointment shared by others in that action.
  What was not entered into the Record were the actions of the CEO of 
Delta Airlines, and I will not read it all, but I would like to read 
the following things:

     . . . who affirmatively, instead of accepting the 
     compensation reduced his compensation by 25 percent, will not 
     accept an annual incentive pay included in his contract for 
     the year 2003, rescinded any retention award payment he might 
     be eligible for 2004 and 2005, and affirmatively rescinded 
     his contractual stock option agreements totaling $5.5 
     million.

  Mr. Chairman, corporations are persons under the laws, and sometimes 
they do not have hearts. CEOs are individuals who have souls, and when 
corporate CEOs take appropriate actions, and I think consistent with 
the times which we are in, that should also be in the Record.

                                                        Delta,

                                                    April 3, 2003.
     To: All Delta Employees
     From: Leo F. Mullin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
     Subject: Executive Compensation
       Following the release of Delta's proxy statement at the end 
     of March, much attention by the media and within the company 
     has been focused on the subject of executive compensation. 
     Today, I would like to address this issue with you directly, 
     beginning with the context in which the Board of Directors 
     made the decisions described in the proxy statement, over the 
     course of 2002. I would also like to share with you the 
     actions I have taken in regard to my own compensation, given 
     the dramatic ways in which that context has now changed.
       Let me begin by noting that Delta's proxy statement, which 
     outlines the Board's executive compensation decisions during 
     2002, was issued on March 25, 2003. The date of issue was set 
     in order to comply with Security and Exchange Commission 
     requirements for distribution prior to our April 25 annual 
     shareholders meeting. However, the actions described in the 
     proxy statement occurred over the full course of 2002, with 
     many of those actions rooted in the events and the aftermath 
     of September 11. As the Board explains in the proxy 
     statement, a key priority in response to the national and 
     industry crisis following 9/11 was to maintain a management 
     team ``capable of responding effectively to the extraordinary 
     challenges,'' including programs that would retain and 
     motivate the team members.
       Among other actions, the Board established demanding 
     performance goals for Delta's executive team, placing primary 
     emphasis on ensuring adequate liquidity and drastically 
     reducing the daily ``burn'' of cash (generally defined as the 
     amount by which costs exceed revenue). The Delta team 
     succeeded on both counts. Consequently, Delta is the best 
     positioned hub-and-spoke carrier in the industry, a view 
     supported by reports from many Wall Street analysis. Because 
     the key goals were met, the Board, in January 2003, approved 
     the final 2002 incentive awards, as the proxy statement 
     details.
       Also as part of its effort to retain Delta's management 
     team during the extraordinary challenges ahead, the Board in 
     January 2002 established a Special Retention Program, as 
     discussed in the proxy statement. This program provides 
     potential cash awards in 2004 and 2005 for Delta executives, 
     tied to both retention and performance goals.
       In these and every other executive compensation program 
     outlined in the proxy statement, the Board has consistently 
     acted in the best interest of Delta Air Lines, meeting all 
     legal and ethical requirements and expectations at every 
     point. The decisions in regard to executive compensation were 
     fully appropriate in the context of the time in which they 
     were made.
       However, the reality of the airline industry is that the 
     context changes rapidly. Concerns we are now facing were not 
     part of the environment when those earlier decisions were 
     made, or their importance has been magnified, including 
     issues related to:
       Impact of the War in Iraq.
       Continuing, deeper than expected plunge in revenue and 
     traffic.
       Increased competitive concerns as United and US Airways 
     restructure under bankruptcy protection.
       Further competitive pressure as American Airlines manages 
     to reorganize outside of bankruptcy--and as others (most 
     recently Air Canada) declare Chapter 11.
       Need for immediate action in Washington to provide federal 
     relief from post-9/11 security costs and tax burdens.
       Competitive requirement that Delta's labor costs be brought 
     in line with that of the restructuring carriers.
       With this said, I understand the concerns that have been 
     raised in the current context. Most importantly, I want to 
     provide a basis for moving forward so that we can resume our 
     focus on the crucial core business and strategic issues we 
     face. Hence, I have chosen to take the following steps:
       Reduce my salary rate by 25 percent (to $596,250), down 
     from the beginning of year salary rate ($795,000); this 
     reduction includes

[[Page H2806]]

     the 10 percent salary rate reduction taken earlier this year.
       Not accept any Annual Incentive Pay that might be awarded 
     to me for 2003 performance.
       Rescind any Retention Award payment I might be eligible for 
     in 2004 and 2005.
       Rescind the stock-based awards associated with the renewal 
     of my five-year contract (signed November 29, 2002), with a 
     minimum estimated Black-Scholes value of $5.5 million.
       As Delta's CEO, I believe it is appropriate for me to take 
     these steps. Also as Delta's CEO, I believe it is absolutely 
     essential for the welfare of our company that I continue to 
     meet the requirement, using a competitive compensation 
     program, to attract and retain a highly motivated executive 
     team. I am enormously proud of the team we have assembled, 
     and fully confident of their ability to meet the challenges 
     ahead. Most recently, they have confirmed their commitment to 
     shared sacrifice with the salary reductions announced earlier 
     this year. As with the entire Delta team, their continued 
     support is absolutely invaluable to me and to the company as 
     we move forward through the demanding days ahead.
       In closing, let me say that while the specifics of this 
     decision required careful thought and consideration, what 
     became clear as I worked through the process was that there 
     was no absolutely correct approach or set of actions. But, in 
     the current circumstances, the steps I am taking feel right 
     to me. I hope you will agree.
                                                       Leo Mullin.

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). While this amendment appears and seems to 
be patriotic at first glance, what this amendment could really do is 
punish American workers. It would hurt American workers who work for 
foreign companies and American companies who supply foreign 
corporations.
  Many of my colleagues have given examples of companies that have 
their corporate office in France or Germany, but have big numbers of 
employees working here in the United States. In today's global economy, 
it is not possible to determine who this amendment would really be 
hurting. This issue deserves much more thought, debate, and 
consideration by the appropriate committees rather than being offered 
as an amendment at this time. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to make this quick. I rise in strong support 
of this amendment. There is a limit to American magnanimity. There is a 
limit to how much we will just turn our heads and say we will forgive 
you. And yes, we will forgive those people who are our friends who 
betrayed us when we were putting the lives of our young people on the 
line. We will forgive them, but we will not forget; and that is what 
this amendment is all about, not forgetting those who would not stand 
with us, and remembering those who did stand with us when the lives of 
our people were at stake. I have no problem with that.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make it 
clear that the way this is worded, it would be highly unusual this 
would be putting any American jobs at risk, and we have gone to great 
pains, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and myself, in 
reviewing these approaches to make sure that we do not.
  I think it is appropriate. This is not just about American jobs, but 
it is, the gentleman says, about American people, American Congress, 
remembering who has stood with us and making sure that those who stood 
with us as we go to liberate Iraq would also be standing with us as we 
go to rebuild Iraq.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, there is a much greater chance that 
American jobs will be lost if we do not make this declaration to the 
policymakers and to the bureaucrats and to the government officials who 
will enforce the law once we pass the law. We are making it very clear 
to them that American companies and companies from countries which 
helped us, which stood by us, will have preference over those companies 
from countries which stood aside at the moment when it counted or even 
harped and backbit our leaders when they were taking tough stands.
  We will not forget what happened during these last 3 and 4 months. We 
will not forget the actors who play President of the United States, but 
spend their own time in the real world undercutting American Presidents 
who have had to make tough decisions about the national security of our 
country.
  We will not forget the impotence of the United Nations. We are not 
going to place our faith in that institution again. We will not forget 
that NATO is dominated by the Germans and French, and we will not 
forget that the British and the Spanish not only stood by us but joined 
us and put the lives of their young people on the line as well.
  Finally, I would like to end with one small story. I hope our French 
brethren are brethren. Dean Rusk in his memoirs talks about how Lyndon 
Johnson called him into the Oval Office in 1964 after Charles de Gaulle 
declared that France would be out of NATO and declared that all 
American troops would have to be off of French soil in 90 days. LBJ 
gave Mr. Rusk the job of going to France, talking to the General, and 
asking him a question and coming back and reporting verbatim what the 
General said. So Mr. Rusk, our Secretary of State, went to Paris and 
met with General de Gaulle.
  He said, President Johnson has tasked me with asking you this 
question: When you demand that all American soldiers are off of French 
soil within 90 days, are you including those thousands of Americans 
buried in Normandy?
  General de Gaulle was speechless. He turned away and could not speak.
  I would hope that the French people, now that this war is coming to a 
conclusion with the great victories that we have had in these last few 
days, when they see that we have put the lives of our people on the 
line again, I hope they will become speechless, because I am sick and 
tired of hearing from a lot of those people, and so are a lot of 
Americans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       No funds appropriated under this Act may be provided to an 
     air carrier if the air carrier or any of its subsidiaries 
     discontinues service to the Kilred Texas Municipal Airport 
     between April 4, 2003 and April 4, 2004.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the vote we just cast dealt with how 
America should treat nations who do not support us in our war against 
Iraq.
  This amendment deals with the issue of how we treat American 
companies who have turned their back on the families of our military 
servicemen and women who are fighting that war against Iraq tonight. 
Let me read from the Atlanta Journal Constitution just 4 days ago. 
``The use of Delta's funds for this purpose left us in disbelief.'' 
That is what 30 former Delta executives said about the CEO of Delta 
Airlines and 32 executives spending $25 million of Delta Airlines funds 
to set up special pension trust funds for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, the CEO of Delta who comes before this House asking for 
billions of Federal tax subsidies was recently part of providing $25 
million in expenditures to protect 33 executives while 16,000 employees 
are being laid off. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in disbelief that the 
same Delta Airline executives who could spend $25 million to protect 
their pension trust funds said today in Killeen, Texas, in my district, 
that they cannot afford to continue air service during a time of war to 
the community that is the home of the only two-division Army 
installation in America, Fort Hood.
  That is correct. The same executives that had $25 million to protect 
their future said to the families of soldiers who are deploying 
tonight, some of whom are at war tonight in Iraq, two of whom from Fort 
Hood are POWs in Iraq tonight, that we are not going to provide air 
service anymore. In fact, we are going to cut off air service to Fort

[[Page H2807]]

Hood and its two Army installations and the 44,000 soldiers that 
represent Fort Hood, we are going to cut off that air service even 
while we are at war in Iraq. They even had the audacity to tell 
employees today, while Delta lobbyists were running around the halls of 
this Capitol saying we need millions, in fact billions, in tax 
subsidies to support our efforts at Delta Airlines. I find myself in 
disbelief, just as 30 former executives at Delta found themselves in 
disbelief at the actions of executives of this company.
  My amendment sends a clear message to the executives of Delta and to 
Continental Airlines and any other airline: Do not come to the House of 
Representatives, to these hallowed halls, during a time of war and ask 
for the taxpayers of military families to subsidize a bailout for your 
companies while you are cutting off airline service to the thousands of 
military families whose loved ones are putting their lives on the line 
in Iraq tonight.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to yield 
because he and I discussed this at length earlier in the evening, and I 
think the gentleman raises a point that should be considered seriously, 
and I have told the gentleman that.
  I told the gentleman during the negotiations with the conference 
committee I would make sure that this issue was brought before the 
conference and a thorough discussion would take place and see if there 
is something that we can do that would be helpful to the families of 
those soldiers at Fort Hood.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman because the gentleman 
realizes, as I do, that since I did not get the news, employees of my 
district did not get the news today after the Committee on Rules had 
established the rules for amendments on this bill, technically this 
amendment could be ruled out of order. For that reason, in a moment I 
will respectfully pull down the amendment in my appreciation of the 
chairman for his recognizing the importance of talking to airlines 
about not cutting off airline service to major military installations 
during a time of war when we are asking those families, taxpayers, to 
help subsidize the continuation of those airlines.
  I do not know what the intention is of Delta and Continental who have 
made these recent announcements to cut off air service to so many 
military families which are sacrificing so much for us. I will say to 
them, if they are willing to reconsider what I consider their 
incredibly unfair decisions tonight and in the days ahead, I will be 
the first to applaud them for their patriotism and sense of public 
service during this time of war.
  But I also want to send a clear message. If all they offer us is lip 
service for the next 3 days until they get this bill passed and then 
they cut off air service to tens of thousands of military families who 
might lose loved ones as they are cutting off that service, I may be 
only one Member of Congress, but I hope they understand there will be 
millions of American veterans and millions of American families who 
will share my outrage that it is wrong, it is unpatriotic for these 
companies to turn their backs on the military families who are facing 
death and risk of life in Iraq tonight.
  I thank the chairman, and I look forward to solving this problem.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 2 offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the remainder of 
this series will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 216, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               AYES--209

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

                               NOES--216

     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
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary

[[Page H2808]]


     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berman
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     Oberstar
     Walden (OR)
     Weiner
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2234

  Messrs. NETHERCUTT, JANKLOW, JONES of North Carolina, TURNER of Ohio, 
CUNNINGHAM, BARTLETT of Maryland, MORAN of Virginia, SMITH of Michigan, 
PENCE, and MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TANCREDO, DeFAZIO, LEACH, and KANJORSKi changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. UPTON changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113, 
noes 312, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               AYES--113

     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Ney
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Upton
     Waters
     Watson
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--312

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berman
     Buyer
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     Oberstar
     Walden (OR)
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote.) Members are reminded there are 2 
minutes remaining on this vote).

                              {time}  2241

  Mr. PENCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Wartime 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003''.

   The CHAIRMAN. No further amendments being in order, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) 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. 1559) 
making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 172, he reported the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


                           Debt of Gratitude

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think we owe a big debt of gratitude for 
the way that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) has conducted 
the proceedings of the House all day today. Mac, you did a great job.

[[Page H2809]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, 
nays 12, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 108]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--12

     Blumenauer
     DeFazio
     Farr
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Paul
     Sanders
     Watson
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     Oberstar
     Walden (OR)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members 
are reminded there are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  2259

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________