ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

[Congressional Record: May 23, 2002 (House)]
[Page H2947-H3011]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr23my02-52]                         



 
  2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND 
           RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 428 and rule XVIII, the 
Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
4775.

                              {time}  1004


                     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. 4775) making supplemental appropriations for further 
recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 
22, 2002, the bill had been read through page 5, line 5.
  The Clerk will read.


                   Motion to Rise Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H2948]]

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 99, 
noes 289, not voting 46, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 197]

                                AYES--99

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Evans
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Wu

                               NOES--289

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--46

     Baldacci
     Barton
     Becerra
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Clay
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Deutsch
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Fattah
     Gutierrez
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Isakson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Markey
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Rothman
     Sandlin
     Souder
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1027

  Messrs. CROWLEY, DOOLITTLE, and ROGERS of Kentucky, Mrs. ROUKEMA, and 
Messrs. SHAYS, GUTKNECHT, SIMMONS, and RAHALL changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. INSLEE and Mr. BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye''.
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 197 I was detained in 
reaching the House floor, and the vote was closed before I reached the 
floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably delayed on rollcall vote 
197. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 
197.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for everyone to understand why 
we are here and what will be happening today.
  We are going to be having a not very pleasant day because a lot of us 
are concerned about the future economic health of the country. As we 
all know, after the huge deficits of the 1980s, we followed budget 
policies and economic policies in the 1990s that put us back into, at 
long last, a surplus condition. We paid off billions of dollars, and it 
was giving us a chance to strengthen Social Security so that it could 
withstand the pressures from the retirement of the baby boomers that 
will begin shortly.
  That was all blown away last year by passage of the majority party's 
tax package that put in place over the next decade a series of 
additional tax actions largely aimed at the most wealthy taxpayers in 
the country which will drain the Treasury of untold numbers of billions 
and billions and billions of dollars.

                              {time}  1030

  And that is draining the Treasury dry. And it is a major reason why 
today, instead of running the surpluses that we were running for three 
years, we are now expected to have a deficit that might approach $300 
billion this year. And as a result of that, we again are facing a 
situation where Social Security and Medicare are being put at risk 
because of the short-sightedness of this body.
  Now, the bill before us originally had nothing to do with that issue. 
It was a simple war supplemental. It was a responsible bill put 
together by both parties on the Committee on Appropriations, and most 
of us were willing to enthusiastically vote for it. But it has been 
changed by the rule adopted yesterday to now become the vehicle under 
which $750 billion of new national debt will be sneaked in to public 
law, as this bill goes to the Senate and returns. That was the whole 
purpose of the rule that was adopted yesterday. That means in essence 
this bill will become the vehicle by which we raise the limits on the 
national credit card by $700 billion.
  In addition, they throw in some other nonessential items. They did a 
few favors for a few Members on their hospitals. They made a major 
change in the trade law that has no business in this bill.
  Now, all of us want to go home. We want to go give our Memorial Day 
speeches, and we would like to leave here at a reasonable time. But we 
are prepared on this side of the aisle to do whatever has to be done in 
order to strike out from this bill all of the extraneous provisions, 
return this bill to the committee-passed vehicle that passed the 
committee on a bipartisan overwhelming basis.
  We want to strip out the gimmicks that will increase the national 
debt. We want to strip out the other favors and get back to the 
original bill. If we can find a way to do that, we are happy to 
procedurally cooperate and finish this bill at a reasonable hour. If we 
cannot get that kind of agreement, we are willing to stay here all 
weekend. I

[[Page H2949]]

do not know about other Members, but I brought a change of clothes and 
several shirts; and I am willing to use them. I might even be willing 
to lend one around if someone needs one.
  This is not funny business; there is serious stuff. We want to pass 
what has been described by people on both sides as a simple war 
supplemental. The bill that was produced by the Republican majority on 
the Committee on Appropriations is good enough for us. It ought to be 
good enough for the Republican leadership.
  So I ask the majority leadership of this House to do the responsible 
thing, strip out the gimmicks, strip out the sneaky way of trying to 
raise the national debt, bring us back to the original core bill so we 
can go home and do what we want to do on this most holy of weekends.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as usual the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I 
have agreed on a lot. And one agreement is we are going to stay here 
until we finish this bill, whatever it takes. And if it takes two or 
three changes of clothes, we will be here. We are going to finish this 
bill. You know why? Because this is an emergency defense supplemental 
at time of war. American soldiers are on the battlefield. American 
soldiers are dying, unfortunately. A family in West Virginia just two 
days ago lost a son, lost a husband, lost a father.
  America is at war. We are not only fighting on the battlefields, we 
are fighting terrorist cells, headquarters, groups and organizations, 
whenever we can find them.
  A lot of money that we are providing in this bill for the Army, the 
Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corpss and the Coast Guard has already 
been spent. The Army, for example, has reached into their fourth 
quarter operational money, and they are using it now to fight the war. 
So what do they do in the last quarter of the year if we do not move 
this bill? We are going to move this bill to completion. It may only 
pass by one vote, but it is going to pass.
  If you want to argue about the fact that some of the things that are 
in this bill do not really relate to the appropriations bill that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said he would support and that I 
support enthusiastically, I may agree with that. I may agree that there 
are some things on this bill that should not have been added. But the 
fact is the majority of this House worked its will, and that is what we 
are dealing with now.
  And so, I think it would be well for us to move this bill quickly so 
we can prove to the world, friends, and enemies, that we are serious 
about fighting this war and eliminating the threat of terrorism. We can 
do that by joining with the President and providing this appropriation 
to the President of the United States as he prosecutes this war. So let 
us get to it. If it is going to take all day today, if it is going to 
take late into the night, if it is going to take all day tomorrow, late 
tomorrow, if it is going to take Saturday or Sunday or Monday or 
Tuesday, be my guest. Take whatever time you wish. I am very patient, 
and I will be here right to the bitter end. But we really ought to let 
common sense prevail.
  Let us move this important wartime defense emergency supplemental 
bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think we really are that far apart. As the 
dean of the New York delegation, I cannot thank this House enough for 
responding to the strike that the terrorists made against our great 
city and, therefore, our great country. And God knows I do not run from 
any defense of this great Republic that has meant so much to so many, 
not only here but the dependency that we have in the free world. We 
stand united in telling the President of the United States that now, 
especially during Memorial Day, please depend on the support of the 
American people as expressed by their representatives in the House of 
Representatives.
  So let that flag fly high today, and let all of us salute it by 
saying, make no mistake about it. The work of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the bringing together of the diversity, but coming out 
ahead is one of the most magnificent feelings of bipartisanship and 
certainly support of the President of the United States in our 
collective war against terrorism.
  What we are talking about today is why would we jeopardize the fine 
work of this committee by including provisions that have nothing to do 
with our patriotism, nothing to do with the war, and nothing to do with 
our support of the President that has guided us this far. Are we 
prepared to say that in this bill that is filled with doing the right 
thing that we can determine which hospitals and which Republican 
districts should get help? Is a child that is sick in one area more 
important than another child because of the political persuasion of 
their Representative? Should we really be dealing in international 
treaties? Should we really be saying that we are going to provide for 
increasing the ability of the country to borrow money in this bill?
  What we are saying is, and what we are leading with, do not take this 
as a threat, we are asking you to please consider giving us an 
opportunity, not just to go home, to go home united with a message 
saying that we support the President and let terrorists know that we 
are not Republicans and Democrats in this House. We are Americans and 
we stand together. And we want that message to go out.
  So we are not here to decide treaties. We are not here to decide 
budgets. We are not here to decide which hospitals we are going to 
support. We are here as Americans who support this war effort. We are 
here to support the work that has been done by the Committee on 
Appropriations, and we just do not think other issues should cloud it.
  So we are going to talk today not about anything else except our 
agreement. And for those people who want to talk about taking this bill 
and distorting the direction which it should go, let them come to the 
floor and tell us why their hospitals are more important than this war 
effort. Let them come to the floor and say why we should not have 
hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means on the debt ceiling. Let 
them come to the floor and determine why we have to pay off a Member 
for a vote on a bill because he has an interest in a trade bill. Let 
them come to the floor because they are the ones that are stopping us 
from supporting the President of the United States now.
  So when you say ``as long as it takes,'' at the end of the day we are 
going to end up together because we are patriots together. And nobody 
that debates the process should be charged with being less American 
than anyone else on this floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of this committee. It has 
not been just this bill, it has been most bills that he has tried to do 
the right thing by the Members of the House of Representatives and 
tried to do the right thing by Americans. But it is the Committee on 
Rules, long after we are gone that would be the only committee we need 
in this House, if the leadership can just, whether it is Republican or 
Democrat, just go to the Committee on Rules and start to legislate. 
That is a bad road for us to travel, especially at a time when we are 
at war.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, rarely do I come to the well of the House to address 
the House, but I wanted to say a few words to my friend, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), personally. I think the gentleman knows full 
well that I dislike that rule vote every bit as much as he does. I am 
not certain, but perhaps it is the worst vote I have ever made around 
this place. But when the chairman of my committee, a man of great 
patience, is providing leadership for my committee, the gentleman knows 
very well where I will be.
  The underlying bill before us today involves a supplemental to fund 
the war on terrorism. Now, when we are not in the leadership, we find 
ourselves in interesting circumstances. The leadership has to do 
certain things to get the work of governing done. If you look at the 
history of my service in the House, among other things, from time to 
time I found myself among those who voted for raising the debt limit 
when the other side of the aisle put us in the position of having to 
approve debt limit increases or close down the government. I voted from 
time to time for debt limit increases. I did not like doing that, but 
sometimes you have got to govern around here.

[[Page H2950]]

  Now, having said all of that, and separate from our leadership, there 
is absolutely no doubt that one of the more thrilling moments that I 
have ever experienced was in this House after the President spoke to us 
all--the Senate, the House, the entire Cabinet and the Supreme Court 
were present. He brought us all together after September 11th, 
reflecting the spirit of America that said we are at war for the first 
time in a generation, several generations.

                              {time}  1045

  Our country, our very way of life is being threatened. We are at war. 
The President struck a note that was the American people's note. They 
want us together, not in partisan division.
  My colleagues will remember that moment--Tom Daschle stepping into 
the well of the House with the President--When they hugged each other, 
not just in friendship and respect, but because they were reflecting 
that American spirit. Our people want us together. This Bill is the 
mechanism for funding this war on terrorism. We will either play a 
partisan game all day in where the other side which was leading us in 
my first 15 years in the House to a multiple, multiple trillion-dollar 
debt, wants to roll a partisan drum that says, Oh, there's more debt 
out there as a result of that rule yesterday.
  Debt? Give me a break, friends. Everybody around here seems to want 
to spend money when it is available to spend. But we are at war. This 
bill is a wartime supplemental, something that most of the Members of 
this House have never experienced. Most of you have never served at a 
time of war. I have not. The reality is that this is a time for us to 
come together, to reflect the American will that says we will be 
together, we will not be in partisan divide.
  We will hear this today. We will see who drags back the work of the 
House. This supplemental should have been off the floor last week, the 
week before, if it had not been for silly games. My colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), knows full well that is the case. 
I appreciate his support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield, since he has used 
my name?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. I 
am always proud to use his name.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. He is my good friend. He is a good 
Member of the House.
  Let me simply say that what the gentleman says about the need to be 
together on the war is absolutely correct. And we have been. And this 
committee has been. We were together on the first $40 billion 
supplemental that passed immediately after September 11. We were 
together on the additional supplemental funding that we provided at the 
end of the year which boosted the antiterrorism spending even over the 
objection of the White House. And we were together on this bill.
  Where we are not going to be together is if the majority party 
leadership insists on making us enablers for economic policy that is 
going to weaken the economic future of this country, and that is what 
we are doing by this debt ceiling increase. That is what we are divided 
on, not the need to support our troops or the war effort.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me suggest to my colleague that for the 
first 18 or so years of my time here I served in the minority. I say 
this is my eighth year in the House because I did not know what it was 
like to be in the majority. I must say that you all have learned a lot 
from the time when we were in the minority. Sometimes that is good. 
Sometimes that is bad. But the fact is, I did not realize a difference 
until suddenly a revolution took place here. With that revolution came 
new responsibility.
  This majority is going to pass the bill that funds the war on 
terrorism, no matter how long it takes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the war effort. We all rise 
today in support of the war effort. In fact, as the debate I think has 
made clear over the last several hours, this issue today is not really 
about the war effort. The very simple, very clear question that is 
presented today is whether it is appropriate under the guise of a very 
necessary, a very important war measure, the supplemental 
appropriations bill, we should append to that imperative measure 
another part that would raise the national debt by $750 billion, 
whether we should append that issue to this moving train, whether that 
is appropriate for this House.
  Today, the House takes a very significant step in raising the 
Nation's debt by $750 billion. This is no minor matter. This is no 
trivial resolution without impact. This is our retirement funds. This 
is our Social Security. This is our future. One might expect that given 
the gravity of that issue that we would have a full debate and a vote 
up or down on the decision to raise the debt by three-quarters of a 
trillion dollars. But that is not what we have here today. What we have 
is, under the popular cover of a supplemental war effort, a measure 
hidden in this bill to plunge this country further into debt. This begs 
one question: Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone? Where have 
the budget hawks gone that were dedicated to a balanced budget?
  I hear from my colleagues in the majority party, they say, Well, our 
party was the one that balanced the budget to begin with. The argument 
seems to be, So we will be the party that unbalances the budget. Can it 
be the policy of the majority party that a balanced budget and 
eliminating the national debt is really very, very important under one 
President but not so important under the next? Surely it cannot be the 
policy of the majority party that under one President, debt is all 
right and under one President debt is not all right. We should not give 
this administration, we should not give any administration, a $750 
billion blank check to increase the national debt.
  We hear from the majority party, Well, it is necessary when you are 
in the majority to lead. I ask, is this leadership? To take a war 
supplemental and hide within its contents raising the debt by three-
quarters of a trillion, is that leadership? I would think leading the 
House would mean placing issues squarely before the House, having a 
full and frank debate on that, and having the courage of the conviction 
to vote it up or down.
  This does not happen because there is a concern about whether a 
majority would vote to raise the debt. I recognize that concern. And, 
in fact, we cannot let this country go into default. But there is an 
alternative. We do not have to raise the debt by three-quarters of a 
trillion dollars. We could raise the debt in a small amount and require 
the administration to work with this body to come up with a balanced 
budget plan, not tomorrow but for the intermediate future, instead of 
where we are today, which is that we have no balanced budget next year 
or the year after or the year after that. We have no balanced budget 
for the next 10 years, and that is simply unacceptable.
  But no. Instead, we are going to get cute. We are going to append 
this debt increase to a very popular measure. And why is this cute? 
Well, because it puts the minority party in the position of having to 
vote against the war effort. It is a two-fer. For the majority party, 
they can say, We didn't vote to raise the debt. And they can say, The 
minority party doesn't support the war effort.
  This country deserves better than cute. It deserves an up-or-down 
vote and debate on whether this country should be plunged further into 
debt. Who is going to take the responsibility for raising this debt? Is 
it this Congress? Are you prepared to take that responsibility? Where 
were you on the night we mortgaged our children's future? So let us not 
shift civil service funds into noninterest-bearing accounts. Let us not 
hide this issue in a wartime supplemental. I urge my colleagues across 
the aisle to work with us. It does not have to be this way. If we put a 
war supplemental on the floor today, which we could do, it would pass 
unanimously. This House would vote unanimously.
  And so let us do that. Let us pass this supplemental unanimously. It 
would be good for this country. Let us raise the debt by a small 
increment. Let us demand a balanced budget from our administration, and 
let us work with them to accomplish this. We recognize that you control 
the House and we do not. We recognize that you can railroad this thing 
through the House and we cannot stop it. But that is not why you came 
here to serve. That is not befitting of your fiscal policy, nor ours.

[[Page H2951]]

  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together and 
balance this budget.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, last night when we started the general debate, the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has done an excellent 
job in bringing this bill out of the committee, described this bill as 
a ``must-pass'' bill. I think that really is something that we all 
agree with. We want to move forward in terms of supporting our war on 
terrorism. But the fact it is a must-pass bill is because this debt 
limit increase has been sneaked in. Let us face it, that is why we are 
here today talking about this issue.
  I am a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs have been 
talking about this issue of a request from the administration to raise 
the debt limit by $750 billion for a number of weeks now. What we have 
said is, let us not give Congress a blank check. Let us not give that 
big of a blank check when there is no plan for how we are ever going to 
get out of this pattern of deficit spending.
  I come out of the private sector. I am a freshman Congressman. I used 
to work in the energy business, and I used to have to finance projects. 
I would have to go to the bank, and I would have to borrow money. When 
you borrow money, you have got to give the bank a plan for how you are 
going to pay it back. That is how it works for all of us, whether you 
are getting a car loan, a home mortgage, or borrowing for your 
business. You have got to have a plan. We have no plan. We have a $750 
billion request from the administration and no plan for how we are 
going to get out of this.
  I understand that we are running a deficit right now, that we have a 
war on terrorism and homeland security concerns, that our economy is in 
recession. I understand that we need to take action. The Blue Dogs as a 
group have produced legislation calling for a clean vote on a debt 
ceiling increase, not $750 billion mind you, but a clean vote to 
provide that increase, to prevent our government from facing any 
problems where they default on their obligations. But part and parcel 
with that is the request that we work together, both sides of the aisle 
and the administration, to come up with a plan, a plan to balance our 
budget, because that is what people expect us to do. They expect us to 
come together, work together; and they expect us to take the tough 
votes. They do not expect us to come and sneak in some legislation in 
the context of a must-pass bill that we all support the effort to pay 
for our war on terrorism; they do not expect us to sneak in a debt-
limit increase at the last second. That is not why my constituents 
elected me. I do not think that is why most constituents vote for their 
Members of Congress.
  I am new to this body. I have not been around here for a long time. 
But I have to say, I am just surprised. I am surprised that we would 
take something as important as increasing the debt limit and sneak this 
in in some innocuous language in an emergency wartime supplemental 
bill. It just does not seem to be appropriate. It does not seem to be 
right. I call on all of our colleagues to take a step back, to take a 
commonsense approach here and recognize that we have our job to do 
today, which is pass an emergency wartime supplemental appropriations 
bill. Let us stand by the good work that the Committee on 
Appropriations has produced. That is what we ought to do. We ought to 
stand by that. It was a bipartisan agreement.
  But as far as this debt limit increase, let us have a healthy debate, 
let us work through the committee process, let us all talk about it. I 
think we can reach consensus on that as well. Maybe not $750 billion. 
In fact, I should not say maybe. I would say it would not be $750 
billion. But I would suggest that we could work together in that 
context. This is not the time and this is not the right vehicle to be 
doing this. That is why we are here, and that is why we are taking so 
much time here today.
  I am really proud of the Blue Dog Coalition and the way they have 
stood up for this issue, because the notion of increasing debt is 
something that is going to create increasing tax burdens in the future. 
I look at my little boy who is 3 years old, and I do not want to force 
a big tax burden on him. But if we keep running up debt here, he is 
going to be paying higher taxes because he is going to have to pay the 
interest on that debt. That is the way we ought to be thinking about 
things. Let us get away from the short-term political view of looking 
out at the next election. Let us look at what that next generation is 
going to be facing in this country. The decisions we make here affect 
them so much. I think anytime we make public policy decisions, when we 
look through the eyes of the next generation, we make better decisions.
  And so when we look at this debt limit issue, $750 billion, that is a 
lot of money. We throw numbers around here all the time, but that is a 
lot of money. I am really concerned about the fact that that is not 
going to be the end. This issue is not going to go away. This issue is 
not going to go away as long as we do not come together and show some 
discipline and come up with a plan and get out of this pattern of 
deficit spending.
  And so I call on my colleagues to work together in that context. I 
call on my colleagues to give us a clean supplemental appropriations 
bill to fund this wartime effort as the previous speaker, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff), had suggested. I think you would get 
unanimous support if we had that opportunity. That is where we ought to 
be today. We could finish this today and we could go home.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It has been said over and over: we all support the war effort. We all 
support the emergency supplemental appropriation for all the right 
reasons. We need to get New York City back on its feet to keep the 
commitment the President made, and we are going to do that. We need to 
support the war effort both at home and abroad. We need to give our 
military and our security agencies the support that they need.
  There are some aspects of this bill that are disagreeable. Raising 
the debt ceiling seems to be the most contentious. But is there any 
doubt that the reason we are raising the debt ceiling was the terrorist 
attack on our country? Look at what happened to our revenues. Look at 
what happened to our economy after that event, after that attack. That 
attack put my State and much of the country into full recession. 
Revenues sunk. Revenue projections were thrown into disarray. We have 
to make a short-term adjustment. We have to do the responsible thing.
  When I was a member of the minority party for 6 years, I voted to 
raise the debt ceiling. It was the responsible thing to do.

                              {time}  1100

  I did not like it, it was distasteful, but I did it.
  Now, it is very easy to be irresponsible in the minority. In the 
minority you do not have to make the hard decisions. The majority does. 
We are trying to govern. So we have some difficult things here. They 
are not easy things to do. But the government has to govern, we have to 
do our job, and if we do not have enough revenues to run the 
government, we have to raise the debt ceiling.
  Now, our party, in the brief time we have been in the majority, has 
dramatically reduced our deficits. We have not had to do this before. 
We have not had to raise the debt ceiling before because we are paying 
down on the debt. What intervened? In the midst of good governance 
there was an attack on our country, and the resultant recession and 
reduction in revenues has hurt us. We need to do this. It is not fun, 
but it has to be done.
  What the debate today is really all about is political advantage. The 
minority party is blaming us for the recession, they are blaming us for 
the loss of revenues. I think their blame is misguided. But it is an 
opportunity for political advantage, so they are trying to take it.
  Democratic members of the Committee on Appropriations have taken the 
unusual step of putting out press releases all around the country 
attacking Republican members for votes on this bill. Is that about 
substance? No, Mr. Chairman, it is all about politics. We are in the 
majority, they want to be in the majority, so they are using this as an 
opportunity.
  The fact remains that we have to govern, we have to make hard 
decisions, and, when all the political

[[Page H2952]]

speeches are over, whether it ends tonight or tomorrow or over the 
weekend or whenever it is, this bill will pass. That is a fact. It will 
pass. We will have the votes to pass this.
  There are a lot of Members here who want to be home for a very 
patriotic Memorial Day weekend. They want to be home with their 
families. They want to be home with their kids. But this job is about 
making sacrifices. We are prepared to make that sacrifice, to stay here 
through the weekend. But the fact remains, whenever we get to the final 
vote on this bill, it will pass.
  I would submit if political advantage is being attempted, the only 
story coming out of Washington today or through the weekend is the sad 
and unfortunate story of Chandra Levy. That is what will dominate the 
press. It is a sad, sad story, but that is what people will be hearing 
about from Washington today and into the near future.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about substance. This debate is about 
substance. It is about hard decisions. It is about governance.
  So make your speeches, try to take your political advantage, but the 
fact remains when we finish the debate, whenever that is, we will pass 
this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most painful experiences I had as a new 
Member of Congress was to go home to my district and bury the wartime 
dead. Early in my career we were engaged in the Bosnia conflict and I 
lost a bright young man to that war and mourned with the family that 
loved him. We went to a church on a country road and we sang all that 
we could sing and we prayed all that we could pray, wishing that we 
were not there, but realizing that he was a patriot who had died for 
his country.
  Today as I stand here, tears come to my eyes, because as we leave 
here this weekend, whatever time it may be, we go home to one of the 
most significant, the most challenging Memorial Day ceremonies that any 
of us will ever experience, for the Nation in the last year was under 
attack. How many of us shed tears, not only for ourselves, our 
families, worrying of their safety, but for our brothers and sisters 
who lost their lives in the great State of New York, and now we mourn 
for those who serve us around the world.
  What I can say to you on this day is that I stand here not 
politicizing this issue. I stand here with great and heavy heart. I do 
acknowledge and I appreciate the appropriators. Mr. Chairman, I thank 
you for the work you have done. You did put out a wartime supplemental, 
that no matter how much we might have pained about the resources, we 
knew it had to be done, and I thank the gentleman for that.
  But having been to Afghanistan just a few weeks ago and spending my 
time with fresh-faced boys and girls, barely older or even younger than 
my 22-year-old, I know this is not foolishness that we are dealing with 
today. That is why I had hoped that we could face this down the way it 
should be faced down, and that we who believe as Americans could come 
together and take the tomfoolery away. Let us vote up and down a war 
supplemental, a vote to give resources to the men and women who, as I 
speak today, are facing danger.
  But, you see, Mr. Chairman, I am in the minority, and I have lived as 
a minority, and I recognize that even though we are being lectured as 
being irresponsible, we are actually today doing an act of integrity. 
For when I got elected in 1994, I came to do the people's business of 
the 18th Congressional District. But because this Democratic Caucus had 
the courage to take a vote in 1993, they lost majority after 40 years. 
They did not lose it on politics. They sacrificed the majority by 
voting to be able to save Social Security. Out of that, we were washed 
out of this House as the majority. We take our lumps.
  But what we are saying today is that even as we face a wartime 
tragedy, you, the Americans, have asked us to face our responsibility. 
A picture is worth 1,000 words. Just last year we had a $5 trillion 
surplus, my friends, to give us the ability to fight terrorism hand-in-
hand with the President. But now, because of a Republican tax cut, we 
are now in a condition where we barely have any money in the bank.
  So when we stand here and talk about a $750 billion credit card debit 
on your account, we are speaking about saving this Nation, about saving 
Social Security. Those who are on it, like my parents, like my 
relatives who gathered with me on the graduation of my daughter, 70-
plus and older, who have worked all of their lives, who have but Social 
Security, as we fight the war, we must recognize that Social Security 
cannot be violated.
  What we are saying to this body, to the Republican majority, is to be 
responsible. If you are going to increase the debt ceiling, let us have 
an up-or-down vote, a debate, so the American people will know that 
$750 billion is basically going to wipe us out.
  When we begin to talk about Social Security, for those who this 
morning got up and got on a train to go to work, or maybe they got on a 
bus, or maybe they walked, or maybe they carpooled, with their trust in 
America, that there was going to be something in their account, they 
did not expect today, while we are here, that we would have the 
ability, because of this tax cut, Mr. Chairman, to raid Social Security 
$1.8 trillion.
  This is not a game, Mr. Chairman, as I close; it is an act of 
integrity. Clean up the bill and we will vote for it.
  The wartime supplemental is for all Americans, don't insult us by 
suggesting we are unpatriotic--rather we are accepting the lonely 
responsibility of fighting against this legislation that leaves no 
money to help our troops, fight terrorism, or save Social Security--
that Mr. Speaker, constitutes the work of patriots.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues on the other side only spoke about 
defense and not the political rhetoric, ``tax breaks for the rich,'' 
have you ever heard that before? ``Debt ceiling,'' which we support. 
Social Security, ``stealing all the Social Security money.'' The 
rhetoric is political, and that is why we are here today. If they would 
do away with that and talk about the bill and the defense of this 
country, we would come together.
  Mr. Chairman, I look at ``tax breaks for the rich.'' My colleagues in 
the Democrat leadership have never seen a tax that they do not like. 
They fight against tax relief when it comes, and then they fight to try 
and justify why they did not vote for tax relief for working families.
  In 1993 they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, 
and then the majority leader said, ``Oh, we are going to have a bill, 
we are going to have a tax bill that has tax relief for working 
families and the middle class.'' What did they end up doing? They 
increased the tax on the middle class. They increased the tax on Social 
Security. They stole every dime out of the Social Security trust fund 
to balance their budget. Was it a balanced budget? No. That budget was 
$300 billion in deficit, and we were looking at approaching a $5 
trillion national debt. We paid $1 billion a day on just the interest 
on the debt.
  So Democrats are not only to blame for that, Republicans are, too. 
But the rhetoric going on here today, saying, well, Republicans are 
doing this, that and that, it is just not true. It is intellectually 
wrong.
  Let me go through some things, reasons why we came together in the 
Committee on Appropriations, that I think is very, very important for 
us to realize.
  The previous administration, I stood on this House floor and said to 
my colleagues that supported extending going into Somalia that it is 
going to cost money and it is going to cost lives. You have seen 
Blackhawk Down. You know why we lost those soldiers, because an 
administration changed the policy of going after General Adid and 
reduced the number of troops in Somalia at the same time, making our 
troops vulnerable. And when our very military asked for help, they were 
turned down. It cost the Secretary of Defense his job. Was he to blame? 
No. And what happened? We lost a lot of people.
  Haiti could still be there for many more years. Go to Haiti sometime. 
It is one of the worst places you could ever go. Billions of dollars.
  Then you look at the other 127 deployments, peacekeeping deployments, 
that put us over $250 billion in the hole for defense. There are 14 
ships, both Republican and Democrat districts. But there is even more 
for the national security of this country that cannot go anywhere 
because we had to take

[[Page H2953]]

money out of the O&M accounts, operation and maintenance accounts, and 
we have not been able to fix those ships and bring them up to mission 
capable. We are going below a 300-ship Navy, which is detrimental to 
the national security of this country.
  The R&D accounts, the SU-27, a Russian-deployed fighter going to 
many, many different countries. Mr. Chairman, I have flown against Mig 
AIC, and our pilots died 95 percent of the time in our best airplanes, 
our F-14s, F-16s, F-18s, because the Russians have developed an AA-10, 
AA-11 and AA-12 missile. They have a helmet-mounted sight. Our kids 
died. We have never had that in America.
  We are fighting a war overseas, billions of dollars. Billions of 
dollars going to New York, which I think is justified, to help them 
recuperate. We are fighting with billions of dollars here in the United 
States, trying to defend this country. My good friend, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), fought brilliantly to actually increase 
homeland defense.
  Do we want to raise the debt ceiling to help our military? Yes. Do we 
want to go through the political rhetoric of this bill? No.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have only the highest respect for the leadership that 
we have heard from on the other side of the aisle from the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from New 
York, the gentleman from California, and I listened carefully to what 
they were saying.
  For example, I agree with much of what the gentleman from New York 
had to say, but I sincerely believe he is wrong if he thinks that I or 
some of my colleagues here are seeking to avoid hard choices, for 
example, on the debt limit. It is not something that I seek to avoid. I 
am happy to have a debate on this floor on the budget on our fiscal 
situation dealing with these difficult, difficult choices that I know 
our friends on the Committee on Appropriations are dealing with on an 
ongoing basis.

                              {time}  1115

  Sadly, what we have here today, however, has little to do with 
fighting the war on terrorism or dealing with hard fiscal choices. If 
that were the case, we could have an honest debate and reach resolution 
quickly. If it were just about funding our war against terrorism, we 
could have that debate in minutes and have unanimity and be done with 
it. Sadly, the defense supplemental is only an excuse; it is a label. 
We are seeing, for instance, that the purpose of the bill and the rule 
under which it is presented to us is precisely a way to avoid having 
that debate, to avoid dealing directly and honestly with the debate 
limitation. But it goes far beyond fiscal policy. It goes far beyond 
the war on terrorism.
  I have one other sad example that concerns me, as we see inserted in 
the supplemental appropriations bill a provision to grant the 
Department of Defense an exemption from environmental regulations to 
deal with responsibility for water consumption that occurs ``outside a 
military installation and beyond the direct authority and control of 
the Department of Defense Secretary.''
  The reason this provision is in has nothing to do with fiscal 
responsibility, has nothing to do with the war against terrorism. It is 
simply to avoid environmental protection for the San Pedro River in 
Arizona, one of the richest biological reserves in all of North America 
that was designated by this Congress after deliberation by a committee 
of jurisdiction in 1988 as a national riparian conservation area. But 
this river, this resource is being dewatered as a result of the 
activities of the Department of Defense operation at the nearby Fort 
Huachuca.
  The amendment in the bill we are debating today means that the fort's 
action in the future, adding activity, contracting out that will 
increase water consumption, can occur without any consideration to the 
extent to which they jeopardize the river, without any consideration of 
the alternatives. This has nothing to do with fiscal policy. This has 
nothing to do with the war against terrorism.
  In addition to irreparably damaging an ecosystem in Arizona, it is an 
additional terrible precedent for the way that this House operates. 
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been dedicated to the 
proposition that the Federal Government should be a better partner with 
State and local governments, with the private sector, with individuals, 
to make communities more livable, to lead by example, not lots of rules 
and regulations and imposition of things that are difficult. Just step 
up and walk the talk.
  But this is sad commentary, Mr. Chairman. The House does not 
legislate very often. It is hard for people to feel comfortable 
debating on the hard decisions. But this act does not solve America's 
problems. Stealth attacks on the environment are not a part of the war 
against terrorism. Stealth evasion of fiscal policy, the debt limit, 
and what we should be doing in the future, are not part of the war 
against terrorism and, most important, Mr. Chairman, having a bizarre 
provision under this rule that creates false conflicts on this floor 
are not, are not a part of the war against terrorism. The American 
people deserve better.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we are here at the eve 
of Memorial Day, and as we approach this weekend and we approach 
Memorial Day, we think about all of the symbols of the values of this 
country and all of the battles that have been waged on behalf of those 
values of democracy, of freedom; all of the sacrifice that has been 
given to this country on behalf of those values, on behalf of those 
freedoms. We all recognize our duty, as we have young men and women in 
harm's way in Afghanistan, in the Philippines, in Colombia, and so many 
troubled areas of the world where those values of democracy and freedom 
are not near and dear as they are here. We all understand our 
obligation to provide the resources to those individuals, to those 
troops, to those support organizations for those young men and women. 
That is what this supplemental is supposed to be about, to provide 
those resources so that there will be an unbroken chain of support on 
behalf of our troops.
  We are all prepared to meet that challenge, as we have so many times 
in the Congress of the United States. We have met that challenge, along 
with our citizens, from small towns, from urban centers, from rural 
areas, because Americans understood what we were supposed to be about, 
that we were about defending democracy, that we were about defending 
freedom. They understood it as we engaged in the war on terror to repel 
the attack that was made on our country. They understood that their 
sons and daughters would be placed in harm's way. They understood that 
their neighbors, their friends would be placed in harm's way. But we 
all also understood America's role in the world.
  Yet, we now find, we now find, as we will remember in speeches this 
weekend, in parades and ceremonies, the courage of these young men and 
women, the great symbols of the past, the Midways, the Pearl Harbors, 
the Antietams, the great symbols of this country, the pieces of history 
of this country, the sacrifice of this country, as we remember that and 
remember that courage, we will have to think back to today when the 
House of Representatives and the Republicans in the House decided they 
would not exhibit that courage. They would not exhibit the courage 
equal to that of the young men and women who are in harm's way, to 
those who sacrificed in the past.
  The simple courage would be to stand up and cast your vote, to cast 
your vote, yes or no, to add $750 billion to the debt limit, to cast 
your vote, yes or no, whether or not we want to invade the Social 
Security trust funds; to cast your vote, yes or no, whether or not you 
want to make it more difficult to take care of the baby boomers who are 
getting ready to retire; to cast your vote, yes or no, whether or not 
Medicare will be available for them to the extent that it is today. 
That is what we all said we would do when we ran for Congress.
  But today, today courage is failing the Congress, the House of 
Representatives, the Republican majority. Today,

[[Page H2954]]

courage seeps out of their body as they try to disguise this vote, to 
camouflage this vote so that they will not be held accountable for the 
results. The results are a dramatic addition to the national debt of 
this country. The results are increasing liability of the Social 
Security trust fund, the vulnerability of the Social Security trust 
fund.
  It was said by Alexander Hamilton on the explanation of 
representative government when he answered the question, he said, 
``Here, sir, the people govern.'' The people govern. And we govern 
through them and they govern through us.
  What the Democrats are asking for is the opportunity to cast a vote, 
yes or no, up or down, on the most important issue confronting our 
economy and our country, and that is the debt of this Nation. My 
colleagues are not denying George Miller a vote. My colleagues are not 
denying the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) a vote. They are 
denying the people of Tennessee and the people of California a vote who 
have strongly held views. That is why we have had great debates in this 
Congress in the past. That is why we had votes where a one-vote margin 
raised the taxes or lowered the taxes or got rid of the debt.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to have the courage of our convictions. The 
Republican Party has to have the courage of its convictions. If you 
believe the debt limit should be raised, if you believe Social Security 
should be invaded, then have the courage of your convictions to stand 
up and do it. Our men and women in harm's way have their courage.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk about raising the national debt 
limit here; and I just want to point out, first of all, that I have in 
my hand the supplemental bill right here. It has nothing to do with 
raising the national debt. In fact, if my colleagues want to know what 
is in the bill, they can simply get the report portion and they can 
read the highlights on pages 1 and 2; and it outlines very nicely about 
how we are going to address the needs of our Department of Defense, of 
our Department of Transportation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
and so on, things that are very necessary at this point in time.
  I think it is important that we point that out. It is not in the 
supplemental bill. Where all of this confusion is coming from from the 
other side came from the rule. Now, in the rule it says nothing about 
owing $750 billion or borrowing $750 billion, or robbing Social 
Security, or any environmental issues about a river in Oregon. What it 
does say, very simply, on page 3 in the rule, or the report on the 
rule, it says, section 1403 provides statutory assurance that the 
United States Government will take all necessary steps to guarantee the 
full faith and credit of the Government. That is all it says, full 
faith and credit of the government. That is what this debate has boiled 
down to when we talk about the national debt.
  Now, if we look at full faith and credit, what is the alternative? 
What would the others propose to do if we avoid the full faith and 
credit of the United States? Now, some of them have people in their 
districts, maybe even relatives, that actually have U.S. savings bonds. 
What if they wanted to go down and cash that U.S. saving bond, but we 
had no full faith and credit in the United States? What kind of chaos 
would occur from that? I think it is very important that we have full 
faith and credit in the United States.
  Now, let us just review what happened to come to this phrase. It says 
full faith and credit of the United States Government. September 11 
threw us into a big shock in our economy. We all know that it happened; 
we cannot deny it. If we listen to the debate that we have had, I think 
we pretty much agree that we have to do something to ensure our 
national security and our homeland security. I do not think there is 
any doubt about that. We may argue about how much we should, but I 
think the point remains that we want to do something to ensure that our 
national security and homeland security is safe. But because of 
September 11, the economy will generate in fiscal year 2002, starting 
last October and going until next September 30, about $200 billion less 
in Federal tax revenues. Well, that puts us in a problem. But to 
address the problem, we have already placed $43 billion in additional 
funds to address the crisis in fiscal year 2002; $43 billion. We are 
looking at taking care of more of those needs right now.
  But we have heard how our economy was devastated, our Federal revenue 
was devastated by the tax cut that was passed last year. Well, during 
fiscal year 2002, there will be $38 billion less in Federal tax revenue 
because of the tax package that was passed; $38 billion less. Now, 
where did the numbers of $750 billion come from?
  Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing that there is $750 billion that we 
are going to take out of Social Security; yet there is only $38 billion 
less because of tax relief. Now, what did the Americans do when they 
got that money in their pocket? Well, they had a little extra money in 
their pocket, so they went out and they bought durable goods.

                              {time}  1130

  This month, durable goods orders are up. That is a good thing. It is 
helping our economy get generated. That will increase the amount of 
Federal revenue through increased tax dollars.
  What else did they do? They bought new automobiles. I had an 
automobile dealer in Wichita, Kansas, which was the community that was 
hit the worst by the events of September 11. Wichita, Kansas, and the 
surrounding area, if we take the number of jobs lost because of 
September 11 versus the total number of jobs in the community, 
percentage-wise, we were hit worse than any community in the Nation. 
Yet, the Ford dealer, the largest Ford dealer in that area, had a 
record month at the end of last year because there was a little extra 
money in people's pockets and they were going out and spending that 
money, helping generate revenue by increased tax dollars.
  So that $38 billion has gone towards new washing machines, towards 
new automobiles, towards new homes. It has made a significant 
difference in helping us recover from the events of September 11.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has 
expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) be allowed to proceed for 3 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  Mr. WALSH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I will not 
object, but I would like to register a complaint.
  The dilatory tactics we are seeing today are bad enough playing by 
the rules. To waive the rules to allow more dilatory tactics is not 
necessarily a good idea for this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this time, but if there are 
further requests for extensions of time beyond the normal rules and I 
am in this chair, I will object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Kansas be kind enough 
to yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman suggested that there was really nothing in this bill 
which related to the addition of $750 billion to the Nation's debt, and 
indicated that our problem was with the rule instead of the bill.
  The problem is this, if the gentleman would continue to yield: The 
rule added section 1403 to this bill, and that section has the language 
to which the gentleman refers on the full faith and credit of the 
government.
  That was not included so that we could send a message to ourselves; 
that was included because, under the rules of the House, that is what 
we have to do in order to make possible the addition of that $750 
billion by way of a Senate amendment. That means that when the bill 
comes back here, Members will be voting on this entire supplemental. 
They will be shielded from having to take the responsibility for that 
vote.
  If the gentleman does not agree with that, he is the only one in the 
House who does not.

[[Page H2955]]

  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the point is that we 
had a vote on whether this language should have been included when we 
voted the rule and approved the rule on the floor of the House.
  When we approved the rule, we conducted, as our Founding Fathers had 
hoped, the democratic process in our republic form of government where 
we approved by a simple majority that this would be part of what we are 
addressing right now. It was part of the rule. That is where the vote 
was, so the gentleman had a vote, an up-or-down vote. We had an up-or-
down vote on whether this was going to be part of that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we did 
not have a vote on that.
  Would the gentleman grant that under the rule, it is impossible for 
us to offer an amendment so that we can vote only on that issue? That 
was wrapped into other issues when the rule was adopted.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, did the gentleman vote for the rule?
  Mr. OBEY. No.
  Mr. TIAHRT. There were other issues here. This may have been the 
driving force, but when most of us make up our decision, we try to 
weigh the good with the bad. The gentleman apparently chose that this 
was at least one of the straws on the camel's back that it was too much 
for him to vote for the rule.
  I would suggest that the majority thought this was an important 
enough issue that we should directly address it by putting it in the 
rule.
  Mr. OBEY. But the gentleman would grant that we did not ever have a 
vote specifically on that? He would agree with that?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I would agree that we did not have a specific vote.
  Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman not think we should?
  Mr. TIAHRT. When do we ever have a specific vote on something like 
that?


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair would request 
that all Members use proper procedures in yielding time back and forth, 
and that Members address their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of problems with this bill today, but I 
would like to focus, Mr. Chairman, on one major provision snuck in 
there, really, by the Republicans. Of course, that provision that I am 
talking about deals with the increase in the debt limit.
  Now, this seems like a pretty technical and obscure term, but it 
really does deal with a fundamental issue that affects us all. It is 
actually pretty simple.
  Now, the Republicans inherited a budget surplus which, of course, 
they squandered last year on their $2 trillion tax cut benefiting 
primarily the wealthiest people in this country. That is an unfortunate 
fact, but that is what occurred.
  Now, because they have totally overspent their own budget, they must 
increase the government's debt. This is totally irresponsible and 
jeopardizes programs important to millions of Americans, programs like 
Social Security and Medicare, which our seniors and people with 
disabilities rely on. Every penny we take to increase the government 
debt must come from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  Instead of taking money away from Medicare, we really should be 
adding to it, including a comprehensive prescription drug benefit. 
Instead of robbing Social Security, we should be shoring it up to 
ensure its solvency, so that our children and grandchildren will have 
these benefits.
  Social Security is an essential social insurance program which keeps 
so many seniors, especially women and low-income individuals, out of 
poverty. It is unconscionable that the Republicans want to rob Social 
Security to really pay for this irresponsible tax cut last year.
  I also think it is pretty hypocritical to ask for this debt increase. 
Last year, a bankruptcy bill, a very punitive bankruptcy bill, was 
rammed through that will hurt many hardworking people who could not pay 
their debts, often because of unexpected hardships, such as an illness 
or the loss of a job.
  So now I do not believe that congressional Republicans have faced an 
unexpected hardship. They intentionally passed that $2 trillion tax cut 
knowing that it would decimate our Federal budget. So now, instead of 
tightening their belts or repealing that irresponsible tax cut, they 
are just giving themselves more money. That is basically what this is.
  How is it that they can put the screws on ordinary working people who 
cannot pay their debt, but just simply raid Social Security and 
Medicare when they cannot pay their own debt?
  During debate on the bankruptcy bill last year, I remember very 
vividly the Republicans stated that those who cannot manage their debts 
were acting irresponsibly and should live within their means. So I 
think what we are doing today really is an example of the height of 
hypocrisy that we have seen in this body: There is one standard for 
ordinary people and another for congressional Republicans.
  I think we all should practice what we preach. Instead of sneaking an 
increase in the debt into this emergency spending bill today, we should 
be repealing the reckless tax cut passed last year. We really cannot 
pass this on, or we should not pass this debt on to our children and 
our grandchildren. We should not raid the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds. We must not also cut essential programs that people rely 
on, such as housing and education and health care. This bill does much 
more, and much of that.
  So it is time, I think, for us to do the right thing. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this very dangerous debt increase today.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just felt the need to respond to the level of really 
demagoguery and intellectual bankruptcy that I have been hearing from 
my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle this 
morning and last night. I just feel the need to review some facts that 
every one of the Members knows have been conveniently left out of this 
discussion.
  I will start with one, which is a simple fact that everyone knows, 
that if we had not passed any tax cut at all last year, we would still 
be running a deficit. They know that. They know for a fact that the 
cost of the war, the cost of rebuilding New York, the cost of 
increasing homeland security, as well as the cost of spending in other 
areas, is vastly greater than the revenue that was lost to the Treasury 
as a result of last year's tax cuts. Members know that.
  They also know that, perhaps with the exception of defense spending, 
where many would still like to cut, not all but many would, that these 
folks want the Federal Government to spend much more money on non-
defense, non-homeland security areas than we do. We just heard the 
previous speaker talk about inadequate spending in all kinds of other 
programs.
  Members know also that each and every year, at least since I have 
been here, and that is only 4 years so far, but in each and every year 
when there has been an appropriation bill on this floor in which we are 
not in agreement, I cannot remember a single time in which these folks 
came down here and said, you know, you guys are spending too much. No, 
it was always the opposite. They have always come down here and said, 
they are not spending enough.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so I can correct his 
statement?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Furthermore, Members know that if they had had their way 
last year, for instance, if they were in control of this Chamber and 
the rest of the Federal Government, I am sure there would have been no 
tax cut. I am sure that is true.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is filling in with 
misstatements.
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend. The time is controlled by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Chairman.
  I think it is a very safe bet that in the absence of that tax cut, 
the revenue that theoretically would have been collected, although that 
is theory, but that revenue would in all likelihood have been spent on 
any variety of government programs that those folks would like to spend 
more money on.
  But thinking about this, I thought, well, maybe I am wrong.

[[Page H2956]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield so I can correct 
that mistake with a fact?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
  Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has the 
floor. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Now, I want to reflect on the possibility that maybe I am 
wrong. Maybe I am wrong about this.
  Mr. OBEY. . . .
  Mr. TOOMEY. Maybe there is a new consensus in the Democratic Party. 
Maybe there is a new conscience about deficits that was never exhibited 
during the decades in which the Democratic Party controlled the Federal 
Government and ran up massive deficits and accumulated a huge debt. 
There was no evidence of that conscience then, but maybe there is one 
now. Maybe there is a new sense of fiscal responsibility.
  Since those folks are so upset about this deficit and the debt that 
is occurring, then what we ought to do, and frankly, what we all ought 
to do, myself and all the Republicans, what we ought to do is seriously 
consider the alternative budget that they have proposed, the 
alternative budget that those folks ran in the Committee on the Budget, 
the alternative budget that would have no deficits, that would 
accomplish all the goals that they have talked about.
  But why is it that we do not consider that alternative budget? Well, 
they know the reason for that, too. It is because they do not have one. 
All the rhetoric, the demagoguery, the attacks occur, but there are no 
alternatives.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield so that I might----
  Mr. TOOMEY. I sit on the Committee on the Budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has the floor. He has indicated he does not 
wish to yield. Members should not interrupt other Members who have the 
floor. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Committee on the Budget 
who sat through budget hearings and the budget markup and the debate on 
the budget, I think I know why there is no budget from the other side. 
That is, if they had to propose a budget, they probably would have 
proposed a budget with larger deficits than we have.
  Oh, sure, there would have been no tax cut. In fact, some would like 
to have raised taxes by repealing what is coming in the way of further 
tax relief. Some do not want to do that. But the fact is, there would 
not be the future tax cuts. That money would have been spent, as was 
proposed by the Democrats on the Committee on the Budget during the 
markup. We would have a weaker economy as a result of a higher tax 
burden, and probably less revenue.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply argue that the lack of a serious 
alternative really undermines every single argument that we have heard 
from our colleagues on the other side. A party that lacks the courage 
to propose any alternative really lacks the credibility to justify the 
attacks against the party that has taken the responsibility of 
governing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania might be given 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that apparently the 
tactic on the other side is going to be to have speakers get up and 
make erroneous statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the 
truth or the facts, and then refuse to debate that issue by yielding 
time, and then further refuse to extend the time so that they might be 
challenged on their statements. That truly means there is no real 
debate left in this House.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman would not facilitate it for me. Why should I 
facilitate for him what he would not facilitate for me?
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I think the gentleman who just 
spoke was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) is one of the sponsors of a 
constitutional amendment which requires a three-fifths vote of this 
House before the national debt could be raised by one dime. Yet, he has 
just stood here on this floor defending actions by the majority which, 
in essence, have enabled this House to slip through, eventually, a $750 
billion increase in the national debt without a single Member of the 
House ever having to stand up and actually vote directly on that issue.
  That is why I challenge the gentleman's statements, because I have 
never seen a bigger example of different positions within a short 
period of time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman will not yield to me. I will return the same 
courtesy to the gentleman that he has returned to me.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and I want 
to talk today about fiscal responsibility versus fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  Now, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle would have you 
believe that this bill is just about the war effort and supporting 
homeland security. Let me tell you if that were true, we would have 
passed this bill last night. Democrats support the President's war 
against terrorism. Democrats support the war. Democrats support the 
weapons system that we need, and we certainly support homeland security 
since, believe it or not, we share the same homeland with my Republican 
colleagues.
  No, this debate is about the fact that the Republicans have slipped 
into this bill a measure to raise the debt ceiling. Let me repeat: the 
Republicans want to raise the debt ceiling. They want an extension of 
credit on the Nation's credit card.
  Now, what does that mean? This means that they want to raid the 
Social Security trust fund. They want to weaken Social Security for the 
baby boom generation. This also means that we will have an increase in 
long-term interest rates, which means that interest on home mortgages 
will increase.
  Now, the question we really ought to ask is why do we want to raise 
the debt ceiling? Why do they want more credit? Now, they will tell you 
it is the war effort, and we all ought to be behind the war effort. Let 
me give you the facts. Only 10 percent of the deficit is due to the war 
effort; 43 percent of deficit is due to the big tax cuts that the 
Republicans passed. Again, they are saying we have got to have an 
extension of credit. It is like a man whose house has a leaky roof. He 
comes to the credit card company and says I need an extension of credit 
because my roof is leaking. He ignores the fact that he bought jewels, 
bought furs, bought new cars and took big vacations. That is why he 
maxed-out his credit card.
  Now, they would also like you to believe that we are talking about 
the tax credit that most Americans got, $300 for a single person, $600 
for a couple. That is not true. We are talking about the tax breaks 
that the Republicans gave the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. How 
much do they make? The wealthiest 1 percent make over a million dollars 
a year; and yet this year they have got $9,000 back in a tax break. 
Over the entire term of the tax break they will get $54,000 in tax 
breaks, but yet they tell you the problem is the war.
  The problem is not the war. The problem is the fact that we have 
given money to the very wealthy in this country. We should not let the 
Republicans hide behind the war effort to shield their 
irresponsibility. Democrats support our men at war. Democrats support 
our President and Democrats support our homeland. But we do not support 
fiscal irresponsibility.
  If they wanted to raise the debt ceiling, why hide it in a bill to 
support the war? Why not have an open and clean debate? They do not 
want to do that. They would rather slip it in.

[[Page H2957]]

  I say we should reject this bill, insist on a true war effort bill, 
and then insist on a clean debate on the debt ceiling because if they 
want to expand the credit line for the Nation's credit card, they at 
least ought to be up front and tell the American people why.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening carefully to the debate, and I 
feel slightly confused. I have heard my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and other Democrats talk about increasing the 
national debt. It seemed to me we are talking about increasing the 
national debt ceiling which is a measurement of the national debt but 
not the national debt. The national debt is increased by voting for 
appropriations which is done by the gentleman's party with great glee 
and delight, and so increasing the national debt is a function of 
appropriations and borrowing, and we are talking about the debt 
ceiling, which is a measurement only.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that debt is not only rung up when 
you appropriate money, whether it is for war or for education. Debt is 
also added to if you pass tax cuts that are paid for with borrowed 
money; and that is what the majority party did to a fare-thee-well last 
year. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman's animosity towards tax 
cuts. It is profound and palpable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would observe that part of the reason I did not yield 
time before is because I was concerned that what did happen would 
happen, which is that rather than refute the basic premise of my 
argument, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) brings up extraneous 
issues. For instance, he did not refute that the Democratic Party has 
utterly abdicated its responsibility by not proposing a budget. 
Instead, he brings up the issue of a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, which I do support, but which, unless the gentleman can 
correct me, unless I am mistaken, it includes an exception for time of 
war.
  I would observe to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that it 
strikes me that we are engaged in a war, I believe. It also allows for 
an exception in a time of a national emergency. If we are not in a 
national emergency, then I do not know what this is.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Could the gentleman tell me, has the Congress declared war 
so it would in fact fit under the terms of that resolution?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Under that logic the gentleman would suggest that Viet 
Nam was not a war, Korea was not a war, in the Persian Gulf we did not 
have a war, and today we are not at war. I would reject that 
categorically. It seems to me pretty clear that we are at war. We were 
at war in those other circumstances despite the fact that Congress did 
not declare it.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill 
that we have before us. It supports the troops and our brave men and 
women overseas. It supports homeland security. And I think all of us 
here in this Chamber support those efforts. And yet, we hear Members 
from the other side get up and say that we are making this issue 
political. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  When this bill came before the Committee on Appropriations, it passed 
with a large overwhelming bipartisan majority; Democrats and 
Republicans working together to put out an appropriations bill to 
further our war effort and our homeland security effort. And it was 
only when the Committee on Rules intervened and devised this devious 
rule to join up this raising of the national debt and our war effort 
together that we had this serious problem before us. And it is our 
friends on the other side of the aisle that control that Committee on 
Rules that have made this a political process.
  There are a large number of controversial riders in this bill which 
we should be able to vote on individually. There is an increase in our 
involvement in the civil war in Colombia. This bill requires Medicare 
provider reimbursement increases in parts of the country while ignoring 
others without a vote. This bill requires textiles to be dyed and 
finished in the United States without a vote. There are other important 
foreign policy issues. There are important health care issues. But we 
are demeaning this institution, this fine democratic institution, if we 
do not allow votes on these important national issues.
  I am beginning to feel like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog's Day.'' Every 
day I wake up expecting that the Republican leadership will want a 
lively debate on the extremely important public policy issues that we 
are asked to consider in this body. Unfortunately, when I get to work, 
it is always business as usual. No open debate; no democratic process.
  The Republican leadership and this administration are attempting to 
conceal their efforts to raise the national debt by attaching it to a 
bipartisan appropriations bill. Instead of working to undo the fiscal 
mess their budget created, they are pursuing a policy that would simply 
raid the Social Security trust fund to paper over their fiscal 
mismanagement.
  According to the President's own numbers, the national debt will be 
roughly $2.7 trillion greater than it was projected last year. $1.9 
trillion of that loss cannot be explained by the terrorist attacks or 
the economic downturn. It is the direct result of an irresponsible 
fiscal policy of this administration. Large deficits mean higher 
interest rates, and higher interest rates means millions of hard-
working Americans will face what is essentially a tax increase. This 
increase falls hardest on the middle class and the working poor, those 
people who have the most debt. Sixteen cents out of every dollar, or 
roughly $1 billion per day, goes to pay interest on the national debt. 
Since much of that interest is paid to foreign investors, American 
taxpayers send nearly $100 billion out of the country each year.
  Now, I remember when the Republicans accused Democrats of 
irresponsibility because Treasury Secretary Ruben wanted to raise the 
debt ceiling. Now, with President Clinton and the Democrats working 
hard, we have balanced the budget and our friends on the other side of 
the aisle are calling for a run of deficits into the future. Current 
projections put us 10 years out on deficits. And, again, the Democrats 
are being proactive in searching for ways to fix the problems created 
by this administration's fiscal policy.
  The Democratic leadership has called for a bipartisan summit to 
discuss the Nation's financial problems and to work toward bipartisan 
solutions. I hope my Republican colleagues will join with us to seek 
out long-term solutions, not deceptive policies that will lead to more 
debt and less economic security. We should not allow fiscal 
mismanagement and the raiding of Social Security to slide through 
without a vote.
  Let us all remember one year ago, this President and the Republicans 
on this floor told us that we could do it all. We could pay down the 
debt. We could protect Social Security and Medicare. We could have 
other urgent dollars to pay for needs. Now today we are no longer 
paying down the debt. Mr. Chairman, to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, we are borrowing, borrowing from our grandchildren. Shame on 
you in this procedure.
  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find this an interesting political debate we are 
having now. And for my colleagues on the other side who are in the 
minority and the policies of tax and spend when they had 40 years of 
control, and so now they start going off on this filibuster-type debate 
on issues that are not really the critical issues of vote today.

[[Page H2958]]

  Today we are talking about a war supplemental. I got elected in 1992. 
And I served my first 2 years in the minority in this institution. I 
was never in politics before I came to Congress, and I found it 
disappointing, actually, how partisan this institution was. And in 1993 
the budget was basically a partisan issue. They had the largest tax 
increase in history in 1993 and every Republican voted against it. But 
as a minority, when John Kasich was chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, we presented a budget in 1993 and 1994. We had an alternative 
budget. But now all the minority wants to do is complain. There is no 
alternative budget. All they would do is offer some amendments to our 
budget.
  The other body, to get a conference report on the budget, which is 
really the crux of the whole problem we are facing right now, the other 
body has not produced a budget. The Senate has not produced a budget 
yet. And so we are in this position where we have to move forward with 
our appropriations bills; but without a budget we just have to go 
through this process that we are doing now with the deeming of the 
resolution and doing this on the supplemental.
  Now that we are in the majority, I remember when I came into the 
majority in 1995, I had to vote for things that I did not want to vote 
for. I remember as a minority member I did not have to vote for a lot 
of the appropriations bills. I voted against the District of Columbia 
appropriations back in 1993 and 1994. Marion Barry was mayor. You all 
had to vote in favor of that. It was a tough vote as a member of the 
majority. It was a tough vote for me in 1995. And I think I did vote 
for the D.C. appropriation bill back then because we had the 
responsibility to govern. And so now that we are in the majority party 
to have to face some of these tough issues and increasing the debt 
limit is one.

                              {time}  1200

  Every year the Democrats were in the majority, they had to provide 
for increases in the debt limit. Either we had a vote or my 
understanding is they used the Gephardt rule and was part of the budget 
conference report that automatically had the increase in the debt 
ceiling.
  So it was passed continually for the years when the Democrats were in 
control and we have had to do it every year to provide for it that way, 
too, because if we do not increase the debt ceiling, we are not going 
to send out Social Security checks. We are not going to the hospitals 
or the doctors for Medicare. We are not going to take care of our 
veterans. It is something that has to be done because it is the only 
way we can keep the government running.
  We are talking about why we are into this fiscal crisis. I came in as 
a fiscal conservative. I was upset with the fiscal irresponsibility in 
Washington, and so a key part of our Contract with America back in 1994 
was balance the budget. The big fight we had in 1995 was balancing the 
budget over 7 years, and we did it in less than that, and the key is 
getting to a balanced budget.
  I am disappointed we are not going to have a balanced budget now, but 
there are certain things that have come up, as the President talked 
about, that are causing this. One is a recession. Our revenues are down 
an estimated $200 billion, and so we need to stimulate the economy and 
grow ourselves back out of it. That is how we got into a surplus, a 
large reason was; we grew ourselves out of it by the booming economy. 
So first of all, we have a recession.
  Then the September 11 events, we are in a war. We had a $40 billion 
emergency supplemental last year which I voted for. We are going to 
have another $29 billion here today or tomorrow. So we have got another 
$70 billion of emergency spending to take care of the war issue.
  So what are our choices? We need to take care of our homeland 
security, we need to address the war, and we need to continue the 
priorities of biomedical research, of education, of the veterans and 
other issues we have to address here.
  My solution to the whole problem today is we need a closed rule. This 
idea of a totally open rule is just going on and on and on. So I would 
encourage our leaders on our side of the aisle to go back to the 
Committee on Rules, come back with a closed rule, and say let us have 
all of the appropriate amendments, set up a time, we do this all the 
time on the Committee on Rules, and say let us go ahead and have a 
regular debate and regular order and not continue talking and talking 
and talking about basically the same thing because the other said, oh, 
we are fiscally irresponsible when after their 40 years of control is 
what got us into all the debt problem, and now we have a war and a 
recession, combined with a national emergency, and we are doing the 
responsible thing.
  They did not vote for the rule. I am not sure what they are going to 
do with the final bill. I think we should take it to the Committee on 
Rules, come up with a new rule and end this filibuster.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman from 
Florida might be allowed to continue for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, evidently what we have going on here is that 
we not only have faux legislation, we now also have faux debate. We are 
not having debate here. We have got members of the other side giving 
speeches without being willing to engage in give-and-take.
  I would simply like to say to my good friend from Florida, he is 
right. This place has been too partisan, but I would point out, we did 
not make this bill partisan. This was a bipartisan bill supported by 
both parties in the committee. It came out of the committee, and your 
leadership made it partisan by dragging in their partisan plan to raise 
the national debt by $750 billion so they could pay for their tax cut 
plans to the detriment of Social Security and Medicare.
  Secondly, with respect to the gentleman saying, ``oh, this bill is 
going so slow, we have to have a rule, a closed rule'', I would point 
out, this House has not met a single Friday this year. There is plenty 
of time for debate if this House works Monday through Friday. It has 
not been doing that, and it is the majority party that sets that 
schedule, not the minority party.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this debate today should be about 
the highest priority of the Congress and the Nation and, that is, 
national security. Instead, what we have heard from the other side is 
they will do whatever it takes to pass this bill. One of the questions 
that deserves to be answered today is at what cost? What limits are 
there to us doing whatever it takes to pass this bill? Are there any 
limits in decency, in fairness, in what this country and this Congress 
is supposed to stand for?
  Nobody has attempted to rebut the fact that there is a special fix in 
this bill for 2 hospitals in the United States when hospitals all over 
the country are suffering, the people they are supposed to serve. No 
one has attempted to rebut the fact that we are rewriting a trade 
agreement with Caribbean nations that was balanced and strongly 
supported on a bipartisan basis.
  There are few facts we agree on today. These are some of the ones we 
do agree on.
  This should be about national security. It should not be about 
economic security and Social Security. Thank goodness on September 11 
this country was strong economically to withstand the horrendous attack 
that occurred because we had balanced the budget and begun to pay down 
the debt. Nobody is rebutting the fact that what is happening today is 
we are going to raise the debt ceiling; the Federal Government is going 
to start borrowing money again. There is no dispute that that has the 
serious risk of raising long-term interest rates which threaten the 
prosperity of my State, Florida, and communities across the country.
  The men and women in uniform that are protecting our country at home 
and abroad are not just fighting to protect the flag. They are not just 
fighting to protect a Nation. They are fighting to reflect certain 
principles that we all swore to uphold here, to have a strong

[[Page H2959]]

country, a strong economy, a national community, a strong system of 
Social Security and, most fundamentally of all, a democracy.
  Well, we have a stand here, and that is, have an open and honest 
debate on the issues which we have been deprived of, not just Democrats 
but Republicans as well, under a rule that is forcing us to pass laws 
that would never survive a majority vote in this Congress.
  Let me finally refer to the USAir situation. We are changing the 
rules in the middle of a system that was passed on a bipartisan basis 
that allows airlines to demonstrate they deserve a loan from the 
Federal Government. Nobody has tried to rebut the fact that what this 
bill is doing, just as the Senate is about to do, is to close the 
opportunity for a major carrier in my home, Florida, and the Southeast 
and the Northeast and other parts of the country, to borrow money to 
avoid a bankruptcy.
  Have any of my colleagues seen airline bankruptcy? I have. I watched 
the Air Florida bankruptcy. It is an ugly thing. I will tell my 
colleagues who benefits. It is the bankruptcy lawyers. Ultimately this 
is not about USAir. It is about the passengers that depend on that 
airline in my home and around the country for competition, for 
reasonably low fares, for choices, and who will forgive us if we 
contribute to the bankruptcy of a major carrier in the Southeast?
  The answer that is offered in response to this argument is let 
somebody else take care of it some other time. Well, excuse me, but who 
is ultimately accountable here? We are. The Senate Appropriations 
Committee has already passed a bill that does exactly what this bill 
does. It closes the funding window. USAir has said they are on the 
verge of preparing a loan application. They are at risk of filing 
bankruptcy. What are we doing about it? Exactly nothing.
  Some of us called over to the Senate today to find out, is this going 
to get fixed in the Senate. The answer came back, no, it is not. Folks, 
this is our job. We are ultimately accountable. This is a real serious 
issue amid a lot of politics and speechmaking here.
  This bill needs to be fixed. We need to restore the integrity of this 
loan application program. We need to worry about the people that depend 
upon this carrier and for traveling to do their business.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I may be missing something here, but I do not know what we are 
talking about. The fact is the country is running out of money because 
the economy is down and the military and terrorist, antiterrorist 
expenditures are up. We have to have more money. This is not unusual. 
It has happened before. It happened when my colleagues were in the 
majority. It is happening now. It happens in business. Someone sets out 
a plan, they like to feel the plan makes sense, but all of a sudden 
they get into different circumstances.
  Who could have forecast the drop in the economy? Who could have 
forecast the terrorists of 9/11? We could not. Things have got to 
change.
  Should the rule have been better? Probably. Could we have had a 
different tax reduction program? Probably. Should we have had an up-
and-down vote on this? That is a question. Should this $750 billion be 
the figure? It might be, but that is not the fact.
  General George Catlett Marshall was my hero, and what he said was, 
``There are 2 things in life you don't want to do. One is to get into 
the minute so you forget about the issue. Secondly, do not fight the 
problem. Find the solution.''
  We are fighting the problem. We need the money. The country needs the 
money. It is the only thing to do. Let us increase this debt ceiling.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, we are approaching Memorial Day, and I 
think most of us would like to get home. I certainly have plans for the 
weekend, wanting to be home with my family and friends and with those 
that we are going to honor who have given so much to this country. But 
today, as many of my colleagues before me, I rise to support and thank 
our men and women in uniform who are serving our country and protecting 
our freedoms and our opportunity to come to this floor, all around the 
globe.
  Like my colleagues, I strongly support a robust military, as do all 
Americans, I think, and certainly in this House on both sides of the 
aisle, but I am shocked that I have heard Members come to this floor 
and allude to someone on either side of the aisle who is not supportive 
of our military. We could correct that very quickly.
  We have a bill before us. All we have to do is take the things out 
that should not be in it, that are not tied to our military, and the 
bill would have passed last evening.
  I represent an awful lot of folks who either are stationed or have 
loved ones at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base or some who have 
served there and, Mr. Chairman, I support the President and the war on 
terrorism. I have been here for every vote, and I support a balanced 
budget. I came in 1997 and I want my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to understand, I was one who voted to make that last step to 
balance the budget. I came to this Congress to help do that, and I 
understand these are difficult times.
  So that people will understand, I also served as chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations in my State legislature for 4 years, and so 
I understand what it is to slip something in a bill, but we do it in 
the light of day so people can see it and know what we are doing. We do 
not go to a closed room after we have had an open debate by all the 
parties in the committees, and then bring it to the floor. That is not 
right. That is not fair to the American people. It is not fair to the 
American people.
  I represent as many people on this floor as any Member on either side 
of the aisle, and yet because I do not serve on the Committee on 
Appropriations or the Committee on Rules I cannot make an amendment to 
this bill and present the issues that my people send me to Washington 
to defend and represent, and that is wrong. That is wrong in the 
people's House. It is absolutely wrong.
  The reality is that we want to pass this piece of legislation. We 
want to fight terrorism. We want to get Osama bin Laden and the al 
Qaeda and all those agents of terror around the world. We are still 
here today, not because we disagree with the bill that is before us to 
get the job done on terrorism and support our men and women around the 
world. It is because of things that were put in that bill by the 
leadership.
  The reality is that the leadership has chosen to make this political 
and controversial. We can have a vote on the debt ceiling later. I do 
not know where I would be on that. I might vote for it, because I want 
the government to keep going on, to pay our bills, but it is wrong to 
hide it. It is wrong to say to my mother and her Social Security check 
and all those who are paying it, well, you might have to take a cut 
later because we are going to spend the money for something else. It is 
wrong, wrong for the American people to be put in this position.
  My colleagues devised this scheme. I did not know it could be done, 
but I guess I should learn something new every day, and I have learned 
something. Raising the debt limit through procedural tricks, I think, 
has serious implications for this Nation, not to mention it has 
dangerous consequences for my children and my grandchildren I hope I 
will have. It is wrong.
  I have been to this floor arguing on education issues because I 
believe in them and I have worked through my whole career to tell 
children to tell the truth, to do the right thing, to be honest. I hope 
they are not watching this debate today. I would be ashamed if they saw 
what is happening.
  We ought to be willing to put it on the table. Mr. Chairman, we can 
do better and we should.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of our men and women in uniform 
whom are serving our country and protecting our freedom all over the 
globe today.
  Like my Democratic colleagues, I support a strong and robust military 
``we are all Americans.'' Many of the folks I represent work or have 
loved ones who are stationed at Fort Bragg.
  And Mr. Chairman, I support the President in the war on terrorism. I 
served in the U.S. Army during Vietnam.

[[Page H2960]]

  Today, we are considering an emergency supplement appropriations bill 
that will help us continue our fight against Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaida and other agents of terror. I have no doubt that this emergency 
supplemental would pass with a strong bipartisan majority if it were a 
clean bill. But, the reality is that the Republican majority loaded 
this bill down with provisions so controversial they won't have to 
debate them in the light of day.
  The Republican majority has devised a scheme for raising the debt 
limit without the consent of this House.
  What's more, this Republican scheme to raise the debt limit without 
debate or a vote places a unfair burden on the shoulders of or 
children. Our children and our grandchildren will be responsible for 
cleaning up the mess that the Republican majority is making today. That 
is not the American way, Mr. Chairman.
  Raising the debt limit means that we must pay more money in interest 
of our national debt. That means we will not have the resources 
necessary to provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit to our 
seniors, or build new schools for our children.
  Just a year ago, we stood on this floor and tried to decide what to 
do with our national surplus. We had a surplus, and the Republican 
majority squandered it. And now they come to this floor and are playing 
politics with our united war on terrorism, the retirement security of 
our seniors, and the future of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a responsible, honest, and balanced budget. One 
that meets our obligations today so our children are not left with the 
tab.
  I believe that when you hold a public office you hold a public trust. 
Part of that trust means respecting the institution that is this House. 
We should have an open debate on the debt limit and all the other 
issues that the majority tacked on this bill, at another time. The 
resolve on this side of the aisle is strong, and we'll stand up for 
what we know is right. The troops overseas, our seniors, and our 
children deserve no less.
  Raising the debt limit through procedural tricks has serious 
implications for our Nation, not to mention dangerous consequences for 
our seniors and our children. Raising the debt limit means giving the 
government a credit card with a higher spending limit. It means that we 
will be spending more money from the Social Security and Medicare trust 
fund to pay for government initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, those funds are supposed to be off limits. They 
represent a promise that we made long ago with our seniors that they 
would not have to live out their golden years in poverty. By raising 
the debt limit we risk their futures and the retirement security of our 
working families.

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I support our servicemen and women, law enforcement officials, State, 
Federal, and local officials working together to protect the American 
people. I support the funding for the billions of dollars in the 
supplemental appropriation. These dollars are needed to keep America 
safe, secure, and free from terrorism. But, Mr. Chairman, allowing this 
bill to come to the floor represents an attack on the economic security 
of our Nation, raising the debt ceiling an additional $750 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support strengthening our Nation's homeland 
security, as this bill intends to do. We need to keep America safe. But 
I will not support a fiscal attack raising the debt ceiling and 
exploiting the national debt. Mr. Chairman, I support fighting AIDS and 
infectious diseases around the world, but I will not support the Enron 
economics this bill represents by hiding language that will allow this 
generation and future generations to be burdened by expanding the 
national debt with no regard for full disclosure or fiscal discipline.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the needed resources to fund programs. I have 
10 higher-education institutions in my district, but I will not burden 
today's college students and tomorrow's with a $750 billion expansion 
of the national debt limit set on top of their student loan burden. It 
is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that with all my heart we need to provide the 
funds needed to rebuild New York, but I also believe this body has a 
responsibility to the American people to be honest about what we are 
committing them to, an expansion of the national debt with no 
accountability by any Member of this body.
  We need to protect America from terrorism. That is what this bill 
should be about. But, Mr. Chairman, do our servicemen and women need to 
have the national debt limit raised without a vote in order to fight 
the war on terrorism? I say no. Do our Federal agents, police officers, 
firefighters, and emergency personnel need to have the debt limit 
raised $750 billion to protect America without a vote? I say no.
  I am a first-term Member of Congress. I came to this body hearing the 
majority's mantra of bipartisanship. This bill, once again, 
demonstrates empty words and empty actions from the Republican 
majority, and the consequences are empty pockets for America's working 
families and a growing national debt for the American people and future 
generations.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of Minnesota are angry that the national 
debt is going to grow. To the people back home this represents the 
majority party's lack of leadership, a total lack of fiscal discipline, 
and a complete lack of honesty.
  It is dishonest for the Republican majority to question the 
patriotism of myself or any of my Democratic colleagues on a bill that 
is not honest with the American people. We, as a Nation, are fighting a 
war on terrorism. This bill, with its deceitful language, clearly shows 
the American people that it is only the Democratic minority fighting 
the battles against fiscal irresponsibility and against fat tax cuts, 
and it also is plundering the Social Security trust fund.
  If my Republican colleagues want to raise the debt limit to pay for 
last year's tax cuts, then let us vote on it, yea or nay. If my 
Republican colleagues want to add an additional $750 billion of debt on 
the backs of the American people, have the courage to vote on it yea or 
nay. If my Republican colleagues want to be honest with the American 
people, honest with our servicemen and women fighting the war on 
terrorism and honest with yourselves about placing this Nation an 
additional three-quarters of a trillion dollars in debt, then let this 
body vote on it yea or nay.
  I applaud my fellow colleagues on this side of the aisle, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his leadership and his support 
of our national security and the retirement security for our seniors 
and the economic security of the American people. Today, I will stand 
with my Democratic colleagues until the majority party tells the truth 
to the American people about the consequences of their political 
policies and the costs that they will have for future generations of 
Americans.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the last few speakers have spoken quite eloquently 
about the importance of the funding in this supplemental appropriation 
bill, strengthening our national security, investing in homeland 
security, investing in the technologies, the maintenance, the resources 
to support our men and women serving overseas. They have been 
unequivocal about their support for that funding, for that financing. 
But the last speaker was also unequivocal in making her point that she 
was vehemently opposed to borrowing to fund that investment in winning 
the war on terrorism and strengthening our homelands security.
  I think therein lies the fundamental problem. That is maybe the 
disconnect that we are hearing and the complaint that we are hearing 
that this is somehow partisan. It is not partisan when you point out 
that if we are going to invest in this unprecedented war on terrorism, 
if we are to give the men and women of the armed services the resources 
they need, which we all understand that because of the economic 
recession we are going to have to borrow additional funds to make sure 
they have that support, then you cannot stand on the floor and say, 
well, I support everything in this bill, but I will not support 
borrowing to support our men and women fighting overseas.
  This brings us back to the debate that began the year in the 
Committee on the Budget, when as previous speakers have pointed out, we 
brought a budget to the floor, we brought a budget through committee 
that met the priorities laid out by the President in his State of the 
Union Address: winning the war on terrorism, strengthening homeland 
security, and getting the economy moving again. The Democrats offered 
no alternative. And the simple reason is because the choices were 
simply not to fund the war on terrorism,

[[Page H2961]]

to raise taxes, which they are apparently not willing to do, or to cut 
other programs.
  Those are the three choices we are faced with today as we recognize 
that due to the economic downturn we need to borrow some additional 
funds to win that war, to strengthen homeland security and keep the 
economy moving. They will talk about postponing taxes or tax relief 5 
and 10 years down the road, and they will say it is only for the 
wealthiest of Americans. But the fact of the matter is we know we need 
the resources this year. They are not willing to raise taxes this year. 
We know we need to fund the war on terrorism this year. They claim they 
support all the funding in this bill, but they are not willing to 
borrow $1 billion, $2 billion, $10 billion, much less raising the debt 
ceiling by the required amount to make sure we have all the resources 
we need in this time of crisis.
  Those are the three choices. And I would yield the floor to anyone 
that will state whether they are willing to raise taxes this year, 
whether they are opposed to the defense and homeland security funding 
in this bill, or whether they are going to stand on the floor and say 
we are willing to dramatically cut other domestic programs so that we 
do not have to raise the debt ceiling. And I will pause.
  Apparently there is no one willing to go on the record supporting one 
of those three options, the only three options available if we are not 
going to borrow funds to fight the war on terrorism.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman forgot one 
other thing. We can rescind the tax cuts that have deprived us of $60 
billion in revenue since they were implemented, and I will vote to do 
that in a heartbeat.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 
willing to rescind all the tax cuts that are in effect this year. That 
is effectively a tax increase for fiscal year 2002 and 2003.
  I respect the gentleman for taking that stand, for increasing taxes 
in fiscal year 2002 and 2003, but that is exactly the wrong thing for 
our economy at this time in this place.
  Finally, we have heard the opponents of this legislation say, all we 
want is a separate vote on raising this debt ceiling. That is all we 
ask for. But let me refer them to the rules and manuals of this House 
of Representatives. On page 806 of Jefferson's Manual, which sets the 
precedents for this House, they can clearly see that the rule put in 
place by the Democrat majority in 1979 clearly prevented this House 
from taking a stand-alone vote on raising the debt ceiling for over 20 
years. And that rule was only rescinded under this majority.
  Now, my Democratic colleagues are absolutely correct in saying we do 
not have a stand-alone vote on this issue today. But the fact of the 
matter is it was the Democrat majority that stood firm for well over 15 
years preventing such a stand-alone vote from ever taking place. That 
is a very pointed fact.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the previous speaker and all other 
speakers would take the time to look at this. Our Nation is now 
$5,984,677,357.213.86 in debt. In the past 12 months, since the 
President talked about this town being awash in money, it is awash in 
money, we have to have tax cuts because we do not know what to do with 
all this money, in the past 12 months since the passing of the 
President's budget and the President's tax cuts, because the Republican 
majority controlled both Houses when that happened, we have increased 
the debt by $323,329,559.211.21.
  Now, what is particularly troubling about this, and I see my 
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), and we both 
have daughters about the same age, they are both 23 years old, but on 
the day our daughters were born, our Nation was less than $1 trillion 
in debt. We had gone all the way from the Revolutionary War, the War of 
1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, our First World War, the 
Second World War, we had gone through Korea and Vietnam. We had gone 
all the way until 1980, and through all of that our Nation only 
borrowed $1 trillion. In the 22 or 23 years my daughter has been alive, 
we have borrowed an additional $5 trillion.
  The fact of the matter is that since the passage of the tax cuts, my 
colleagues have deprived the Nation of $60 billion in revenue. My 
colleagues say this bill is just for defense; but on reading this bill, 
there is $170,000 that is going to go to the Christian Church Homes of 
Kentucky. A very noble cause, but is it really worth borrowing and 
sticking my daughter with that bill for the rest of her life?
  What is particularly bad about this is, just like when Americans 
borrow money and they have to pay interest on it, if we stop to think 
about it, the biggest expense of our Nation is not welfare, it is not 
food stamps, it is not highways or the military, it is interest on the 
national debt. We squander $1 billion a day on interest on the national 
debt. That does not educate a child; it does not help a sick person or 
a senior citizen. It is just squandered.
  For those World War II veterans, they must love to know the fact that 
a third of that goes to German and Japanese lending institutions.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield, since he called 
my name?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Under those circumstances, I yield to the 
gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the gentleman 
mentioned both our daughters, who recently graduated from college. I 
would find the gentleman's remarks to be a little more credible if he 
would at least acknowledge that during the time those girls were in 
college this Republican majority in the United States Congress has paid 
off $500 billion in public debt during that time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
tell the gentleman that that is a sham, and the sham is that the 
Republican Party paid down public debt. You stole it from the trust 
funds.
  If we could get to the Social Security trust fund, if we could 
somehow open it up, the gentleman knows, as I do, that there is nothing 
there but an IOU for $1,260 trillion. If we could get to the trust fund 
for Medicare, coming out of people's taxes, there is a line on their 
paychecks, the gentleman knows that we have stolen as a Nation $263 
billion from the Medicare trust fund. There is not a penny there.

                              {time}  1230

  Civil servants, border guards, customs people, FBI, the guys we are 
counting on to defend us right now, those cops out there who are 
guarding us right now, we have stolen from their retirement trust fund 
$527 billion.
  How about the troops? This is supposed to be for the troops. There is 
a military retirement trust fund. If you were to open it up, it says we 
owe you $167 billion. And your answer is to borrow more money, $750 
billion more money? That is your answer?
  It is absolutely hilarious because I come from a conservative State. 
For so long Republicans said, ``We've got to balance the budget. Please 
let us govern. We've got to balance the budget. We've got to quit 
running up the debt.'' You are in the majority. We admit you were 
right. We have got to balance the budget. We have got to quit running 
up the debt. Now that you have finally convinced us, you are changing 
your story. You are saying that the answer is more debt. We have to 
borrow money so we can send Mississippi arts to Pennsylvania to the 
tune of $150,000. Read the bill.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
appreciate my friend from Mississippi yielding to me for just a few 
seconds there.
  The fact is that during the time his daughter and my daughter were in 
college, during the last 4 years, during a Republican majority in the 
House of Representatives, this Nation has paid off almost $500 billion 
in public debt during that time. That is debt that the Nation was 
borrowing from the public through savings bonds, T bills and that sort 
of thing. We have reduced that amount during the time that our 
daughters were in college.
  I would find my friend's argument a little more credible if that $6 
trillion in public debt that he was pointing to on that chart were not 
the very same $6 trillion in national debt that his party

[[Page H2962]]

ran up during the time from 1980 to the time of the Republican takeover 
of the House of Representatives in 1994 and 1995. I would think that my 
colleagues from the Democrat side of the aisle would have a little more 
credibility as fiscal conservatives if that were not the figure that 
they themselves ran up while they were in charge of this entire town.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
have to say that I have been enjoying this debate all day today and I 
enjoyed this debate all evening last night, late into the evening.
  I would like to make an appeal to the Members on both sides of the 
aisle. We have had a lot of debate on this bill. But I want to remind 
our colleagues, for those who did not have the great privilege of 
serving with a real statesmen, that Morris Udall was an outstanding 
Member of this House. He had a famous statement that I have quoted on 
occasion, and I want to quote it again now. It went something like 
this: That everything that needs to be said has already been said. The 
problem is that not everyone has said it yet. But I think we are about 
at the point that everyone has said it.
  So I wonder if I could just make an appeal to get to the amendment 
process? Why do we not start to deal with the amendments that are filed 
and let us proceed and get this done? If we want to have a major 
political debate on any kind of issue, I am sure we can find a 
parliamentary way to do that. But I think we have really beaten this 
one to death. Can we get on with the business of the Committee? Can we 
get on with the amendments and see if we cannot come to some closure on 
this bill?
  Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, let me just say this. There have been 
a lot of complaints, this morning, about the rule. I think it is no 
secret that I was not overly delighted about the procedure under which 
we are taking this bill up. But that debate was held last night. That 
vote was taken and that issue is behind us. We have before us now a 
national security, wartime appropriation, primarily for the troops. I 
think it is time that this House moved forward, as the Chairman has 
suggested. Let us take up the legitimate amendments that are before us. 
Let us move beyond the time-consuming dilatory tactics that we have 
seen so far and let us pass a bill for America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
might be given 2 additional minutes so that we could explore the time 
agreement that the gentleman from Florida was just inquiring about.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman from Mississippi would like to 
request that time, I would be willing to agree to that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WICKER. I yield to my friend from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the committee has asked 
that we get to the amendment process so that the amendments can be 
offered that Members want to offer. Let me suggest something, if I 
could, because the problem is that under this rule, wildly extraneous 
matter has been added, as the gentleman knows, but we cannot reach that 
by amendment to strike it under the rule. So Members cannot really 
offer the amendments that need to be offered to correct the problem 
under the rule under which we are debating the bill.
  I would ask the gentleman whether or not he could explore with his 
leadership something like the following: I think we could greatly 
shrink the debate time on this bill if we could get a unanimous-consent 
agreement under which the House would be able to consider the 
committee-reported bill, stripped of the extraneous add-ons. We would 
limit amendments to those printed in the Record or at the desk. We 
could limit the debate on those amendments to 30 minutes, retain the 
motion to recommit, and I would certainly be willing as part of that 
agreement to discuss greatly reducing and withdrawing a large number of 
amendments that are now at the desk or which we contemplate offering 
absent such agreement.
  If the gentleman would at least take that offer to his leadership, 
that might help us to find a way to finish this bill in rational 
fashion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for this offer. Once we 
begin to talk about a way to get out of this, I think then we can 
accomplish that. I would be more than willing to discuss this with the 
leadership on my side. As a matter of fact, we have discussed similar 
situations earlier. I do not have a conclusion that I can report to our 
colleagues in the House one way or the other, but I would be more than 
happy to discuss that with the leadership.
  Mr. OBEY. I appreciate that. I think that that is probably the only 
way that we are going to avoid an extended debate which will be 
frustrating to both sides. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It is a good time to be speaking because the spirit of the last 
exchange is something that I am very much in favor of. The sooner that 
we put the charade that this is an open rule behind us, the better off 
we will all be. Because yesterday we did debate the rule and some of us 
felt very strongly that it was not a fair rule and we objected very 
strenuously. My fellow colleague from Texas kept calling this an open 
rule when everyone knows that if you were to do as the normal 
appropriation process around here does, if you object to the spending 
in a particular appropriation bill, you may stand up under an open rule 
and strike it.
  I want to make it very clear. I support the $27.1 billion that the 
President requested in order to fund the war on terrorism. I and every 
Member on this side of the aisle support that. But we get the 
trivializing of this debate regarding that we are unpatriotic because 
we object to the process that we have been subjected to, not by the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the ranking member but 
by the leadership of this House that has added $2.4 billion in 
extraneous spending and also has tried to hide an increase of the debt 
ceiling in this particular bill, which will be in it once we pass the 
bill, which is one of the reasons why I will oppose the bill very 
strongly.
  It is very frustrating to me to stand on the floor and to have to 
object to things that I used to support my friends on the other side 
when they were in the minority and I voted with them on improving the 
budget process. Sometimes we won. We took the minority and added with 
some on this side and we actually won. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) yesterday spoke of that. I appreciate him giving credit to me 
for being a part of that. I give credit to him. I see the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, someone that I believe I could and would 
work with on this floor on the budget, but his leadership has precluded 
that at every turn.
  Why all of a sudden did we decide to waive the rule that provides 
that extraneous matters should not be added to an emergency spending 
bill? We passed it in 1994 with 322 votes, of which all but 4 
Republicans joined it. Yet yesterday all of you, 166 of you still here, 
voted to waive that rule. We can get out of here in 1 hour by agreeing 
by unanimous consent that we will appropriate the money for the war and 
strike all of the extraneous matters. It can pass by unanimous consent. 
The Senate can take it up. It can be on the President's desk by 
Saturday. Everyone in this body knows that can happen.
  But why do we insist on spending more and then cooking the books on 
paying for it, which you have done in this resolution? And yet my 
friends on the other side that I used to vote with, and you used to 
vote with me, are going along with that because your leadership has 
said that is what we ought to do. I do not understand that. We can get 
out of here in a heartbeat and do what this is all about, fund the war 
on terrorism. You can do it by unanimous consent if the leadership will 
take the gentleman from Wisconsin's request and the gentleman from

[[Page H2963]]

Florida and the folks on his side of the aisle will go to their 
leadership and say, ``Let's quit this charade.''
  To those that believe somehow you are going to hide the debt limit, 
this is what is so funny about us having this. If you believe in a 
heartbeat that the Senate is going to go along with a $750 billion 
increase in the debt ceiling in a conference on this bill, you are 
living in a dream world. All the Blue Dogs have been asking now for the 
last several weeks, months, just have a clean up-and-down vote on the 
debt ceiling. Do not jeopardize the faith and good credit of the United 
States on a political argument that we are having today that you blame 
us and we blame you and who gives a hoot who is at fault. The fact is 
that it is happening and at fault in this body is the majority. Not the 
minority. We cannot do all the bad things you say that we are doing. We 
are in the minority. But we will gladly join with you in unanimous 
consent if you will listen to what the gentleman from Wisconsin and the 
gentleman from Florida would like to do. We will do it in a heartbeat 
and we can go home for Memorial Day.
  But please, please, let us stop insisting that this is a patriotic 
vote. The patriotic vote is a clean vote, not the one that you are 
asking us to vote on, not the one that you shoved the rule down our 
throat yesterday on a pure party line vote in which I know a large 
number of my colleagues on this side did not like to vote for that 
rule. You can undo it by unanimous consent. I hope you will go along 
with us in doing that.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first make a comment and say that 
cloaking partisan amendments in the name of the war on terrorism is not 
patriotism, in my personal opinion.
  Mr. Chairman, for citizens watching this debate late last night and 
today, I can understand why there could be some confusion about what 
this debate is all about, because much of what has been said has 
nothing to do with the issue at hand. So let me just go back to the 
basics.
  Fact number one. The bill we are considering is entitled, and I 
quote, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery 
From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. That is 
the bill before us.
  Fact number two. This bill came out of the Committee on 
Appropriations on which I serve and vote on a bipartisan basis. Why? 
Because we all want to support homeland defense and the war against 
terrorism.
  Fact number three. On Tuesday night, the Committee on Rules under the 
direction of the Republican leadership of this House took a bipartisan 
bill to fund our war on terrorism and made it a Christmas tree full of 
partisan ornaments, amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with 
the title or the subject of this bill.

                              {time}  1245

  That is fact number three.
  Fact number four. What Democrats are objecting to on the floor today 
is adding extraneous, unrelated, partisan, controversial amendments to 
a bill that needs to be passed quickly so that we can efficiently and 
quickly fund our war on terrorism and needed important homeland defense 
measures.
  Now, what we really are getting down to is one question, and that 
question is very simple and very direct. I have not heard an answer to 
this question so far. The question is, will the Republican leadership 
of this House allow us to strip out of this important bill to fund the 
war against terrorism those amendments that were partisan and had 
nothing to do with the title or subject of this bill? It is a simple 
question, and we Democrats, still, after 2 days of debate, await the 
answer to that question.
  What I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, is what this is really all 
about is politics as usual. I understand politics. We all do. But I 
believe that politics as usual is not good enough when we are talking 
about funding a war on terrorism at a time when our Nation's security 
is at risk.
  Now, what is politics as usual? Politics as usual is taking an 
important bill, a highway bill, an important natural disaster funding 
bill, knowing that the majority of Americans will want it passed, and 
then adding extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with that 
bill because perhaps those amendments may be partisan and could not 
pass on their own merit. That is exactly what happened on this bill.
  I will yield the balance of my time if 1 Member of this House on the 
Republican side could tell me what the following amendments, added late 
at night on a partisan basis by the Committee on Rules, have to do with 
fighting our war on terrorism.
  Amendment No. 1 that I referred to, section 1404, treatment of 
certain counties for purposes of reimbursement under the Medicare 
program.
  I am not quite sure what that has to do with the war on terrorism. 
Let me continue quoting. ``Effective for discharges occurring during 
fiscal year 2003, for purposes of making payments under subsections (d) 
and (j) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act to hospitals (A) in 
Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wyoming, Lycoming, and Columbia Counties, 
Pennsylvania, such counties are deemed to be located in the Newburgh, 
New York-Pennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical Area.''
  Is there a single Member of this House on this floor right now who 
would like to take the rest of my time and explain what that has to do 
with fighting the war on terrorism?
  I guess not.
  Maybe a Member could explain to me why the next part of the amendment 
has something to do with the title and subject of funding the war on 
terrorism. ``(B) in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, such county is deemed 
to be located in Youngston-Warren, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical 
Area.''
  If there is any Member that can explain to me right now, what this 
has to do with fighting and funding the war on terrorism I will be 
happy to yield my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess apparently no one wants to answer that 
question.
  Well, let us go to amendment No. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Can any Member 
explain to me how they relate to funding our war against terrorism?
  This process is about politics as usual. That is not good enough in 
fighting a war against terrorism.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is interesting, because to follow my colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and then for him to have 
followed the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I have a very urban 
district in Houston, but whether it is central Texas with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) or West Texas with the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), we are concerned about the procedure that is happening 
today, because every one of us have voted for funding for the war on 
terrorism literally since September 11. But the procedure that my 
Republican colleagues have put us in today in the majority is that what 
happened yesterday with the rule to the supplemental began to raid the 
Social Security trust fund. This is a dangerous thing that will return 
us to the days of deficit spending.
  Mr. Chairman, my first term in Congress was 1993-1994, when our debt, 
being hidden by Social Security every year, increased $250 billion. It 
is estimated that now our national debt not hidden by Social Security 
will be $300 billion every year more. So what we are seeing is we are 
increasing the national charge card.
  I have to admit, I am concerned, because whenever we increase our 
debt limit, like we would on our Visa cards, then sometimes we do at 
least pay the minimum balances. But we are not even paying the minimum 
balances. We are just increasing the debt.
  My colleagues on the Republican side for my first term when they were 
in the minority talked to us so much about how bad it was, that we are 
taxing the future, we are taxing our grandchildren and great-
grandchildren. Well, we are doing it today with this and the shoe is on 
their foot now. They are the ones doing that.
  It is not for the war on terrorism. It is not for the war on 
terrorism. I would stand here today and vote to increase the debt 
ceiling on a clean vote, like I think a majority of the Democratic 
Caucus would, if you said we need to

[[Page H2964]]

increase the debt ceiling and devote that to the war on terrorism, 
devote that to the military that we need, to investigations we need to 
make sure our country is safe. That is not the case. That is not the 
case.
  That is what is so frustrating. They are wrapping themselves up in 
the war on terrorism, yet they will not realize that last year when the 
economy was taking a downturn, we did not know how much, last year 
before September 11, we voted one of the biggest tax cuts in history. 
It took effect last year and will take effect over the next 10 years. 
Yet they want to make it even permanent after that. That is what is 
causing this debt ceiling to have to be increased. It is not the war on 
terrorism. The national debt again will be $300 billion more than it 
was at the first of this year.
  Now, I am just shocked, as a Democrat, who is supposed to be a big 
spender, to see what my Republican colleagues have done in the years 
they have been in the majority. This increase cannot be explained by 
the war against terrorism or even a downturn in the economy. The cost 
of the war and the downturn in the economy roughly are $800 billion in 
the increase in the projected debt. Yet this leaves nearly $1.9 
trillion in more debt that is not accounted for. The only thing I can 
say is it is either increased domestic spending, some of which I 
support, or most of it is the tax cut voted on prior to September 11.
  The new debt seriously inhibits our ability to provide a prescription 
drug benefit, to shore up our Social Security programs or invest in a 
number of other domestic priorities that we need to have. Instead of 
sneaking around to increase the debt ceiling, we should be discussing 
how we got here and what we need to do to avoid getting our Nation 
further in debt.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this back-door effort in 
mortgaging our children's future and find a meaningful solution to our 
budget woes. Lots of ways could correct this, but not to continue to 
charge up our national credit card.
  We can do what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) suggested, a 
unanimous consent request that we go back to the original bill and take 
away that rule vote last night that hid the increase in the national 
debt. Or we could do an up-and-down vote on increasing the national 
debt ceiling with devoting that increase to the war on terrorism to 
make sure our country is safe.
  Again, I think we could go back to what we saw after September 11, a 
huge bipartisan majority saying yes, we want to defend our country, we 
want to defend our community, we want to defend those men and women in 
Afghanistan and literally all over the world now. We wanted to do that. 
We wanted to do it based on a tax cut last year passed prior to 
September 11. That is what is so frustrating. That is why you are going 
to see Members of the Democratic Caucus from all walks of the party, 
from every philosophical point of view, who want to vote for an 
increase in the debt ceiling, for the war on terrorism, to protect our 
communities, but that is not what my Republican colleagues are allowing 
us to do.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this process is wrong. What is occurring here, starting 
last night and throughout the course of the day and perhaps into 
tomorrow and this weekend, is wrong, because it is perpetrating just 
yet one more fraud upon the American people on an important policy 
issue, an important debate that we should have in this Chamber, and 
that is what type of economic policy are we going to be pursuing as a 
Nation that will have long-term broad implications for virtually every 
single American in this country?
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we have visitors up in the gallery of the House. 
I see some seniors. I see middle-aged Americans. I see young children 
and students from around the country. The debate we are having today is 
an important one because it affects every single life in this Chamber 
today and every single life throughout the country. What is hidden is a 
fraud covered under the guise of an emergency supplemental bill under 
all the patriotic speeches we have been hearing over the course of the 
last 24 hours, support for troops, support for homeland security, we 
can stipulate right now that we are in support of the troops, we are in 
support of investment in homeland security. There is no issue, there is 
no wedge that divides Republicans and Democrats on that. But it is the 
extraneous provisions that have been attached to the supplemental bill 
that is wrong, and it is fraudulent, and it is being done for political 
purposes, for partisan motivation alone.
  It is wrong to have provisions that adjust the Medicare reimbursement 
so it affects just a few hospitals in this country, excluding the host 
of other hospitals, including those in my district, that are suffering 
under inadequate reimbursement rates, but they are being added to the 
supplemental bill figuring it is something that is going to fly through 
mainly for political purposes.
  But what has me mostly concerned about this supplemental is the 
important debate we should be having in this Congress and throughout 
the Nation about raising the debt in this country by over $750 billion. 
When you talk to people about annual deficits and national debt and the 
impact it is going to have on the financial markets, people basically 
say ``what?'' But what this is about is the national credit card and 
adding $750 billion more on the national credit card and the interest 
payments we are going to have to pay for years and years to come.
  Now, they are fond on the other side of accusing Democrats of 
favoring tax-and-spend provisions. But what they are pursuing is even 
worse in regards to economic policy. They are spend and borrow and 
borrow and borrow.
  I would submit, what is more fair than to ask the current generation 
of Americans to contribute to the benefits and the programs that we 
have today through taxes that they should be paying for, or whether we 
should deliver the benefits of those programs, but delay the pain and 
burden of paying for them to future generations, to our children and to 
the next generation of children when these IOUs come due because of the 
large national debt that is being accumulated and the obligation that 
our kids are going to have to meet in future years. That is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I have 2 little boys at home. They are just 3 and 5, 
and hopefully within a couple of days I am going to be able to return 
and look them in the eyes. I want to be able to tell them we had the 
courage and we had the wisdom in this Congress to be thinking about 
their futures and the future of our country, rather than short-term 
political gain and what impact this might have on the next election 
cycle. But by hiding the increase in the national debt ceiling under 
the guise of a patriotic supplemental bill, we are delaying the day of 
reckoning and, unfortunately, that burden, that obligation and 
responsibility, will not be falling upon the current generation who is 
asking for the programs that need to be paid for, such as the 
investment in defense spending and homeland security. Instead, it is 
going to fall on the youngest and most vulnerable in our Nation today, 
our children and future generations. That is what is so wrong with this 
process right now.
  I understand they do not want to debate the economic policies they 
passed last year and the fact we are back into annual structural 
deficits again. It is a replay of the 1980s all over again. But the 
difference today, Mr. Chairman, is this simple fact: We do not have the 
luxury of recovering from the failed economic policies of the past by 
turning the economy around and running surpluses again, because we have 
77 million Americans all marching lockstep to their retirement in a few 
short years.
  Now is the time to maintain fiscal discipline. Now is the time to 
pursue fiscal responsibility, to prepare our country and to prepare 
future generations to deal with the aging population, with this 
demographic time bomb that is about to go off. But, unfortunately, that 
is not what is being considered in this supplemental. Instead, they are 
trying to increase the debt ceiling, digging a deeper hole, creating a 
greater financial burden for future generations and our children, and 
that is what is wrong, and that is why 1 party at least has to stand up 
and tell the truth to the American people today.

[[Page H2965]]

                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind all 
Members that it is inappropriate to address or refer to our guests in 
the gallery.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the supplemental appropriations 
legislation. One of the most important responsibilities our 
Constitution gives Congress is to maintain a Navy and, among other 
essential funding provisions, that is what this bill is all about. This 
supplemental provides needed funding, procurement, operations and 
maintenance and personnel to allow the Navy to continue its successes.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, our Navy has performed magnificently in Afghanistan, 
and they deserve our support. However, I wish to express my concern 
about potential efforts to raise the debt limit to spend up our 
national credit card by $750 billion. This took place during conference 
committee proceedings on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the debt limit of the United States is such an 
important issue that it deserves a full debate in the Congress and 
should not be relegated to only conference committee deliberations. It 
is so important that many of my colleagues, including those on the 
other side, are supporting efforts to make it harder for Congress to 
raise the debt limit.
  Those outside Washington may wonder, why are we even concerned about 
the debt limit? There are at least two reasons why this is an important 
issue. First, the size of the debt affects interest rates. An increase 
in the debt will likely cause a rise in interest rates, which means 
working families paying higher monthly house payments, higher monthly 
car payments, and higher student loan payments. Second, we need to 
understand the context of a debt limit increase. The message it sends 
is families must live within a budget, but the government can continue 
to spend beyond its limits.
  Mr. Chairman, just a year ago we had a surplus and today we have a 
deficit, and we cannot afford to continue our deficits. To be sure, we 
must, we must pay for the war on terrorism, but we must still have the 
mechanism to keep spending under control.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that when the circumstances arise, having a 
debate on raising the debt limit and having a stand-alone vote is a 
responsible action for Congress to take, but what is so irresponsible 
is to hide the debate from the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be straightforward; and let us consider, as many 
of my colleagues have suggested, what I would like to call the 
``grandkid test.'' A year ago last May I stood in the well of this 
Chamber and celebrated the birth of my first grandson; and I said then, 
when we talk about major issues of concern and consequence to our great 
country that we think about whether it is in the best interests of our 
children and our grandchildren. On the supplemental, I say yes. The war 
on terrorism and supporting our military, absolutely. That is in 
support of my grandkid. But when I think about the unlimited credit 
card and the impact it has on interest rates, on Social Security and 
Medicare, well, that requires more notice to the American people.
  So let us separate out these issues and subject our assessment of 
these additions to this good supplemental bill to the grandkid test, is 
it in that kid's best interests in the future.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a few moments considering how we 
got here and where we go from here. To do that we have to talk for a 
bit about the debt and what the debt really is. To understand that, we 
really have to take a step back and look at our trust funds. There are 
about 50 or so trust funds, the biggest of which, of course, is Social 
Security, and then the next biggest one is civil service retirement, 
and then the Medicare trust fund, the transportation trust fund, and it 
goes on down. Those trust funds, most of them, are running surpluses 
and, over the years, those surpluses have accumulated until we now 
have, order of magnitude, about $2 trillion in surpluses.
  Now, by law, the only place that those surpluses can be invested are 
in nonnegotiable U.S. securities. So what that means, even if we 
limited our spending to current revenues, we would still be increasing 
our debt by the amount of the trust fund surpluses, because the only 
place they can be invested is in nonnegotiable U.S. securities. So 
until we change that and find something else to do with our trust 
funds, we will always have an increasing debt.
  Now, I mentioned that the trust funds represent about a $2 trillion 
debt, order of magnitude. The rest of the debt that we owe is what we 
call the public debt, or the Wall Street debt. That is the amount of 
money that we have borrowed from stocks and bonds and securities and so 
forth. That is a total debt then of roughly $6 trillion.
  Now, we have told the American people for the last couple of years or 
so that we were paying down the debt. That was truthful, and that was 
not truthful. What was truthful was that we were using monies from the 
Social Security lockbox and the Medicare lockbox, those are surpluses 
in those two accounts, to pay down the publicly held debt. But I just 
checked this morning with CBO, and there never was a year in which, in 
fact, the national debt, which is the sum of these two, $2 trillion in 
the trust fund debt, $4 trillion in the public debt, there never was a 
year in which the total of those two debts went down. I asked them, was 
there a moment in time when that debt went down, the national debt, 
which is the debt we should have been talking about. Well, he said, 
probably so, because you see, our outlays are reasonably consistent 
month by month. But we have a big surge of money that comes in in April 
when Americans pay their taxes. So for April, there may have been, and 
he was not sure, he was going to check and call me back, for in April, 
May 2000, 2001, maybe 1999, there might have been a month when we, in 
fact, did reduce the debt.
  But if we use an accrual method of accounting, and the government 
requires everybody with more than I think $1 million revenue to use it, 
and we certainly have more than that in the government, to use accrual 
methods of accounting, so if we use accrual methods of accounting, 
there never was a moment in time during these past several years when, 
in fact, the national debt did not go up.
  Now, the national debt is going up a bit faster now than it would 
have gone up, because we are in a war; and I hope there is nobody who 
is saying that we ought to spend less money on our military, because we 
are now not spending enough. I am not sure we have given our military 
enough money to fight this war. They went into this war with a spear 
that was very sharp at the tip, but very little in back of that. 
Readiness was down. I am concerned that we cannot give them enough 
money, and this in a time when there is an enormous wave of patriotism, 
enormous support for the military, that we are not going to get it 
done. So I hope there is no one who would suggest that we are not 
giving them enough money. I do not think we are giving them enough 
money.
  I just wanted to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, where we are, that we 
never in fact have paid down the national debt. The debt that we were 
paying down was the public debt.
  Now, that is very good for us, because paying down that public debt 
means that interest rates drop and we are paying roughly 2 percent less 
for everything we borrow now. But think of what we have done to do 
that. We are telling our children and our grandchildren we cannot 
operate our government on current revenues, so we are borrowing from 
your future. What you are going to have to do is not only run the 
government in your day on current revenues, you are going to have to 
pay back the money that we borrowed from your future, these trust fund 
dollars.
  When I ran for Congress 10 years ago, I promised that I would conduct 
myself so that my children and grandchildren would not spit on my 
grave. I still intend to do that.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill started as a bipartisan committee effort. It 
was done in order to fund the emergency needs for defense and homeland 
security. That is why it was so grating to sit here last night and 
again today

[[Page H2966]]

while many of our Republican members, including chairpersons and others 
who want to do the right thing, agree that the original bill was 
focused on emergencies, but that their leadership hijacked it and 
changed that bill, still all have the audacity to stand up here and 
wave the flag and insinuate that other people who want to talk about 
things that are extraneous to the bill are somehow unpatriotic. They 
shamelessly join in and make those insinuations, and somehow they want 
to know that they or their proxies are the ones who are changing the 
nature of this bill.
  Every American knows and every Member of this House knows that 
Members on both sides of this aisle support and continue to support the 
security of this country and the protection of our troops. Shame on 
those who try to hide their shenanigans by implying otherwise. The 
question is, do they have no shame.
  Late last night before the majority abandoned its attempt to move 
this bill in the dark, we witnessed the shameful spectacle of the 
Speaker of this House, and others, claim as political those who 
question the nondefense, nonhomeland security aspects of this bill. 
That was disgraceful, even for a majority that has made the 
disparagement of the democratic process an art form.
  Let us review the situation again, Mr. Chairman. This committee did 
bipartisan work. It passed a defense and homeland security emergency 
spending bill. It went to the Committee on Rules where the majority of 
Republicans rewrote that bill. Essentially, they took it and they 
spread the American flag out; they put the Committee on Appropriation's 
work on it, and then they added things. They added violations to the 
Caribbean Basin initiative that just happens to have two of their 
Members, one from South Carolina, one from North Carolina, who took 
politically harmful votes earlier in the year to be helped in their 
upcoming elections.
  They changed distribution of hospital funds. It just so happened that 
Members of the Republican Party with tough elections ended up with 
their hospitals getting more and hospitals around the Nation getting 
less so that could happen. They reported to put in a deeming in the 
budget amount that the leadership could not otherwise get through both 
bodies in this Congress and which forces the rest of the year every 
other place of education, transportation, housing and so on to be cut, 
and it raises the debt ceiling, hidden in this bill, tucked in there so 
that no Member of the majority party will have to stand up and be 
counted. They did this even though most of the people over there on 
that side of the aisle have signed a bill saying that it would take 
three-fifths of this body in an open vote to make such an increase in 
the debt ceiling.
  It is the Speaker's job to represent and uphold the integrity of this 
House and not to play partisan politics with our security needs. It 
looks like ours needs to be reminded of that. He took to the floor to 
participate in the shameful waving of the flag to mask political 
additions by the Republican majority to this bill.
  The debt ceiling in America is America's credit card limit, the 
maximum that we can charge on our credit cards, if you will. The 
Republicans are rightfully embarrassed, as they should be, that they 
took a $5.6 trillion surplus and in one year, they blew it out so that 
they need to raise the amount that this country can borrow.
  Now, we as American families could understand that if they had to 
raise it to borrow to invest in the future needs of our families and 
this country. For instance, if they had to borrow for security reasons, 
but they do not, or for housing, but they do not, or for education, but 
they do not, or transportation, or each retirement. But these 
Republicans are not raising the credit limit of this country because 
they want to invest in those things; they are not borrowing for our 
security. There is plenty of money in there and both sides of the aisle 
would vote to have this country secure. They are not helping us secure 
housing needs. They are not educating our children with the money; in 
fact, they are cutting the education funding and leaving the children 
behind. They are not doing it for our retirement, because, in fact, as 
a result of this, they are going to have to spend the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds.
  The Republicans are raising the debt of America because they gave our 
savings away to their wealthy neighbors. What American would take their 
credit card, increase the debt and use that money to give it to their 
wealthy neighbors at the expense of their children's education, their 
parents' retirement and prescription drugs, their communities' needs? 
But that is exactly what has been done here, and they have the audacity 
to stand up and call others who question nondefense needs and 
nonhomeland security needs as political.
  The majority wrapped this bad act in the flag together with the 
bipartisan emergency security funding, and brought it here hoping 
Americans would be distracted by their waving of the flag. It is a 
disgrace.
  When Webster comes out in the future with a pictorial dictionary, 
next to ``bravery'' it is going to have the photos of Americans who 
fought in Afghanistan, who helped in New York, and who paid their taxes 
to support the unity, freedoms and civil liberties of this country. 
Next to the words ``political cowardice'' it will need space enough to 
fit a group so large as to encompass the entire Republican caucus, 
chief among them the so-called moderates who voted for this crummy rule 
and wring their hands afterwards.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation and the language in it to 
increase the debt. I do have concerns about it, and I believe that my 
Democrat friends today have shown rare interest in fiscal restraint.
  I am glad to see it. I know there are a lot of them, like my friend, 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is always on the 
target, and I am glad to see he has growing numbers there. We on the 
Republican side of the aisle welcome all the help we can get when it 
comes to fiscal conservativeness.
  What I want to say now is that the Treasury is not going to be able 
to finance the homeland security and the war on terrorism without 
addressing this issue.
  We keep hearing we do not like the process. But if we go back in our 
book, which is the House rules and manual, on page 945, rule number 49, 
which was at one time known as the Gephardt rule, it says and I quote, 
``The vote by which the conference report on the concurrent resolution 
on the budget was agreed to in the House, or by which the concurrent 
resolution itself was adopted in the House if there is no conference 
report, shall be deemed to have been a vote in favor of such joint 
resolution,'' and that is concerning the debt ceiling, ``upon final 
passage of the House of Representatives.'' This was the case for over 
20 years as a mechanism designed by the Democrat party to address the 
issue of raising the debt ceiling.
  Now, I want to say let us get off the process issue. This is a 
standard thing that the Committee on Rules has done. But I also heard 
the words of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) earlier 
today. I have to say to my Democrat friends, where was their plan? 
Where was their budget? When we had the budget debate, there was not 
one.
  The words of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said that it 
is a problem and they are just going to vote no on it. But as the 
burden of governing goes to the majority party, we have addressed a lot 
of debt reduction, $453 billion in debt paid off; in 1998, $451 
billion; in 1999, $89 billion; in 2000, $223 billion; and in 2001, $90 
billion in debt reduction.
  We are very serious about this. We have passed a budget this year 
that gets us back on this track. We are going to continue to do so.
  Here is another chart about what our plans are about it. Here is $3.7 
billion, going up to $3.2 billion by 2007. Meanwhile, back to the 
Democrat ranch: no budget, no submission. There was a plan that one of 
the leading Democrat senators said that goes into Social Security. That 
is something they always try to accuse us of, but here is a news 
article about how the Democrat plan in the Senate was planning to get 
into Social Security. The House plan was not,

[[Page H2967]]

because there was no plan, so they can kind of pick and choose issues 
here.
  Is war free? Did anyone think on 9/11 that this was not going to cost 
us money? Can we really put a price on defending our freedom? Can we 
really say that, well, we did not mean it, and we do not like the 
procedural situation here today, so we are going to take a pass on it? 
I do not think that anybody in this House, Democrat or Republican, 
conservative or liberal, would ever want to do this.
  Can we put a price tag on defending our freedom? This bill today 
helps us continue the war in central Asia until we win it. This bill 
today helps us to defend our homeland, which we need, and our airports, 
our ports, our EMS, our police officials back home. This bill helps 
fund that.
  This bill also has $5.7 billion for New York City. Now, I am sure if 
we all looked at it politically and said let New York take care of it 
on their own, nobody is necessarily going to lose the election because 
they did not vote for more spending for New York City. But the fact is, 
the attack was a national attack. Every Member in here, from Hawaii to 
Maine to Miami, all want to stand up and support, as fellow Americans, 
side by side, the rebuilding of New York City. This bill today allows 
us to do this.
  War is not free. War is not pleasant. Financing war, financing 
anything, is not easy, but this is an approach. I support the bill and 
hope that we can move on from some of the partisan rhetoric that we 
have been hearing today.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, given the words of the gentleman who preceded 
me in the well, there is substantial ground for agreement on homeland 
security, money for the National Guard; our troops, giving them what 
they need; the Coast Guard needs more funding; aviation security, I was 
a principal in writing that bill, and it is going to cost billions of 
dollars; and money for New York City.
  There was tremendous agreement on the Committee on Appropriations. If 
that bill were brought to the floor, I would venture to say it would 
get a two-thirds vote. We would probably do it under suspension of the 
rules, or maybe better.
  But that is not what is before us today. That is the problem. This is 
not an emergency supplemental, it is the early arrival of the Capitol 
Christmas tree. This bill has been larded down with billions not 
requested by the President, and extraneous provisions like raising the 
national debt limit.
  In other areas, some of particular concern to my constituents, they 
have shorted the President's request. I will tell the Members what is 
an emergency to the people of my district. In addition to fighting the 
war on terrorism and defending our homeland, it is the fact that we 
have the highest unemployment rate in the United States of America in 
my district. This bill shorts the President's request of $550 million 
for national emergency grants under the Work Force Investment Act to 
provide unemployment training assistance by $250 million.
  That is going to be shuffled elsewhere. They ignored the President 
there. That is a real crisis, a real emergency to people in my 
district.
  There are other things about this bill that are particularly 
outrageous: the increase in the debt limit, running up the credit card 
by spending Social Security trust funds.
  What happened to the lockbox? That was a Republican invention. We 
voted on it 7 times in the House. I voted on it each of the 7 times. I 
supported the idea of a lockbox for Social Security. Where has it gone? 
They have blown the door off and pulled the money out.
  This year, in this year's budget, $150 billion of money that should 
be going in the lockbox, that should be there to pay for future 
generations of Social Security retirees, is going to be spent and 
replaced with IOUs with this year's projected $307 billion budget. This 
merits an airing. This merits a debate on this floor.
  If we are going to increase the debt of the United States of America 
by three-quarters of a trillion dollars, if we are going to run $200 
billion to $300 billion-a-year deficits as far as the eye can see, half 
of that money coming out of Social Security, how are we going to pay 
for the retirement of the baby boom generation?
  Will they be better off watching the money flow to the most wealthy 
Americans with the tax cuts, or would they be better off safeguarding 
their trust fund, paying down some of the national debt, making us more 
capable of carrying those burdens when that generation retires? That is 
a debate we should have. Let us have a debate over the policies that 
are leading to this request that we increase the debt ceiling of the 
United States by three-quarters of $1 trillion: $750 billion. It is 
$750 billion, B, billion dollars. That is a lot of money, even here in 
Washington, D.C.
  Can Members not have the courage of Ronald Reagan? He jammed through 
huge tax cuts and big spending increases with similar rosy projections. 
Two years later, he had the courage to admit he was wrong. In fact, we 
were running huge and growing deficits, and the tax cuts were too big 
to support. In fact, he rolled them back, very significantly working 
with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate.
  Can Members not have that courage to admit that the $5.6 trillion of 
rosy scenario, which has now evaporated, which allowed them to put 
through a tax cut, which is going to absorb about half of that money, 
that is not here anymore? We are in deficits. Should we borrow money 
from Social Security to finance tax cuts principally for the wealthiest 
Americans, or should we safeguard those funds?
  We could have a wonderful policy debate here on the floor of the 
House about raising the debt limit, what is leading to it, and what we 
should do about it. But that is not going to be allowed. That is being 
rolled into this bill with little bitty sneaky language so it can come 
back.
  Let us have a fair debate on that issue. Let us strip out all of the 
extraneous provisions of this bill. If they will do that, I will vote 
for it. I will support a unanimous consent request to just deem the 
bill adopted. Just strip out all the extraneous positions out of this 
bill, and I believe we could get every Democrat to support a motion 
similar to that.
  We support the money that is going in there for the troops, the war 
on terrorism, the other essentials; but we do not support the 
Christmas-tree approach that this bill is taking, including avoiding 
any significant policy discussion about trading off tax cuts for 
increasing the debt in the United States and raiding the Social 
Security lockbox.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate we have before us is about a supplemental 
spending bill, but it is not about supplemental spending for the war on 
terrorism, not this debate. When it comes to fighting terrorism, we are 
not going to be stinting about the cost. We want to win. We support our 
troops. We support our President. We are ready to vote for supplemental 
spending to win the war on terrorism. Let us make that clear.
  But the leadership of this House, knowing that this supplemental 
would be widely supported, cleverly stuck on it provisions that are 
totally unrelated to the war on terrorism which we cannot and do not 
support. One provision in particular sticks in our craw. Members have 
heard us talk about it. It is seemingly innocuous, just a passing 
reference to ``the debt of the United States.'' But this passing 
reference is a coy trick, too clever by half, particularly with a 
matter of such gravity as the national debt of the United States of 
America. Because what this bill would do without a direct vote, without 
open acknowledgment, what this bill would do is open the back door for 
an increase in the national debt of $750 billion.
  Now, we all know that the national debt ceiling will have to be 
raised by $750 billion, and probably before it is all over with, even 
more. I voted for it before and I will vote for it again. But if we let 
it slip by, if we let it pass, buried in this bill, I will tell Members 
what we will be voting for: We will be voting for 2 more years of 
avoidance, 2 more years of dodging the issue, 2 more years of not 
dealing squarely with the problems of our budget, the deficit, and the 
debt that has put us so far in debt that we now need $750 billion in 
debt ceiling increase.
  Look at this chart. It is just a simple explanation of how far we 
have sunk in

[[Page H2968]]

the last 2 years with the administration's budget policies. This was 
what they projected here, that we would not need to come back for an 
increase in the debt ceiling for at least 8 years. That is what 
Secretary O'Neill told us as recently as last year when he testified 
before the House Committee on the Budget. It would be 2008 before he 
needs another debt ceiling increase.
  Look at what has happened in 2 years. Look at the red line shooting 
up there. That is because of the budget that we have which is shown on 
this next chart. The numbers are too small, and it is too bad, but this 
chart shows graphically, literally and figuratively how far we have 
sunk.
  Look at this bottom line here, the remaining on-budget surplus. We 
have gone from the first surplus in 30 years, not including Social 
Security and Medicare, to an expected deficit by our calculation this 
year of an on-budget deficit of $314 billion, $314 billion.
  Look across this line and see what happens to the bottom line. It 
does not self-correct. It does not get any better. This year we expect 
$314 billion. Next year it will be $342 billion, without Social 
Security and without Medicare. The next year it will be $248 billion, 
$284 billion, and then $238 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are avoiding, if we vote for this bill and 
approve a debt ceiling increase by the back door, is any confrontation 
with this dire fiscal situation we have on our hands that results from 
the Bush budget policies. That is the bottom line. That is what the 
debate is about.
  We went to the Committee on Rules and said quite simply and openly, 
give us an amendment to this bill which would basically provide that 
before the debt ceiling is increased by more than $250 billion, and we 
will let you have a $250 billion increase, but before we add the 
additional amount, let us have in place, let us pass and put in place a 
budget resolution that would restore us to balance in 5 years, that 
would put us back on an on-budget surplus in 5 years.
  Is that asking for too much? All that is asking for is what we all 
promised on the 7 occasions in the last 2 or 3 years when we brought to 
the floor bills we called lockbox bills. Remember those? Everybody got 
up here and forswore this practice of digging into the Social Security 
trust fund, digging into the Medicare trust fund and using those trust 
fund surpluses which are building up for now for ordinary operating 
purposes of the Federal Government. We all said that now we were in 
surplus and we are able to do it, we would not do it again.
  Well, here we are, Mr. Chairman, back at that practice again as a 
result of the budgets we have adopted for the last 2 years. What we 
have tried to say, the amendment we tried to offer and get made in 
order, simply provided that before we raise the debt ceiling $750 
billion and preclude this issue from being considered again for at 
least 2 years, bypass this debate, let us put in place a budget that 
will put us back in balance. That is what this debate is all about.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, last night I stood in this very same room with some of 
you here to argue against the raising of the debt ceiling and from 
bankrupting our Social Security system for our current senior citizens 
and future baby boomers like myself and others. I am dismayed that this 
afternoon I have to return and make the very same argument again, 
raising the debt ceiling especially in such a backhanded way that 
unfairly forces us to make choices, choices of priorities. Make no 
mistake about it, make no mistake about it, Democrats do support our 
troops. We do support the war on terrorism; but we cannot sit idly by 
while the Bush administration and the Republican leadership continue to 
chip away at the support beams of Social Security in the name of 
patriotism.
  I ask, Is it patriotic to steal food and shelter from our seniors? Is 
it patriotic to force our seniors to choose between nutritious meals 
and their prescription drugs? Is it patriotic to ask our workers to pay 
into the Social Security system that may be dissolved before they have 
an opportunity to benefit from it, like myself?
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives has over 61 women 
Representatives here now. But the United States is comprised of over 
140 million women. And of those women, there are many who will be 
adversely affected by the radical shift in Social Security. Today women 
represent about 60 percent of the Social Security recipients and 72 
percent of those are beneficiaries aged 85 years and over. More than a 
quarter of these women depend on Social Security as their sole source 
of income.
  And just like my district where there are many minority women, 
Latinas and women of Asian descent, they are at risk. Where are they 
going to go to help pay for their rent, to get their medicine, to take 
care of themselves? Because all they have is that check that comes 
maybe once a month. We cannot play with the lives of these women who 
have given so much to our country. Many are sole survivors now whose 
husbands have fought in our wars. We should not be forced to choose 
between democracy and the men and women who worked together to build 
this mighty country.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I could not help in listening 
to the gentlewoman's passionate plea about the status of women, just to 
share with the gentlewoman in my own district just a few weeks ago I 
went around to different senior citizen sites and met with a lot of the 
women who are there now who rely upon Social Security. And one of the 
difficulties is that they do not have even now enough money to pay for 
prescription drugs, to be able to pay for their rent and expenses. And 
if we violate what the gentlewoman has said, the trust of the Social 
Security, by voting on this bill with an increase in the debt ceiling, 
the debt limit, we are now putting a heavy burden on these 
constituents' backs, Hispanic women, Asian women, Anglo women, African 
American women, elderly and those who are yet to come.
  I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for focusing her remarks on 
women because I saw it firsthand. There are people who told me that I 
cannot pay for my own food because I do not have enough money to be 
able to enjoy a quality life.
  I thank the gentlewoman for making this very vital point. That is why 
I am so indignant.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I think when the gentlewoman 
brought up there are 61 women here representing the people of this 
Nation, I think that we should also remember those people who are on 
Social Security disability. My son was on Social Security disability, 
and it got us through some very, very hard times. There are millions 
and millions of people with disabilities that are counting on Social 
Security also, and I do not think we should forget them.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate again to the 
Members that we are talking about what is at stake here for millions 
and millions of people, senior citizens, even young folks that rely so 
heavily on this check. And what about those widows that now receive 
that payment? What are we telling them? What are we letting them know 
about our decisions here tonight?
  I would ask we consider rethinking this whole plan because I am not 
in a position to go home this weekend, Memorial Weekend, to start 
giving speeches about how patriotic our government is and how much we 
are doing everything we can; and at the same time, the very people that 
I am going to be speaking to, most of whom are on Social Security, 
knowing that we will be taking away from the very folks that deserve to 
have this support.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been watching this debate for the most part of 
the morning, and I have to say it is shameless. And I think it is 
shameless when women use their gender to try to achieve political 
goals.
  The fact is this bill is about the defense of our country, our 
national security and our homeland security. We

[[Page H2969]]

need to get this bill passed so that we can get the proper equipment, 
training and everything else that our troops need while they are there 
defending our freedom.
  When these young men and women get up every day they button on their 
jackets. When they do that they are basically saying, I will die for 
you today to protect your freedom. And what this bill is about is 
getting the money and the resources that we need for homeland security 
and for the defense of our country.
  We know that we are under threats from terrorism across this country. 
And to stand up here and refer to starving seniors, and taking drugs 
away from seniors and from young women, taking checks away, Social 
Security checks, they know this is not true. They know that is 
disingenuous; and Mr. Chairman, that is a debate that needs to take 
place on another day.
  Everyone in this Congress on both sides of the aisle are committed to 
saving Social Security and seeing to it that all of the seniors and all 
of disabled people in this country have a living and have health care 
and have food. Now, let us cut with the dramatics and get down to the 
basics of what this is about. This is about defense and homeland 
security.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we cut down on the emotions, get to the 
facts and get on with the debate of this bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, you know you are in dangerous, dangerous waters when 
you mess with questioning anybody's patriotism or dedication to our 
troops. You are in dangerous waters. So I speak today as a veteran. I 
speak today as a loyal American.
  We support our Commander in Chief in the execution of the war. May no 
one think otherwise. But under the cover of war, do not politically 
pursue your goals. That is dangerous. American people are smarter than 
we give them credit for.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my Social Security card. I do not need the 
poster here. This is my Social Security card. And I am not going to 
show you the number because it is nobody's business, by the way, which 
is another thing we will debate at another time.
  This card, this Social Security card, has become a national credit 
card. Borrowing off my Social Security card will put us deeper in debt. 
The excruciating rates of credit companies, credit card companies in 
this country, will pale in comparison, in comparison to the interest 
rates every day growing and growing and growing on the Nation's debt. 
In fact, in the first minute I have spoken, a million dollars. You may 
choose to ignore this. I do not.
  This is the most recent in a series of fiscally irresponsible acts by 
the majority that you have taken in the last 18 months. First, you push 
through an offensive tax cut that benefits primarily the very wealthy 
in this Nation. It is back-loaded so as to hide the effects this will 
have on our budget. But the worst is yet to come in 2003, in 2004, in 
2005 when those other rate cuts plug in.
  Just last month you tried to make this permanent, ad infinitum. It 
was not bad enough to have a 10-year budget. You cannot predict the 
budget for 10 months. Now they want to raise the debt ceiling by $750 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, no one on our side of the aisle has questioned our 
authenticity. Let us get the record straight. We know what you are 
dealing with. You know what we are all dealing with. That is not the 
issue. Prior to this Republican tax cut, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office, all the Treasury debt held by the public could have been 
paid off by the year 2008. That is gone. That is serious business. You 
know that and I know that.
  As a result of that tax cut pushed through, the Republicans by 2008, 
the baby boomers thought to retire, the government will owe $3.49 
trillion more than it owes at this very moment. Now, you may dismiss it 
under the cover of war again; but, again, you cannot borrow off my 
Social Security card. I do not want you to. The American people do not 
want you to either. Remember, that is not just the debt we have to 
worry about. There is also an interest on that debt. Fifteen cents out 
of every tax dollar we send to Washington automatically goes to paying 
the interest on the debt before we even sit down and try to respond to 
the basic needs of American people. That is unconscionable.
  According to the President's own numbers, this year alone we will pay 
$178 billion in interest on our debt; and the payment amounts go up 
every year. The effect on America's national debt is an additional $396 
billion. This is a direct result of what we did last spring in 2001. We 
will pay off almost $400 billion in additional debt as a direct result 
of the majority's efforts to make this tax cut permanent.
  The majority is always talking about responsibility. You are darn 
right. There is a values question. This is a values question. I value 
this card. And so do the American people.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like all of us here, remember the first day I got 
here to Congress. I came here to represent my constituents like all of 
the Members did consistent with the national interest. And we know that 
over time we lose some of that. And, quite frankly, the leadership on 
both sides, in the interest of party unity, ask us to vote for rules 
that we know are wrong and are not in the best interest of our 
constituents and not in the best interest of our country. That happened 
yesterday on this floor.
  We tried to make a fight of it, but you know in your heart that you 
are putting party politics above the interests of this country and the 
people here when you come to the floor under this rule that disguises a 
raising of the debt limit of our country. This may be the most cynical 
rule in my 14 years here.
  I honestly believe that this is the most cynical rule I have seen in 
14 years I have been here. Members on both sides of the aisle I know 
are called on in the interest of party unity from time to time to vote 
for rules. That happened yesterday. It was wrong for our country. We 
know it was wrong when we hide this attempt to raise the national debt 
like we did.

                              {time}  1345

  As has been said many times, we will vote for unanimous consent 
today, right now, for every dime the President requested to fight this 
war, but when my colleagues come to the floor and say this is for the 
war effort, I have read through the bill.
  Do my colleagues realize there is $425,000 in here for a school 
district in this country for after-school activities? There is $250,000 
in here for after-school activities for another school district. There 
is $250,000 to equip a community technology center in this bill. There 
is $250,000 for a mental health agency for the planning and development 
of a facility. There is $600,000 for a community enrichment corporation 
for construction of a facility; $500,000 for an affordable housing 
program; $100,000 for the renovation of a historic building; $200,000 
for construction of another facility; $200,000 for facility 
improvements; $600,000 for renovation of a facility; another $200,000 
for facility construction. It goes on and on.
  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the defense of this country, 
with homeland security, with the troops or anything else. That is what 
we object to. We object to hiding stuff like this under the guise of 
the flag and patriotism. It is wrong, and I would just simply ask that 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations again please go to his 
leadership and say, look, we will pass by unanimous consent every 
single nickel that the President has asked for the homeland defense of 
our Nation and for the troops, but do not bring this here and do not 
pad, under guise of raising the national debt, this cynical rule, the 
most cynical rule I have seen in 14 years here, and all of us know it.
  Surely to goodness we can put partisan politics aside and do what we 
came here the first day we were sworn in, and that is represent our 
constituents consistent with this country's interest. That is what all, 
that is all we are asking our colleagues to do.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, while there is still civility and sanity on the floor, 
let me just come to the well and say that I have found some good in all 
435 Members of the House, tried to get to know every one of my 
colleagues, tried to work with all of them from time to time on 
different issues, and I see a lot of good in this House.

[[Page H2970]]

  There are no clean hands, though, completely spotless hands. There 
are a lot of good areas, but we all have our own little burdens to bear 
in terms of taking care of our districts from time to time or putting 
things in bills that do not belong or might not be germane, and so I 
think this is a time where we need to come together.
  My colleagues may have noticed, yesterday I voted present on this 
rule. I did not like this rule. I am a member of the House Committee on 
Appropriations, and I frankly think the Committee on Rules went too 
far. I think rules ought to be more straightforward and a lot cleaner.
  But I also watched the board as the rule vote was concluded, and the 
rule passed, and Winston Churchill once referred to our form of 
government as the worst form of government imaginable except for every 
other because it sometimes is sloppy. It sometimes may seem unfair, but 
majority rules, and the rule passed, and at some point we have got to 
resolve our differences and pass the bill and go home and honor those 
that have given so much, and maybe check in with our families a little 
during a weekend, which would be good.
  I am in no hurry, but I think it is important that at some point we 
go ahead and say we fought the good fight, we stood for whatever we 
believed in on both sides and then we worked out a compromise and went 
home, even if it is not what my colleagues want. Make your case and 
then let us come together because I think we need to do this work. I 
think there are a lot of difficult issues that are out there, and I 
know there are a lot of people of goodwill here.
  So let us try to do this in a civil way, in a timely manner. State 
your case. But I have got news for my colleagues. The tax relief was 
important. We would be in a lot worse economic shape as a Nation today 
had we not passed that tax relief. So my colleagues can keep arguing 
that until they are blue in the face, but it was done and it needed to 
be done. It was the right thing to do, and now we have a whole other 
set of circumstances in front of us, including a wartime, antiterrorism 
effort that requires at some point in the coming hours that we meet 
together at the water's edge.
  My friends on the Democratic side have seen me come to the well and 
defend legislation that they offered this year, but at some point in 
the coming hours, let us find a way to come together and pass this 
supplemental and go home and honor those that have given so much to our 
country.


                   amendment offered by mr. gephardt

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gephardt:
       In chapter 14 of title I, strike section 1403.

  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) rise?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is 
subject to a point of order, but at this point, as a courtesy to the 
gentleman to allow him his 5 minutes, I will reserve a point of order 
on the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman giving me the 
opportunity to explain my position on this amendment and on this point 
of order.
  This bill is being considered under a rule that does not include 
language on the full faith and credit of the United States until the 
Committee rises, and then the language comes into the bill at a point 
too late for this body to consider that language or amendments to that 
language.
  We think that it is in order and should be in order to make an 
amendment to that language, and we feel it so strongly because we know 
and believe that if that language persists in the bill, it will be used 
in a conference to bring about language lifting the debt ceiling, in 
other words, raising the debt limit for the United States, raising our 
credit card limit, which will come back in a conference report and be a 
fait accompli.
  This is an important moment in the economic history of this country. 
We worked our way out of debt over a long period of time in the 1990s 
in a bipartisan way. The gentleman from Tennessee's comments were well 
taken. It was bipartisan. After the 1993 budget, we passed a budget in 
1997 and worked our way out of debt, in fact, to the point where a year 
ago we were talking about surpluses.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle a year ago insisted on a 
tax cut, half of which went to the wealthiest people in the country. We 
can argue it till the cows come home about that tax cut, but that tax 
cut, in our view, now constitutes at least half of the cause of the 
reason that we lost the surplus, and we now face huge deficits for as 
far as the eye can see.
  I can certainly understand my colleagues' position. I do not agree 
with it on cutting taxes to that extent, but I understand that they 
wanted to do that. I understand that they wanted to articulate that to 
the American people, but when it comes time to pay the bill for that 
tax cut, they do not want to be seen. They do not want to have a vote. 
They do not want to have a discussion.
  The reason it is important is that in effect what we are doing is we 
are raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in order to 
pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Let us be straight 
about it.
  So you bet we want a debate. This is an important moment. I would 
vote for an increase in the debt ceiling to get us another month of 
time. I realize we cannot fail to have an increase in the debt ceiling; 
I know that. When I was in the majority, I worked hard with these 
Members to get them to vote to increase the debt ceiling, and it was 
hard to do, but we did it because we have to do it. Of course, we have 
to do that, but what I want more than that is about a month on the debt 
ceiling so we can get to what we ought to be doing, and that is, having 
a budget summit, a budget conference, a budget meeting, with you and 
the administration and the Senate to come up with a new budget.
  You can bet that every family who lost someone on 9/11 has had a 
budget meeting in their household. They have sat around the kitchen 
table working on a new budget for their family. Our American family had 
a tragedy on 9/11 that we are trying to respond to here today, and in 
all common sense, we should be sitting at a table with trust and 
respect for one another's viewpoint and adjust our budget for the 
change in circumstances that our country faces.
  When you did the tax cut, we did not know about 9/11. We did not have 
a war going on in Afghanistan. We did not have all of these needs for 
homeland defense and homeland security. In the name of common sense, 
let us pass a debt ceiling today for one month. Let us sit down and 
have a budget summit. Let us find a budget that will save Social 
Security and Medicare. We are going to have the baby boomers coming in 
about 8 years to get their Social Security benefits. How in God's name 
are we going to take care of them if we have not adjusted the budget?
  Now is the time to do it. I ask the chairman of this committee to 
allow this amendment, let us put in some new language on debt ceiling. 
Let us get to a budget summit for the American people. Let us save 
Social Security. Let us do what is right for the American people at 
this time of peril.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) insist upon 
his point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the gentleman's amendment. Under the rule, section 1403 was adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole and the House. Page 52 of the House 
Practices states that an amendment that seeks to strike an amendment 
previously agreed to is not in order, and I insist on my point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard directly on the 
point of order?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask to be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to follow such a moving 
appeal that demonstrates the importance and the urgency of permitting 
this amendment, but I think it is appropriate to reflect on the 
parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves at present.

[[Page H2971]]

  A very odd and strange rule has been imposed on the House.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman's 
comments are not related to the point of order.
  Mr. DOGGETT. And should we not be permitted to offer the amendment 
and the point of order be sustained, Mr. Chairman, that would deny any 
opportunity under the rule for us to consider this critical issue of 
whether we want to raise the limit on the debt and invade Social 
Security.
  The only alternative at that point would be for us to raise this 
issue by continuing to speak around the clock to defend Social Security 
and by appealing the ruling of the Chair who I believe has done a very 
fine job today, but that would be the only way if the point of order 
were sustained to get this critical issue of whether we want to raise 
the limit on the Social Security credit card, as it is being treated, 
my colleagues' Social Security card being treated as a credit card for 
expenditures on other issues.

                              {time}  1400

  We can avoid that problem. We can conclude our business, be home to 
honor those on Memorial Day who have served our country so well, by 
simply agreeing by unanimous consent to let this critical matter come 
up, do it now, do it on a bipartisan basis, cooperatively join to deal 
with this problem, get us a budget, preserve Social Security and do so 
in a collegial and appropriate way. Or alternatively we can challenge 
the ruling of the Chair, and we can stay here for a very long time.
  Because it is clear that not just one or two people but all of us are 
committed to doing what is necessary to preserve Social Security for 
this unfair rate that is being proposed today.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, were the Chair to rule that the distinguished 
minority leader's amendment is nongermane, would in essence be for the 
Chair to determine that it is fair to operate under a set of rules 
under which the House can push into an unrelated bill the subject of 
the debt ceiling, but it is unfair to push it out again in order to get 
back to the bipartisan wartime supplemental which so many Members of 
the House today have been suggesting this bill is supposed to be.
  We agree that that is what it is supposed to be. And so I would urge 
the Chair in the interest of fairness, since the majority party 
leadership brought this issue in in the first place, to rule that it is 
just as legitimate to take it out as it is to put it in.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard directly 
on the point of order?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have taken the time to review, as best 
I could, the rules on which the Chair made the decision yesterday, in 
ruling in favor of the rule, that allowed this rather unusual 
procedure. I take it that our Parliamentarians and everyone in this 
body recognize the seriousness of making a precedent ruling. That is 
what this is, I believe.
  I do not believe that we can research the rules of this House from 
the very beginning of this House and find a ruling made by the Chair 
that indicates an amendment is not deemed to be in play until it has 
been voted on in the Committee of the Whole. And this is where I make 
my appeal to the decision of the Chair.
  It seems to me that in making that determination, that denies the 
opportunity to strike something that is not in the bill, was not in the 
rule, but was deemed to be passed after we vote in the Committee of the 
Whole. This is, at best, confusing; but it also, if the decision of the 
Chair holds that this type of parliamentary procedure shall become the 
precedent and the ruling of the House, that you might put into a rule 
language that says, in this case the debt ceiling, hidden in a rather 
innocuous way, will be considered passed after we vote on the bill; but 
until you vote on the bill it is never in play.
  The minority leader has asked that it be stricken. The gentleman has 
quoted from the rules in saying it cannot be stricken because it is not 
in the bill. It was not in the rule. And it was not in the rule because 
it could not be in the rule until it was passed by the House, and the 
House has not acted as yet. That is rather confusing to this cotton 
farmer from Jones County.
  I conclude my appeal on the ruling, Mr. Chairman. We are getting on 
very thin ice in this body when we use sleight of hand and attempting 
to hide the true intentions of what we do behind a rule, and now a 
ruling of the Chair that not once but twice has now been held that this 
will now be perfectly the order of the day. This is not the spirit in 
which we were all elected to this body, Mr. Chairman. This was not the 
spirit in which we were elected.
  So I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your agreement with 
the point of order, because this is setting a precedent that I do not 
think either side will want to go, if you in fact should make that 
ruling. And I urge you, in fact I implore you, to not sustain the point 
of order, to allow this vote to proceed, to allow an up-and-down vote 
on the issue, the issue of whether the debt ceiling should be hidden in 
the way in which it was hidden.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the Chair's ruling, on 
the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be heard.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this phrase that includes the term ``full 
faith and credit of the United States'' was first placed in the rule 
during the Committee on Rules hearing, and there was a vote taken in 
the Committee on Rules in the past which brought the rule to the floor. 
The reason we have a rule is so that we can conduct business in an 
orderly fashion and not repeat procedures over and over and over again. 
It is a way of avoiding delaying tactics so we can conduct the business 
of the House. If we repeatedly go through a process of trying to change 
something that has been voted on several times, it will cause us to 
backtrack, not move forward.
  The House cannot afford to be frozen in time on one particular item. 
We must address the item and move on. This particular item not only has 
been addressed in the Committee on Rules, where a vote occurred and it 
was successful, it then came to the floor where a debate followed. The 
second vote was taken by the full House, and it was accepted by a 
majority of the people in the House of Representatives.
  Now, to move forward, we have come to the bill. It is now part of the 
bill. Hopefully, at some point in time today, we will have the 
opportunity to vote on the bill in its entirety, again addressing this 
issue with a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote.
  So I would request that the Chair consider that in order to continue 
our orderly fashion of moving forward, rather than being frozen in time 
and repeating again and again a vote on a single issue, that we sustain 
what the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has brought 
forward and continue business as we have conducted it in the past.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to further be heard on the point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I note one comment the previous speaker just 
made, that we should not return to issues upon which we have already 
voted. The problem is that we have not yet explicitly voted on this 
provision. This provision was never presented to us in a freestanding 
up-or-down situation. It was presented only in the rule, where it was 
encompassed in a package with a number of other items.
  The Constitution says that no money may be expended except by vote of 
the Congress of the United States. And yet through this indirect 
sleight of hand, were the Chair to rule against the amendment of the 
gentleman from Missouri, it would mean that in essence we would have 
paved the way for raising the national debt by $750 billion without 
ever having had an explicit vote on that.
  So I think the gentleman is in error in suggesting that we have 
already voted on the specific proposal of the gentleman. In fact, we 
have not. That is the whole point. The House should.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida wish to be further 
heard on the point of order?

[[Page H2972]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Further on my point of 
order, I would respectfully disagree with my friends on the minority 
side when they say that this would be a precedent-setting ruling. For 
on page 52 of the ``Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of 
the House,'' using ``Deschler's Precedents'' as the basis, it simply 
says it is not in order to offer an amendment merely striking out an 
amendment previously agreed to. The rule previously agreed to the 
amendment that was offered on the subject that the gentlemen are 
concerned about.
  So I think this is not a precedent-setting point of order. I believe 
that it is well established in precedence.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Mr. FRANK. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, this is not a narrow question of 
interpreting the rules; it is a fundamental question about democracy.
  I am a great believer in the rules. I think Members ought to 
understand them, because properly applied they structure our debates so 
that two purposes are served: first, we come to decisions; second, 
equally important, the American people know what their elected 
representatives have said on these important questions. And the rules 
should be interpreted to serve both purposes.
  Yes, there is precedent. But precedent is not confining and 
constraining and controlling. The vote of this House is. I have in the 
past voted against the majority of my colleagues on my side because I 
thought the Chair was correct in interpreting a rule and that my 
colleagues were trying to get a second bite at an apple or bring in 
something that was not germane. Obviously, this is germane. It was 
brought forward by the majority.
  The question then is, should we set the policy that a very 
controversial, very important subject can be considered to have been 
decided when it is hidden in another issue? People have said we have 
already voted on it. I am sure that Members on the majority side, when 
asked on the trail, Did you vote for raising the debt limit?, will say, 
Oh no, I just voted for a rule. I just had to vote for a rule to 
advance the procedure. And that is a question of the rules.
  The question is what should the rules be interpreted to mean? Should 
we set a new precedent, a precedent that says the harder the issue, the 
more obscurely we will have that vote? No one believed that the only 
issue was the vote on the rule. Indeed, we had Members, when we were 
debating, saying this is not just a vote on the debt limit or this or 
that; I have heard the debate, this is a vote to help our troops, a 
subject on which there is no dissent in this House.
  You cannot argue when we are debating the rule that it is really 
about getting the money out for the troops and then later say, oh, but 
it was really a separate vote on the debt limit. No one really believes 
that. No one is prepared to argue that. So this is a question of the 
rules.
  The question here is the spirit of the rules and how we should 
interpret them. We are talking again about democracy. And what troubles 
me is that we have had an increasing pattern of the rules being 
manipulated, and I think twisted away from their original intent. I do 
not think Thomas Jefferson ever thought that they should be used in 
this fashion. We have a chance to go back to that basic underlying 
spirit of the rules being there so people know what happened.
  We have an increasing set of procedures, the purpose of which is to 
allow Members to conceal their position from the voters. That is what 
is at issue. Nothing could be more in conformity with our rules than to 
say an important issue ought to get a vote. And I do not understand 
this problem. We are not talking about something that ought to be 
considered extortionate.
  The Members of the House of Representatives say let us vote on this 
important subject. What are you afraid of, I have to say to my friends 
on the majority side? If you think this is important, if you think it 
is so defensible, then why not have a vote on it? Why create a 
precedent? And let no one think this will be the only time this will 
happen. Let this go forward unchallenged and increasingly, the more 
difficult the issue, the less the American people will be allowed to 
know where their elected representatives stand.
  So on behalf of the rules, on behalf of the essential function of 
creating a structure in which democracy goes forward, let us have this 
vote on this amendment. That is all we are asking. And if you have the 
votes, you vote it down. If you think this is an important thing to do, 
do it. But do not hide.

                              {time}  1415

  Do not hide and do not distort the rules of the House of 
Representatives and degrade democracy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Does the gentleman from 
Missouri wish to be recognized?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief and this will wind 
up our debate on this. I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has said, because I think it is an extremely important 
point. If this is ruled against us, this will become another precedent 
for the House slipping a very important decision under the carpet, 
avoiding a vote, and doing something that I think the people want to 
know about, need to know about, and need to be included in, in terms of 
the debate.
  I think raising the debt ceiling is a very important and necessary 
thing. I know that we have all had the experience of putting things on 
credit cards. When you get the bill, it sometimes is a surprise and you 
have got to reorder your priorities to pay the bill. This is a case 
where the national credit card has been used, and now we are not even 
considering whether to pay the bill, we are just considering whether to 
call the credit card company and raise the limit on the card. If we can 
slip that in without a vote and a discussion, the next thing, we will 
be able to declare war by putting it in a rule and not having to vote 
on it, or some other major act of this government.
  I plead with the chairman, I plead with the majority to allow us to 
vote for a 1-month increase in the debt ceiling, let us get a 
bipartisan budget that is good for our troops, good for our war against 
terrorism and good for these great United States of America.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly.
  Mr. THOMAS. Before anyone thinks that this is a decision on a narrow, 
technical parliamentary discussion, I want you to understand what is at 
stake. My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, said he could not 
believe that we would be doing this, or that Thomas Jefferson would not 
comprehend the fact that we were trying to run our business this way. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts had a popular politician at the time 
that Thomas Jefferson was a popular politician by the name of Elbridge 
Gerry. He created the gerrymander, to draw a district so bizarre that 
it was said, ``It looks like a salamander. Let's call it a 
gerrymander.'' Why was it drawn that way? To retain political power. 
They would go to any lengths to retain political power.
  If you take the logical argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
and say that we really ought to express ourselves on each and every 
item, that you should not hide something in a bill, can you imagine 
what the procedure would be on the floor of the House if each and every 
item had to be voted on? Because if you did not vote on it, then you 
are hiding it behind another item. And that when you are in this kind 
of a structure, i.e., moving a supplemental bill, by its very nature it 
is supplemental, it means we have picked up some pieces, we have had 
some things happen we were not aware of and we have had to put them 
together to respond to the real world. Not the desired world, the real 
world. And that their problem is they do not want to vote on this. They 
had a chance and they did. They voted ``no'' on the rule. But the 
majority prevailed. They now do not want to vote on this bill so it can 
go to conference and we can make an adjustment on the fundamental 
balance sheet of the United States because they do not want to vote on 
it when it comes back.

[[Page H2973]]

  So I want everyone to understand, this is not a narrow parliamentary 
argument. This is simply a resurfacing of the fact that they do not run 
the place anymore and they do not like it. Because they used to do this 
routinely. And, guess what? Obviously by the reaction, it is quite 
true. Because what we are doing here is trying to deal with a situation 
no one had planned on. And what the friends on the other side of the 
aisle are concerned about is that we might actually be able to 
accomplish something. Because every move they make and every word they 
speak is planned to try to get them to return to power following the 
elections this fall.
  Our job is to run the country as a responsible governing majority and 
we intend to do just that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Massachusetts 
further directly on the point of order for a brief time.
  Mr. FRANK. Yes, very briefly.
  The gentleman from California asked what it would be called, what it 
would be like if our point of order were to prevail. I will answer him. 
It would be called democracy. I ask that the majority not in the name 
of defending democracy throughout the world extinguish it here on the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Florida raises a point of order that the amendment 
proposes to strike an amendment previously agreed to.
  The Committee is considering the bill under the terms of House 
Resolution 428. House Resolution 428 provides, in pertinent part, that 
``the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the 
House and in the Committee of the Whole.'' As indicated on page 240 of 
the House Rules and Manual, it is not in order to offer an amendment 
striking out an amendment previously agreed to. The amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Missouri proposes to strike the language in 
section 1403 that, by the terms of the rule adopted by the House has 
been considered adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The Chair would also note that because House Resolution 428 provides 
that the amendments be considered as adopted, the text thereby inserted 
in the bill is not even read for amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The point of order is therefore sustained.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise to appeal the decision 
of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question on appeal is: Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 203, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 198]

                               AYES--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Burton
     Clay
     Combest
     Condit
     Deutsch
     Gutierrez
     Jefferson
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Paul
     Quinn
     Roukema
     Rush
     Thompson (MS)
     Traficant
     Vitter

                              {time}  1443

  Mrs. CAPPS and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HEFLEY, LaHOOD, ENGLISH, KNOLLENBERG, BRADY of Texas and Ms. 
DUNN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  So the point of order was sustained.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are on the eve of Memorial Day, a day set aside each 
year beginning with the war of 1917-1918 to recognize and memorialize 
those who paid the ultimate price and those who served and, 
subsequently, those who fought in wars since that time. Mr. Chairman, 
we are today involved in war.
  This bill before us is purported to be a supplemental for the battle 
against

[[Page H2974]]

terrorism, one that is purported to support the war against terrorists 
and to support those wonderful young men and young women in American 
uniforms. So I think it is proper to measure this legislation before us 
by giving it the soldier test by asking that soldier who might well be 
in Afghanistan being shot at or returning fire and in danger as to what 
help he needs from the Congress of the United States in a supplemental 
appropriation.
  This bill has good things in it. It provides for new protective body 
armor for the servicemembers. It provides for Global Hawk and Predator 
unmanned aerial vehicles, which give invaluable intelligence. It 
provides for remote chemical and biological agent vapor detection 
systems. It provides for new radios for the F-15 fighter aircraft that 
have been so instrumental in providing close air support. It provides 
for CH-47 Chinook helicopters which move soldiers and equipment to the 
battlefield. It provides for Navy and Air Force JDAMS, that is, smart 
bombs; and most important, it provides for conventional ammunition for 
soldiers to use on the battlefield.
  But let us further apply the soldier test. Unfortunately, this bill 
contains a number of items completely unrelated to prosecuting the war 
on terrorism. Included in this bill are matters that detract from our 
fundamental purpose of passing legislation, and it tarnishes what we 
should be doing here on the eve of Memorial Day. Among these provisions 
are raising the debt limit; a special interest provision requiring 
textiles to be dyed; a special interest provision providing for changes 
in reimbursement of Medicare for certain areas of our country; 
provisions deeming the House-passed budget resolution levels to be 
applicable to the appropriations bills; a provision relating to the 
fees charge by the Fish and Wildlife Service at Midway Atoll. Money for 
YMCA in the Seattle area. Money for low-performing schools in 
Pennsylvania. Money for American theater, arts and youth.
  I ask, Mr. Chairman, what does that or any of these items have to do 
with fighting terrorism? They do not meet the soldier test.
  Coming out of committee, this was a good bill which genuinely and 
properly provided many good things that are absolutely essential for 
those troops wearing the American uniform to be able to fight and to 
win the war on terrorism. Sadly, the inclusion of highly controversial 
extraneous provisions having nothing to do with our national security 
on this war have compromised our ability to do what is right for the 
American troops.
  Mr. Chairman, the sole star of our effort today should be providing 
those young men and young women, our troops, our soldiers, with the 
equipment, with the systems, with the training that they need to defeat 
terrorism. That is where it starts, and that is where it ends. Sadly, 
this bill includes the extraneous material that detracts from this 
wonderful purpose.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this 
legislation. I think it is extremely important that all of us get 
behind it, but I want to make a few comments first.
  First of all, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, who has been a tireless advocate for the 
firefighters and emergency responders of this country, and who led the 
effort to make sure that we got $100 million initially to support the 
firefighter grant program.
  Unfortunately, because of the actions of another committee and the 
Justice Department, money that was supposed to go to those firefighters 
was circumvented in the form of $175 million to police grants through 
Justice. Now, I am not against the police, but we give the police 
departments locally $5 billion a year; $5 billion a year. And to have 
the Justice Department siphon off $175 million, which would have gone 
to those 32,000 fire and EMS departments, to me, is outrageous.
  I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my friend and 
colleague, if he will commit to work with us to right that wrong when 
we get to conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will respond to the gentleman 
as I did to an earlier inquiry similar to the gentleman's, and that is 
yes, the first responders include firefighters, police officers, 
emergency medical people, and all other types of folks who respond. 
Anyone that knows anything about September 11, 2001 understands the 
importance of first responders.
  We had originally thought that the $175 million the gentleman talks 
about should have gone to the Office of Homeland Security. The 
Administration determined that they did not want that money to go 
there, and so the gentleman knows why we moved the money to the 
Department of Justice.
  But I agree with the gentleman. We have to make sure that all of the 
people that provide first response to a tragedy, a disaster, whether it 
be a terrorist attack or a flood or a hurricane or an earthquake, 
whatever it is, have to be supported. They are also our first line of 
defense for homeland security.
  So I say to the gentleman, yes, we will work with him to do the very 
best we can to make whatever is needed to provide the first responders 
what they need.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I want to say one more thing to my colleagues on the other side. This 
is my 16th year in this body, and I know my colleagues are upset about 
this rule and about this process. I guess I have seen this before. It 
was my first term in Congress when Jim Wright was the Speaker, and to 
accomplish what the then majority wanted, he did something that only 
God could do. He declared it to be two separate days on one day to get 
a package through this body.
  Now, all of my colleagues who were here back then ought to remember 
that famous day, because we were outraged. Only God could declare a new 
day. But Speaker Wright supported, and my good friend is shaking his 
head yes, Speaker Wright actually declared it to be two days in one day 
so that we could accomplish the will of the majority.
  So I would say to my colleagues, this bill is important because of 
the need to support our troops and because of those priorities that we 
have for this country. Am I happy with everything in it? No. But I 
would ask my colleagues to get behind this. You have made your point. I 
hear you. I was just as frustrated back when Jim Wright declared it two 
days in one day as you are now that we are going to pass an increase in 
the debt ceiling without ever supposedly voting on it.
  So I would say to my colleagues, let us get beyond this and work 
together. Let us get this done. Let us deal with the issues in 
conference, and let us move on so that we in fact can accomplish what 
we need to do, which is to pay for those costs associated with the war 
on terrorism.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have served 38 years in a legislative body, 26 here 
in this House; and I have never seen a gag rule as unfair as the one 
imposed here today. It is not just a gag on the minority in this House, 
but upon the American people.
  I know that there are some Republicans who are embarrassed over this 
attempt to do by stealth what their leaders are afraid to do openly, to 
increase the limit on the national credit card.
  Everyone in this great hall is patriotic and supports our military 
efforts, but there is also an economic patriotism among the American 
people we represent. We experienced that economic patriotism in the 
1990s as we, in a bipartisan way, were balancing our Federal budget and 
paying off our national debt. The American people felt very good about 
that.
  Today, because of the enormous tax cut of last year, we find 
ourselves reversing that progress and increasing the limit on our 
national credit card in a stealthy, unholy manner. This dips into 
Social Security and shatters the lockbox. We asked the majority 
leadership to remove the gag so that we could at least have a debate 
and a public vote on raising the national debt limit.

[[Page H2975]]

  Let us return this bill to its original intent: to fight the war on 
terrorism which we all support.
  We all support our troops, including my two sons who are captains in 
the United States Army. Let us strip out the gimmicks and the add-ons 
and pass a clean supplemental appropriations bill to fight the war on 
terrorism that threatens our Nation.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the great author James Michener in his book ``The 
Bridges at Toko Ri'' described the scenario, when the hero in the book 
who had gone off to strike these very heavily protected bridges in 
North Korea and failed to return, he described the captain of the ship 
on that carrier contemplating the state of affairs of the United States 
Navy and the people who served there when that pilot failed to return, 
and he said, and I am paraphrasing, where does America get these 
people? These people that join the military at great inconvenience, 
great separation from their families, from their livelihoods; they put 
themselves in very dangerous and difficult positions for this country. 
If they are an aircraft carrier pilot, they end up flying off of this 
small aircraft carrier going off to bomb a heavily defended target 
thousands of miles away from the United States and then, after they 
have successfully completed that mission, if they return, they are 
trying to find that little postage stamp that is out there in the ocean 
and they try to make a landing on that very difficult night landing, 
perhaps.
  Then he concluded, when he asked himself where do we get these 
people, where does America get these people? They come from our 
villages, our cities, our towns; and as long as these wonderful people 
keep coming to protect our freedom, we are going to be a great Nation.

                              {time}  1500

  A few months ago, we had solidarity. The Members of this Congress had 
solidarity with the people of our Armed Forces. It was something we had 
not seen since World War II. We were all together. We heard tremendous 
speeches from both the Democrat side and the Republican side, followed 
by legislative action. It was quick action, and the action resulted in 
the material and the tools that we need to get this job done flowing to 
the military very quickly.
  We helped our Commander in Chief because he is the guy on the point 
of the spear, the 5-star general. We gave him the tools to get the job 
done. We have to get him more tools. That means we are low on 
ammunition, we are low on materiel, we are low on monies it takes to 
repair our ships and aircraft. We have to move those tools to our 
fighting forces.
  Do Members know something about these great people? We all talk about 
them. We see them at the parades, at the military installations. 
Members come back from CODELS, Democrats and Republicans, and the one 
thing we all agree on is that it is remarkable about these wonderful 
people who protect our freedom.
  Do Members know something? They think that we are still going to act 
with the same solidarity and sense of purpose today that we had 8 
months ago, because they are still acting with that same sense of 
solidarity and purpose. They are carrying out their mission.
  Those special operations teams at 10,000 feet elevation up in the 
elements, getting beaten up by the elements and sniped at by the al 
Qaeda, they are carrying out their mission. The people on the aircraft 
carriers knocking those big jets off the decks, they are carrying out 
their missions. The people in Korea just south of that line, which is 
loaded with massive artillery and rocket power, which could devastate 
them if the balloon goes up, they are carrying out their mission.
  We are not carrying out our mission. Our mission is to win this war. 
I know there are lots of things in this bill that particular Members do 
not like and do not agree with, but we have to regain our sense of 
mission and our sense of purpose. Let us regain that sense of mission 
and that sense of purpose, and let us bring back the solidarity that we 
had only a few months ago. Let us win this war.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we now approach Memorial Day, a time to memorialize and 
honor those who have defended our country. It is appropriate that we 
also honor those who defend our country today at home and abroad by 
providing them with the resources they need to get the job done.
  But as important as our military strength is, the strength of America 
also is found in its economic vitality. I fail to see how that economic 
vitality will be advanced by piling almost $1 trillion of additional 
debt on top of the trillions of dollars in national debt, that we 
already have and doing so with no real budget plan in place.
  Indeed, the only budget plan being contemplated is one that expects 
one deficit after another deficit after another deficit, piling up more 
and more national debt and threatening the vitality of our country and 
the future of our Social Security and Medicare system.
  Guns and caviar: It sounds like a rock band, or a promotion for the 
National Rifle Association. But I maintain that ``guns and caviar'' is 
really an accurate description of the approach the administration and 
its House Republican allies are promoting this year. The guns are 
significantly higher military expenditures; and caviar, well, they have 
one tax break after another. They cannot find enough tax breaks for 
those at the top of the economic ladder.
  The Republicans offer the elite and the multinational corporations in 
this country an unequivocal message: You can have all the security you 
want at home or abroad, anywhere around this globe, and for you, it 
will not cost much of anything extra. It is free because they promote 
one tax break after another.
  We have, with each passing day, one corporation after another 
renouncing its American citizenship and moving its mail box to Bermuda 
or somewhere else to avoid paying for any of these additional 
expenditures.
  Republicans talk about containing federal spending, but they are 
proposing with this budget the largest increase over a 4-year period we 
have had since the 1960s. Yet to those at the top of the economic 
ladder, the Republicans turn a blind eye when they move offshore to 
avoid paying any of the cost of this, when they use the various tax 
dodges and tax breaks that have been created and proposed, and that 
they want even more of the same so that the elite tax dodgers can avoid 
paying their fair share.
  So those at the top and the multinational corporations will not pay 
their fair share of a ``guns-and-caviar'' budget, how will it be paid? 
Well, this very bill is the purported Republican solution to that 
problem that they are offering. That solution is to take our Social 
Security cards, the ones we all carry in our pockets, the ones 
Americans have relied on for over 60 years, and make it their 
Republican national credit card, to use the future of Social Security 
as their way of paying for today's spending.
  They are, through this bill, doing what some families sometimes find 
they have to do when they are overcome with debt: They are asking to 
raise the limit on the national credit card. In this case, it is our 
Social Security card and all the money being paid in by us and our 
employers for Social Security and Medicare. They want to raise the 
credit card or debt limit, but they do not have the courage to come out 
here and face the American people and do it in an honest and direct 
way. So they have, through combined procedure and recent rulings, we 
limited our right to even have a vote on their decision to take our 
Social Security card and use it as their credit card to pay for things 
they tell these multinational corporations they can dodge, avoid, and 
evade. But we are going to have to pay for today's spending right out 
of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  We have heard through the years 1 Republican leader after another 
tell us that they are really not too excited about Social Security. 
What better way to undermine our ability to provide Social Security and 
Medicare in coming decades than to incur mountains of national debt, as 
is proposed in a very secretive way by this piece of legislation.
  Indeed, if we increase, the debt limit, by almost $1 trillion, as is 
proposed, right out of Social Security and Medicare funds, that means 
more interest,

[[Page H2976]]

more debt, and less ability to meet our Social Security and Medicare 
obligations. It is wrong and it ought to be rejected today.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a Chamber where men and women of good will can 
come to share points of view that from time to time may be at odds.
  Mr. Chairman, we recognize that an election is about 160 days away. 
While passions and tempers may run high, Mr. Chairman, I would hope 
that we would be able to refrain from the temptation of politics as 
usual.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear derisive laughter from the other side. That is 
fine and perhaps altogether appropriate, given the exercise we have 
seen both last night and during the course of this legislative day.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that we are a 
nation at war; that the attacks of September 11 forever changed this 
country. The American people understand we should stand together, even 
though there are the pressures of the political calendar for some to 
come in and sloganeer and try to find sound bites and go back to 
business as usual.
  Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Our Commander in 
Chief has pointed that out repeatedly, that this is a new type of war. 
Again, even though we rejoice in philosophical differences of opinion, 
only the most cockeyed of revisionists would have us believe that in 
previous Congresses, under previous majorities, similar rules were not 
employed to achieve legislative results.
  This becomes the question at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, or 
whenever the parade of sound bites and speeches ends: Are we willing to 
stand and deliver, not as Republicans and Democrats, not in the spirit 
of one-upmanship, but with the nonpartisanship the American people 
demand when we are a nation at war; when, in the twinkling of an eye, 
every American can be called upon to become a citizen soldier, every 
American can confront the scourge of terror?
  Disagreements? Sure, they will continue. They are part of a healthy 
and free society. They are part and parcel of the fabric of the 
American people. But, Mr. Chairman, it does the Committee of the Whole 
House a disservice to be locked in legislative combat and one-upmanship 
when the business of the people, and the very people my friends who 
have preceded me in the well talk about, the fighting men and women on 
the front lines, need material, need equipment.
  The American Nation needs to move forward with technological advances 
for border security, for shipping security, for homeland security. It 
does not do the American people a service, it does not do this body a 
service, to become slaves to the minutiae of one-upmanship and what 
passes for statesmanship by sound bite.
  Let us return to the work of the people, appropriate the funds needed 
for this war effort, discuss our differences in an open fashion in the 
campaign season, but not use this Chamber for the preening and the 
prodding and the endless parade of politics that ill serves us at this 
critical time.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have followed this debate closely today and last 
night, and the preparations leading into it. I have noted the reference 
to years past. Those years past, I was not here. Since when did 2 
wrongs ever make a right? So there are some things we acknowledge, but 
let us move on.
  I have some things I want to share. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) prompted me to think about a couple of things.
  First, I want to tell the Members that I am a veteran, as many of the 
Members are; not all of them. But I am a veteran. I have had the 
opportunity to face the enemy, as some of the other Members have. I am 
nobody special. I know that. But do not tell me or us that have served 
that we do not support the war on terrorism because of this bill. Give 
us a clean vote on that war on terrorism and we will vote for it in a 
heartbeat. Let us get real.
  Let me tell the Members one of the things that was brought to my 
attention when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) ran out of time. 
On this subject, some of my colleagues from my State certainly share my 
concern, and across the country.
  In this bill there is a provision, I am told, regarding Medicare 
payments to certain hospitals. What on earth does that have to do with 
the war on terrorism? As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was 
pointing out, there are several items in there. That one really caught 
my attention because in this country we have a situation of great 
disparity in Medicare payments to our citizens. We all get charged the 
same, we get taxed the same, but we do not get paid the same. That is 
really ironic. It is going on.
  I have carried this question to the previous administration. I 
carried a copy of this chart and the bill that I am sponsoring, and 
others are involved in, to try to get some fairness. I have handed it 
to this President in his office, but nothing happens. Then we come 
along and see that certain areas are getting a little extra favor in 
this bill called war on terrorism. I do not understand how this can 
possibly be.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that if that is the right thing to do, we 
might open this up and I could suggest some other places across the 
country, some of my hospitals and doctors and caregivers, that would 
like to have a little fairness in the Medicare reimbursement rates.

                              {time}  1515

  It runs all the way from $3,000 per capita in my State, up to the 
State at the top it is over $7,000; and the median for our country is 
almost $500. But we all pay the same. We all pay the same.
  Now, why are not we addressing this? Thirty-five States are below the 
line of the average; 15 are above. I congratulate those that are above, 
but what about our folks in the other States? And if you do not know 
where your State falls, you might want to come and see me and take a 
look and I will show you the chart. It is for real.
  What does that have to do in all seriousness with a vote in the war 
on terrorism? So I am going to ask all of you to do not use that 
remark. It is very offensive to those of us would have served, that 
this is a vote on the war on terrorism. If you again want to limit this 
vote to that subject, count on me. I will be the first one to drop my 
card in. But there have been a number of things added to it that have 
nothing to do with that. It is not right. It is not fair, and it is not 
the way I have been told historically this House should operate. And I 
certainly do not want to defend what has happened in the past. Today is 
today. We are responsible. We are responsible for what is happening 
today. Let us do it right. We have the opportunity to do it.
  Now, Memorial Day weekend is coming up. In my family it is a pretty 
special thing. People travel a long ways to consider those who have 
gone before us. It is very special. But I have sent word to my family 
that I likely will not be there because we are going to be doing this. 
And it is unfair and it is important, and I may have to stay and stay 
and stay. I am prepared to do that.
  This week's action behind closed doors by the House Leadership and 
Rules Committee is the most cynical of political dealings. Many of us 
have been working diligently to bring Medicare Equity to our seniors 
and allow our health care professionals to provide quality care.
  Our constituents pay the same Medicare taxes as any other citizens. 
Yet, we are penalized with unfair Medicare reimbursement rates. Our 
dedicated doctors, nurses and hospitals continually struggle to provide 
the quality care they always have. Each day the inequity is not 
corrected, this task becomes more difficult.
  Now, we see the House Leadership and the Rules Committee, apparently 
well aware of this discrimination, but unwilling to address it, have 
found a way to collect a few extra votes by fixing the problem for a 
few selected areas. If it is important enough to fix for a few, isn't 
it important enough to fix it for all our seniors.
  In a context outside of this chamber, these cynical tactics might 
just be considered a bribe. I am hopeful this is more than just a 
cynical political ploy and is just the first signal from the leadership 
that treating all seniors, all doctors, all nurses equally will be a 
priority from now on. Our seniors deserve fairness, not fixes for a 
chosen few.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot this afternoon, over the last 24 
hours I guess, about what this debate is about

[[Page H2977]]

and what this supplemental appropriations is all about. And I think it 
is important that I explain this the way I had a friend say to me once. 
I was talking to him about some legal issue and he said, ``Explain it 
to me like I am an eight year old.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to attempt to do that because it has 
been said that this bill is about taxes for the rich; it has been said 
that this bill is about Social Security. And it is about procedure and 
all that we have heard over the last 24 hours. Mr. Chairman, I just 
want to share with my colleagues in very simplistic terminology here 
what this bill is about. And I think we have to understand that this 
bill is about war. And I think when we understand that this bill is 
about war, then we have to ask ourselves is war free, and I think we 
all would have to admit that war is not free. There is a cost to 
fighting a war. There is a cost in giving our soldiers the resources to 
win, not the resources to play a good game.
  We cannot expect our soldiers to go to Afghanistan or anywhere else 
in the world and fight with a switch or fight with a belt. They need 
the tools to win, ammunition. They need the proper equipment. Should we 
put a praise tag on defending our freedom? Freedom is not free. We all 
enjoy the freedoms here in the United States of America. There is a 
cost to living in a free country. This bill is about protecting the 
honor of over 2,800 people who lost their lives in New York City, the 
people that lost their lives in Pennsylvania, the people that lost 
their lives here in Virginia at the Pentagon.
  Is war free? The United States Government shall take all steps 
necessary to guarantee full faith and credit of the government. There 
is a cost to doing that. We will not forget. This Congress should not 
forget. None of us should forget; the American people will not forget 
the events of September 11. The Republican Congress has not forgotten 
those who lost their lives in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. 
There is a cost to that.
  This is not about Social Security. This is not about taxes for the 
rich. Those are gadget plays. This is about fighting a war, the war 
against terrorism. And we said, and we are saying, in this legislation 
that, hey, there are some more needs that we did not fund when we did a 
funding bill before, a supplemental before. We need more tools. We need 
more dollars. The supplemental appropriations, the bill we are voting 
on sometime today, will address that. We will not forget. Congress will 
not stop working on behalf of those victims. We will continue to work 
with the President to make sure every resource at our command will be 
available to win the war. I do not understand that some would say, hey, 
once we get to $1,000, let us do not spend any more. If you need 2,000 
let us not spend any more. Let us let those soldiers defend themselves. 
Let us let them do what they have to do. Let us not spend any more than 
$1,000. Putting a cap on defending freedom, of fighting a war.
  There is a cost to defending freedom. There is a cost to fighting a 
war. I just would remind us what September 11 was all about. That was 
an ugly picture. Nobody enjoyed that. We all will have to vote the way 
we see it. I do not say that anybody is anti-American or anti-war if 
you do not vote the way I vote. But I am just reminding my colleagues, 
you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot have it both ways 
and say, I want to fight the war, but I do not want to pay for it; I 
want freedom, but I do not want to pay for it.
  There is a cost to fighting a war, and we should make sure that we 
spend what we need to spend so that our soldiers, America's sons, 
America's daughters, America's grandsons and America's granddaughters, 
America's husbands and wives who have put their lives on the line for 
America's interests, for our freedoms, that we give them the resources 
to win. That is what this appropriations bill is about today.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) be allowed to discuss how we pay for our war 
against terrorism. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be allowed 2 extra minutes to have an honest, respectful 
discussion about paying for the cost of our war against terrorism which 
he discussed.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for recognizing me. I would 
like to thank the Committee on Appropriations for doing a fine job. But 
I have to say this, I am really sorry that when our children were in 
these Chambers they saw the most deceptive tactics being used. They saw 
people trying to paint us as unpatriotic. No one can question my 
patriotism. I have taught children overseas on Air Force bases. I 
represented this country as an ambassador; and I always stood tall 
because I represented America. How dare you question my patriotism.
  What I am questioning you about is why did you take a good bill that 
we could all vote for and show our solidarity, to support our fighting 
men and women, to take care of those people that suffered losses during 
September 11, and throw in something that you know we could not 
support?
  I will not abandon the trust my constituents put in me when they sent 
me here. And I came to this honorable House wanting to do the people's 
work in the sunlight, not in the darkness of these Chambers. How dare 
you put that position on all of us? I would like somebody over there 
who is part of this to answer my question. Why did you take the bill 
that passed out of appropriations and throw all of this in, throw all 
of this into it knowing that we would break trust?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATSON of California. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, this actually is something that the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) put into law in 1979.
  Ms. WATSON of California. I will not yield.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am just trying to answer your question.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Well, answer my question, answer it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. In 1979 the majority leader at that time, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) put in rule 49. It is on page 945 in the 
House Rules and Manual, and it has been done for over 2 decades, 
actually, until very recent years when the Republican Party quit the 
practice of it.
  Including the debt ceiling question in an appropriations bill was 
done for many many years. So this was not something that was not 
invented. It has been part of the House doing business.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. WATSON of California. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it sounds as though the 
gentleman over here is trying to tell the right honorable gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Watson) that two wrongs make a right. I guess the 
gentleman just answered his own question.
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend. The time is controlled by the 
gentlewoman from California. Members will follow proper parliamentary 
procedure in yielding to one another and not talking at the same time. 
The gentlewoman from California controls the time.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I would always be happy to 
yield if I can get my question answered specifically.
  You cannot take me back to 1970-something and answer my question. I 
want to know how that Committee on Rules slipped these provisions in a 
clean and clear bill to support our fighting forces. That bill would 
have gone off this floor in a snap. And so I am so disappointed that 
you are trying to Houdini me into telling me an answer that relates to 
something that happened way in the past.
  I am talking about the bill in front of us that came out of the 
Committee on Appropriations. And I want to thank the people for acting 
with integrity and respect. And I might close in saying this, to the 
people who represent America, I was sent here to represent a 
constituency of Americans. I am going to do that job. I am not going to 
play games with it. I am not going to sell them out, not you when you 
get 65 and older, not our children, not our grandchildren. I will fight 
if it takes me the

[[Page H2978]]

rest of this weekend into Memorial Day because I believe that we have 
said to the people of America, you entrust us. You give us your trust, 
and you pay into Social Security. I want it there when you get ready to 
retire. I want you to be able to buy your pharmaceuticals that will 
help you live. I want to be able to say to our children, we are not 
mortgaging your future. I want to let you know we are not going to play 
games with the trust you put in us.
  So let us do away with this bill. Let us go back and come back with 
the bill that came out of appropriations and you will get my vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the process that brought this 
bill to the floor. As America faces the twin challenges of terrorism 
and a weak economy, Americans more than ever need their elected leaders 
to demonstrate courage. Not much courage is required to do the easy 
things, like cut taxes. No, true courage is required to do the hard 
things, like balance the budget, and save for the retirement of today's 
workers, as well as their children.
  Unfortunately, the process used here--to consider what was reported 
out of the appropriations committee as a bipartisan bill--demonstrates 
that courage is in short supply among the Republican leadership. 
Republicans know they can't balance the budget and continue to give tax 
breaks to the wealthiest individuals and corporations. They know their 
tax scheme puts the future of Social Security at risk. But rather than 
face that truth, they have decided to sneak a debt limit increase into 
this bill, avoiding a debate that will force them to defend their lack 
of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, what is the Republican leadership afraid of? If they 
believe that America should proceed down the path of deficit spending 
and more debt, they should permit a debate on a debt limit increase. 
Instead, they are trying to sneak this debt increase past the American 
people, and hope they won't notice.
  Mr. Chairman, haven't we learned anything over the past year? I 
thought the events of the past year had taught us that when America's 
leaders put partisanship aside and work together, our nation can be a 
powerful force for good. Instead, the Republican leadership has gone 
out of its way to reject a solid, bipartisan bill with partisan sleight 
of hand. Mr. Chairman, please do not let this be the legacy that the 
107th Congress leaves to the American people.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time a few minutes ago because I think it is very helpful 
to do that, but I also want to come back to this rule number 49 on page 
945 in the House Rules manual that does show that this was something 
that actually the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) put into the 
rules and it was called the Gephardt rule as a nickname, but it did 
allow this to happen. For over 2 decades it was a pretty standard 
procedure.
  I am a little shocked that my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy), says two wrongs do not make a right.
  I am kind of glad to hear him saying that the distinguished gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) was wrong on something. But I just want to 
say, there is a reason why this is here and it is a precedent. It is 
not some deep sinister thing. And I understand why the gentleman does 
not like it. We all understand that, but I want to say this is not some 
midnight procedure. But we are in a genuine position here right now 
with troops on the ground in Central Asia, and as recently as in the 
last week a soldier was killed in Bagrahm. And we want to keep those 
soldiers well armed, well supplied. We want to keep the good 
intelligence there. We want them to know that we are solidly behind 
them; and this bill, as you know, does that.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I think the point we are 
trying to make is we do not want those soldiers used for your agenda. 
We do not want your agenda to be piggybacked and attached to your 
special interest.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and say proudly 
our agenda is to our support our soldiers. Our agenda is for a homeland 
security and our agenda is to rebuild New York City, and I am proud of 
that agenda, and as the distinguished gentleman knows, we have got to 
address the debt issue, the debt ceiling issue.
  All this bill does is says that if the conference committee, between 
the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House, 
gives the instructing on it, it would be allowed in conference, but 
what does happen is we continue to supply our soldiers in the field, 
because no one believes, and I know the gentleman and I believe 
strongly, war is not free. We have got to bite the bullet in this case.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I believe the war is not 
free and there must be shared sacrifice, and for us to have shared 
sacrifice we do not cut the top marginal rate on the wealthiest of 
Americans and put the bill on the future generations to pay for this 
bill.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time. We disagree with 
taxes. We understand that. Democrats a lot of time like lots of taxes. 
They like a punitive tax system. They like a tax system that does not 
reward incentives and does not help create jobs. We had a good debate 
about it. In fact, that was about a 6-month debate.
  This debate today in this legislation is about supplying the troops 
to continue the war, $15.77 billion. It is about homeland security, 
securing our airports, securing our ports.
  I live in Savannah, Georgia. I would love my friend to come down and 
visit me sometime. Last year in Savannah, Georgia, we had 1 million 
containers come through the port, and only 1 percent were inspected. 
This bill allows us to inspect those containers. The airport, now 
everybody flies in this Chamber at some point in time. I want to know 
that when we get on the airplane that we are secure as possible. This 
bill allows that to happen.
  I will say another thing that is in this bill is $1.6 million, which 
I think the Democrat party would be interested in, that would allow our 
bicameral, bipartisan intelligence committees to continue to study 9/
11, what went wrong, what went right, how can we do a better job; some 
very good stuff in there, reaching out to experts in the intelligence 
community. And I think these things have to go on.
  Now, I know we disagree on the debt ceiling vehicle part, and as an 
appropriator, the gentleman knows that I am not 100 percent in favor of 
everything that is in this bill, as I know most of us are always in the 
position of accepting something they do not like in a bill, but for the 
name of the troops, for the name of homeland security, for the name of 
rebuilding New York City, I am willing to let this legislation move on, 
let the Senate hack away at it, if they can improve it. I know there is 
going to be differences on there, but let us get the process moving so 
we do not send a mixed signal to the troops.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. Fifteen seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, in an abundance of caution, why do we not 
do this. Why do we not just talk amongst us in the back of the room, 
unless the gentleman can get some time and yield it back and forth. I 
know we are going to have some philosophical things we cannot resolve 
in 15 seconds.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, first of all, to applaud this bill for 
what it does for our troops. I am proud of what this bill does for the 
men and women in our armed services around the world. They should be 
proud of what we are doing in that part of the bill.
  I was over in Afghanistan in early March in the first 3 days of 
Anaconda, and I have never been prouder of the men and women who are 
over there doing their best to make sure that this country remains 
protected and strong. They know, they know that their performance, that 
our security depends on their performance. They are motivated. They are 
doing a good job, and this

[[Page H2979]]

bill, insofar as it provides them the resources they need, is a good 
bill.
  I am not so sure that they can be proud of us. In fact, during this 
debate I have an image. It keeps coming back. I cannot help it. I think 
of the men and women I saw in Afghanistan, and I imagine them armed and 
ready behind a row of tanks, and behind them I see something else. I 
see the Republican majority hiding, trying not to be seen, trying not 
to allow a debate on the fundamental economic issues that are also 
wrapped up in this bill, not by the language in the bill but by what 
the bill does not do.
  The debate that we need to have over the Federal budget is being 
hidden, and a debate on the debt limit is one of the very few 
opportunities we have or will have to have that debate, but it is being 
hidden, and there will be no clear vote on the debt limit if the 
majority has its way.
  Now, why do we have to do this? We are being asked to raise the 
national debt limit because in just 1 year the Federal budget has 
fallen apart. Just 1 year ago we were looking at a $5.6 trillion 
surplus, and what happened? The new administration took 5 months to do 
enormous damage to this budget, and when that tax bill was signed, the 
damage was done. The damage began.
  Let us take a good look at what has happened. Just look at the 
question of how much of the Social Security surplus has had to be used 
over the last couple of decades. What we see happening here, the line 
on this chart moving down during the first Reagan-Bush era is the 
amount by which we were dipping into the Social Security surplus, and 
when President Clinton was elected, we were dipping into the Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses by over $300 billion a year, and then 
we can see what happened.
  As the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said, on a bipartisan 
basis, we fought our way back. We fought our way back, and gradually 
the line came up, and just before this President Bush took office, we 
were using none of the Social Security surplus, not any of it, and then 
look what happened. We are right back down between $300 and $400 
billion a year into the Social Security surplus. That is an outrage. 
That is unacceptable, but that is what this majority is preventing us 
from talking about.
  Why is this important? Because we are now using Social Security 
dollars to fund our military, for general government expenses, and to 
pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country. Look at 
what is going on. We have a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and 
they, according to the majority, must keep their tax cuts. The other 
side of the aisle wants to make that permanent.
  In the meantime, we are going to use the dollars at 6.2 percent. All 
of our workers are earning less than $80,000 pay; 6.2 percent is going 
to fund the tax cut and to the general government. That is 
irresponsible. That is reckless.
  In other words, what we are doing, we are not calling for a sacrifice 
from the wealthiest Americans. We are not calling for sacrifice equally 
from all Americans. We are saying basically that the young men and 
women who are over there and are fighting for us now, and their 
parents, middle income people in this country, they are the ones who 
should bear the burden of being in the armed services, and they are the 
ones who should bear the financial burden, not just now, not just this 
year, not just next year, not just the year after that, but we are 
saying to our children they shall pay, they shall pay, too. We are not 
going to pay for this war as it goes along. They will pay, our 
children, our grandchildren, at a trillion extra dollars alone.
  This is failed policy, and to pass it without a vote is outrageous 
and unacceptable.
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this particular legislation, and I 
thought I would speak from this side of the well of the House. I do 
that, Mr. Chairman, because for 20 years I have served in this House, 
and 14 of those years was as a Democrat. For 14 years as a Democrat, I 
served in the majority.
  I love this House. It has been some of the best years of my entire 
life. I think about the things that can be done, that can be 
accomplished, and there were a lot of good things that happened.
  One of the things that always disturbed me during those years when I 
came here is that it seemed like we could never balance the budget. It 
always bothered me, because I was a businessman. I always felt like my 
personal budget needed to be balanced. I felt like our budget for my 
business should be balanced, and I always thought for our future, for 
our children, for our family, for our grandchildren, we should try to 
work within a balanced budget. But it always bothered me because it was 
kind of like a gotcha.
  I remember full well in the majority we had a big majority. We did 
very much, but on the Republican side, we had a lot of individuals 
trying to get to the majority, and I remember so many times we talked 
about how irresponsible it was that on the Republican side they were 
attacking, and we would say, well, we are the majority, we had to try 
to govern, we had to make tough decisions, and sometimes that was 
raising the debt ceiling because of past debt. For 40 years, we had 
huge deficits. There is enough blame to go around to everyone, 
Democrats and Republicans, and that always bothered me. We should not 
feel like we walk on hallowed ground, whatever political party we are, 
because we do have that responsibility.
  Fourteen years passed, and I was in the majority, and I decided to go 
home. For 6 years I stepped out. For 6 years, I was an Independent, but 
I returned 6 years ago as a Republican. I came back as a Republican 
because I wanted to do some unfinished things, and I am so proud of 
this body, Democrat and Republican, because we balanced the budget.
  Thank goodness we were holding the line on a lot of the budget costs, 
but also we had a flourishing economy, and that growth in that economy 
allowed us to move forward. That growth started before the last 
administration, and the economic downturn started in September of the 
last administration, if my colleagues look back at the economic 
indicators, and today, after 6 years as a Republican, I hear the same 
things being said on that side of the aisle today as we said or had 
heard from Republicans back then, but I believe when we said it is 
irresponsible what is happening.
  Let me say to the American people, we know what is happening. We all 
know. One political party is trying to get one leg up on the other. One 
is trying to get back into power that is out of power. There are some 
that want to be chairman and not be chairman.
  I submit to my colleagues the American thing to do is to move on this 
legislation, pass this legislation. Let us move forward as Americans in 
a bipartisan way because the clock will be ticking on their time the 
next time and we all need to be trying to do what we can to be 
responsible and deliver this package to move our country forward.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of our troops in the 
field. They are risking their lives on behalf of the American people 
and the global community. On the eve of Memorial Day, we honor the 
dedication of our men and women in uniform, on whom our Nation has 
always depended and on whom we are depending today to rid the world of 
the scourge of terrorism.
  We must and we will provide the resources needed to support these 
troops and to shore up our homeland security.
  We also must protect our Nation's economic integrity and strength. 
America can be strong militarily without being weak economically. Yet 
it is that link, that essential link between military and economic 
strength, that the Republican budget threatens to break today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reject the proposition that our war on terrorism 
requires or excuses fiscal irresponsibility. And I emphatically reject 
the notion that those of us who raise critical fiscal issues are 
somehow being unpatriotic or are not supporting our Nation's cause. 
That is a scurrilous charge, unworthy of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us bear the scars of hard-won budget discipline 
by which we finally overcame the fiscal follies of the 1980s.

[[Page H2980]]

                              {time}  1545

  I remember well the decisive turning point, the budget vote of 1993. 
That deficit reduction bill was passed without a single Republican 
vote. I remember well the jeers on this House floor as our Republican 
friends waved good-bye, good-bye to the courageous Members who had 
risked their seats by casting that vote. I will never forget that. I 
will never forget how hard won that budget discipline was after 12 long 
years.
  But the fiscal turnaround was real, it was genuine, and we made 
steady progress during the 1990s in reducing the deficit and finally 
achieving a unified budget surplus, and then at last a surplus in the 
non-Social Security budget. This chart tells the story: steadily 
reducing deficits, and finally, in the non-Social Security budget, a 
surplus. Over a three-year period we actually paid down the national 
debt to the tune of over $400 billion.
  Now the reversal has come, a reversal confirmed and accelerated by 
this Republican budget. No more surplus: 43 percent of the ten-year 
surplus consumed by the Republican tax cut mainly benefiting the 
wealthiest Americans. Back into deficit spending. Back into diverting 
Social Security and Medicare revenues from their intended purpose. No 
more debt reduction. No more preparation for the day when the baby 
boomers retire and this Nation must redeem Social Security's promises.
  And now, as if to add insult to injury, the Republican leadership of 
this House has injected into this supplemental appropriations bill a 
stealth provision to increase the debt limit as a way of sparing 
Republican Members an embarrassing up-or-down vote on the debt limit 
and as a way of masking the consequences of their budgetary 
shenanigans. It is the most cynical kind of partisan tactic. It 
tarnishes with a deceptive and irresponsible maneuver an appropriations 
bill that in fact is necessary to carry out our antiterrorism offensive 
and to strengthen our homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, we can fight terrorism without jeopardizing Social 
Security. We can build our Nation's defenses without abandoning fiscal 
responsibility. But in order to do that, we must have an honest, 
responsible, balanced and bipartisan budget; and we call upon our 
Republican friends to work cooperatively to bring such a budget into 
being.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the process that we are involved in here, I think, is 
most regrettable; and the message being sent is a terrible message. We 
are involved in a conflict that I think is every bit as serious as any 
conflict that this country has ever been involved in, particularly when 
you consider the issues involved and the potential use of weapons of 
mass destruction in this war.
  As I listen to speaker after speaker from the other side get up and 
proclaim their support for this war effort that is under way, I am 
reminded of a debate technique. It involves the word but. I am all for 
supporting this war, but. And I think that is a very regrettable 
message that this body is sending, hearing those speeches over and over 
and over again.
  In the war on terrorism, the most important thing we can do is to 
stay together and stay strong. I recently was paid a visit by an 
Israeli general who recently retired. His name was Effi Eitam. General 
Eitam was the general who commanded the Israeli forces in southern 
Lebanon for the last several years that they were engaged in the 
southern part of that country. And he told me that on the day that the 
political leadership in Israel decided to withdraw from southern 
Lebanon, he called the Prime Minister and he said, Sir, with all due 
respect, I resign. He said, I did not retire, I resigned. I resigned 
because the worst thing you can do in the war against terrorism is to 
show indecision and weakness.
  This debate is about indecision and weakness, and it is the wrong 
message to send. We have U.S. troops in the field as well, and the U.S. 
troops deserve to know that the political leadership on both sides of 
the aisle stand squarely behind them.
  Now, I am in my 18th year in this House; and until 1994, needless to 
say, I was in the minority. I heard my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), talk about the day the Democrat Speaker 
declared two days in one so we could get a package through. It happened 
year after year after year when the Democrat Party was in the majority.
  The U.S. troops that we have deployed in various parts of the world 
deserve my commitment, and they deserve my colleagues' commitment. And 
I think the debate where we stand up and say I support the troops and I 
support all of these things that are in this bill, I support $7.2 
billion for ongoing military operational costs, I support $4.3 billion 
for personnel costs, I support $500 million for high-priority 
munitions, I support $1.6 billion for intelligence and other classified 
activities, I support $420 million for coalition support, but. There 
cannot be a but in this debate. We have to stand together, or we will 
be in the shape that Israel was in and is in after they showed a time 
of weakness and withdrew their activities, their troops from the 
southern part of Lebanon.
  I also would point to the war on terrorism from another respect. When 
the two airplanes hit the Twin Towers, and when the third one hit the 
Pentagon, we got together and we showed what a determined country could 
do. We went to Afghanistan. We fought that war. We are still fighting 
that war. We were successful and have been successful because we are 
together. Today is a very regrettable day because we are no longer 
together.
  Now, my colleagues can say that they do not like something in this 
because the rule provided for A, B, or C. I was here for many years as 
a member of the minority. I did not like everything that was in every 
appropriations bill. Far from it. But today we need to be together. And 
I ask my colleagues as Members of the U.S. House to come together with 
us, to pass this bill, and let us get it behind us, go home, and truly, 
together, together celebrate Memorial Day and those who have served our 
country so well over the decades before us.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I wish we could, Mr. Chairman, get to a position where we could move 
on to discuss some of the issues we in this bill; and particularly I 
would like to get to the amendment process so we can start debating 
them.
  In particular, I have several amendments that I would like to have 
the opportunity to bring before this body about the assistance in this 
bill to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority, as well as another 
amendment that probably will be out of order, but with respect to 
assistance for Egypt as well.
  To give my colleagues some idea of what I am talking about, I have 
noticed with great admiration today that the gentleman from Georgia has 
all of these beautiful charts, and I know a lot of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle also have all these beautiful charts. So I am 
in the process of getting some charts, too; and I want to point out on 
those charts the economic conditions in Israel, the United States, and 
Egypt to give them a reason why I am so adamant about including Egypt 
in this process, as we have for the last 30 years.
  So I am anxious to get to that. I want to talk about unemployment in 
Egypt, in Israel, and in the United States. I want to look at the cost 
of living in all three countries to give the American people and my 
colleagues an opportunity to see what we are really talking about.
  Now, I have an institutional knowledge of the history of assistance 
to the Middle East; and I want to bring out the fact that we have 
appropriated nearly $100 billion to this process over the last 30 years 
and to show where maybe this extra $200 million is necessary, maybe it 
is not. That will be up to the Members to decide. I am not lobbying 
Members to vote, I just want the opportunity to bring information 
before this body which will show glaringly that we are making a big 
mistake if we do not consider all of these factors rather than just a 
couple.
  I want to discuss economic assistance to Arafat. A lot of people say, 
do not say Arafat. I want to discuss whether or not the Secretary of 
State or the President of the United States asked for this money. I 
want to know if Prime Minister Sharon asked for this money, because 
there have been indications that this is not the case. Neither

[[Page H2981]]

the Secretary of State nor the President asked for this money or new 
economic assistance for Israel. Secretary Powell did not.
  I was in the committee hearing when we discussed this section of the 
bill. Secretary Powell did not mention that, and yet some are inferring 
that this is a request from the Secretary of State. It is my 
understanding that it is not. Maybe I am wrong and maybe some of my 
colleagues can bring up some information that will dispute what I think 
is fact.
  So I am anxious to get on with this process, because I want to show 
some very glaring historical figures of money we have spent. Nearly 40 
percent of every dime we have spent on foreign assistance in the past 
20 years has been spent in the Middle East, and I want to show how we 
capped this spending and how all the Members of the House agreed with 
me that it was time to cap this percentage of spending in the Middle 
East.
  I want to recollect with my colleagues the speech that Prime Minister 
Netanyahu made right in front of your podium, Mr. Chairman, talking 
about the fact that it was time for Israel to begin this process of 
weaning themselves off this dependency of American taxpayer dollars. I 
want to hear what the Democrats have to say about that, because they 
are saying that every dime we spend in this bill for this and that is 
adding to the deficit. They want to say that every dime we spend in 
this bill is taking money away from Social Security. I want to find out 
why this section of the bill is not being debated.
  And I am sure that there are a lot of people on the other side of the 
aisle that will have a reasonable explanation why this particular area 
is different from the area that we are talking about for the war on 
terrorism. So it is going to be an interesting debate, and I look 
forward to the opportunity to come before my colleagues to vividly 
explain my position.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     emergency expenses resulting from the September 11, 2001, 
     terrorist attacks, $5,750,000: Provided, 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.

                            Legal Activities


         salaries and expenses, United States Marshals Service

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     emergency expenses resulting from the September 11, 2001, 
     terrorist attacks, $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, 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: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     emergency expenses resulting from the September 11, 2001, 
     terrorist attacks, $112,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2004; Provided, 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: Provided 
     further, That $102,000,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar 
     amount that includes the designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to this section of the 
bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 6, line 12, after ``2004'' strike all through 
     ``Congress'' on page 6, line 23.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today about the need to 
pass this bill in order to support our troops in the field, and we have 
heard a lot about how we need to be tough in fighting terrorism. This 
amendment is the first of two amendments that I will try to offer, one 
to this section, the FBI, and another to the Department of Defense 
budget, which will do the following:
  With respect to the FBI, in January, the FBI argued for additional 
funds for several critical activities to upgrade the security of their 
new computer system and to make certain that it is backed up and 
protected against loss in the event of terrorist attack.

                              {time}  1600

  The FBI also asked for funds to increase their access to foreign 
language translators and analysts, because the FBI and other 
intelligence agencies have huge amounts of paper lying around which 
they want to sift through for intelligence information but they cannot 
because they do not have the translators.
  What this amendment does with respect to that item is to eliminate 
the line-item veto which this bill presently contains for the 
President. There is a clause on line 12 of page 6 which indicates that 
all of the amounts that we are appropriating to the FBI cannot be spent 
unless the President designates them all as an emergency. What we are 
trying to do is to eliminate that language, to make clear that we think 
that this money to the FBI is a high enough priority that it needs to 
be provided and should not be blocked by a decision by OMB.
  We will also have, when we get to the next section of the bill, a 
companion amendment. That amendment will add $790 million to the amount 
that will be spent, not subject to an item veto, to assure that we do 
not have to demobilize nearly 20 percent of the Guard and Reserves who 
were called up after the events of September 11. Those Guard and 
Reserve forces are doing some fundamental work on behalf of this 
country. It is a poor policy decision that would require us for lack of 
money to demobilize 20 percent of those forces.
  The President has said that we would spend whatever it takes in order 
to win the war on terrorism. Yet OMB has denied the request of the 
Department of Defense to appropriate all of the money needed so that 
they do not have to demobilize these forces. The Secretary of Defense 
issued an internal memorandum to his senior staff complaining about the 
high pace of operations on regular forces and saying it was creating a 
strain on those regular forces. Now we have fresh warnings that a 
reconstituted al Qaeda is planning an attack in the U.S. bigger than 
that that we saw on September 11. There is good reason to keep Guard 
and Reserve personnel on board as long as that is the situation.
  I do not believe that we should continue to treat Guard and Reserve 
as second-class forces. They are an integral part of our military 
operations today. I think we need to act as such. These amendments are 
made possible because of the peculiar accounting practice associated 
with one provision in the bill. I do not particularly care for that 
accounting practice, but as long as it has been imposed upon us by OMB 
and by the senior House leadership, I think at least we ought to 
provide some constructive use for that language and for that provision.
  I would say all of you who have been talking all day long about how 
we need to support the troops, about how we need to be tough on 
terrorism, you can back up your words with your vote by supporting this 
amendment and the next amendment that comes along shortly.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to this amendment. It does not 
add any money to the bill. It does not take any money away from the 
bill. As the gentleman from Wisconsin said, it strikes the emergency 
designation for this section dealing with the FBI. When this bill was 
produced by the committee, we were at our top number. We could not 
spend any more money. In order to balance this bill, some of the 
requests were determined to be an emergency and others were offset. So 
we came out with a really good, clean bill. But now there have been 
some interesting budgetary changes, I am not exactly sure how they 
worked, but I understand there were some decisions made that changed 
the number of dollars available. Because of that, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's amendment is perfectly in order and there is enough

[[Page H2982]]

money in this bill to provide this money without declaring it an 
emergency.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. 
Hopefully we can dispose of it and move on to the next item of 
business.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to explain one other reason that we need to adopt this 
amendment. We discovered, and we discussed with the Attorney General in 
the hearing, the fact that up until September 11, the Justice 
Department appeared insistent on downplaying the importance of 
antiterrorism activities.
  This is a document which demonstrates the papers that were presented 
to the Attorney General shortly before the events of September 11. As 
it was discussed in our hearing, apparently what happened is that the 
FBI was trying to push to have a higher emphasis on terrorism. Newsweek 
magazine contains a story discussing the difference between former 
director of the FBI Louis Freeh and the Attorney General about the 
relative importance that should be placed on antiterrorist activities. 
The FBI made it quite clear that they wanted antiterrorism activities 
to be given a much greater emphasis than the Attorney General was 
comfortable in giving them.
  This chart was a chart given to the Attorney General. He was asked to 
spell out for the agency staff what his priorities were. He was asked 
to designate what his priorities were for the department for the coming 
year. The objectives were listed; fighting violent crime, dealing with 
illegal drugs, combating terrorist activities by developing maximum 
intelligence and investigative capacity. The Attorney General declined 
to indicate that combating terrorism was one of his top priorities and 
instead insisted that other items be given top priority.
  Anyone can make that judgment. I am not saying this today in order to 
criticize the Attorney General. But I think it does emphasize the need 
for the amendment, because the relationship of the Justice Department 
with the FBI shows that consistently the FBI has tried to get a tighter 
focus on terrorism and they have met considerable resistance in doing 
that from the Justice Department. So that is another reason why I am 
offering this amendment today, to make certain that OMB cannot exercise 
an item veto with respect to these appropriations to the FBI for 
counterterrorism activities. I think it is essential.
  I am also frankly unhappy about the fact that the Attorney General 
apparently was willing to charter personal planes for himself at the 
same time that notices were not being given to the general public that 
there were security reasons that would lead people to be concerned 
about flying commercial. I think all of this demonstrates a certain 
lack of judgment at the Department of Justice that in essence got in 
the way of the FBI's trying to get a tighter focus on terrorism. I 
think this amendment will help contribute to the ability of the FBI to 
do its job of putting terrorism at the top of the priority list.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say on the issue of Mr. Ashcroft, before 9/
11 and after 9/11, the world changed tremendously. I think we have to 
look forward as to what we do. I was the author of the National 
Commission on Terrorism, the Bremmer Commission. It came up with their 
report in the year 2001. Many people believe that if those 
recommendations had been followed, many other things would not have 
happened. I think the world was not very interested in the issue of 
terrorism. I say that in defense of Attorney General Ashcroft, I think, 
as of 9/11.
  But let me say, the gentleman has a good amendment. I agree that this 
funding is crucial to the FBI in its fight against terrorism. All of 
the funding under the discussion in this amendment directly supports 
the FBI efforts to upgrade and modernize this technology and better 
share its intelligence data. The reorganization that the FBI will soon 
be sending up moves heavily into this area, one, put terrorism at the 
top; two, deal with the technology which was a major problem in the 
Timothy McVeigh case. Also, to make sure that whatever data that the 
FBI has is shared with other agencies, such as the CIA and other 
government authorities.
  The FBI is at a crucial period in their history and I think the 
Congress ought to do everything they can to help with regard to 
technology and with regard to upgrades. I think the gentleman from 
Wisconsin has a good amendment here. I urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like I believe every single colleague who has taken 
to the floor, wish to first begin by saying that I stand here today to 
support our troops fighting terrorism, not just abroad but certainly 
here at home, to support all our men and women in law enforcement 
civilly who are doing the same, to support our medical personnel, our 
community activists who are doing their utmost to work with our law 
enforcement and military leaders to make America safer. We are 
committed, all of us, to once again make America safe and free from 
harm.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my friends in the majority are using the 
battle against terrorism to pass what I believe is a dangerous and 
cynical provision that allows the Federal Government to break its own 
spending limit and raid hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds.
  Mr. Chairman, America can be strong militarily without becoming weak 
economically. But our friends in the majority are hoping they can 
escape today's debate without leveling with the American public. The 
Nation is back into deficit in its budgets and now my friends in the 
majority plan to use Social Security and Medicare trust fund dollars to 
pay for other programs unrelated to national defense and to 
counterterrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I would not be surprised if many people, including 
Members on this floor or people in the American public who happen to be 
watching this debate, if they are confused, because as I sat through 
hours and I sit through hours of this debate, oftentimes you hear 
conflicting statements by colleagues. But, Mr. Chairman, there is one 
rule that I believe stands the test of time, and that is that sunshine 
is the strongest of all disinfectants, particularly when it comes to 
ensuring that the political and policymaking process is untainted.

                              {time}  1615

  The Republican leadership, with this bill today and with the White 
House, which has endorsed this legislation, are borrowing a page from 
Enron and using gimmicks and stealth to hide the true nature of their 
plans for America's future. They are attempting to keep the American 
people in the dark about our Nation's budget challenges and the growing 
national debt.
  This resort to stealth and secrecy, to me, is tremendously chilling. 
It is chilling. With this bill, the administration is seeking to raise 
the debt limit with no strings attached. They have disclosed nothing 
about their plans to repair our damaged fiscal situation.
  Today the American people have told the Federal Government, you are 
allowed to borrow $5.95 trillion of taxpayer money, and today under 
this legislation, the administration and my colleagues in the majority 
are saying we want to raise that amount that we want to borrow. We want 
to pull this card out, the Federal credit card, and borrow even more.
  We have already been told by Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill that 
he wants to borrow at least another $750 billion more to increase that 
national debt, a national debt which will have

[[Page H2983]]

to be paid for exclusively, every single cent of that $750 billion or 
more in increased debt, from Social Security or Medicare trust fund 
dollars.
  I will say that one more time: Every single penny that would be used 
to increase the size of the debt and the deficit for this year would 
come directly out of only two pots, Social Security and Medicare trust 
fund dollars. Not only are we jeopardizing our seniors, not only are we 
jeopardizing those who need prescription drug coverage under Medicare, 
but we are jeopardizing all of our children. I do not intend to use the 
government's credit card and mortgage my children's future, but that is 
what we are being asked to do today. But it is being done under the 
cloak of national defense and antiterrorism.
  Every single one of us, I believe, who has taken to this floor has 
said let us have a clean vote on the issue of antiterrorism and 
national defense, as this supplemental appropriations for the most part 
does, and rid it of the pork, and you have got a virtually unanimous 
vote in this House. But there is an insistence on also stealthily 
including through secrecy this allowance to increase the size of the 
national debt.
  Now, this does not seem new. Just yesterday this House voted to allow 
secrecy to continue. It cannot happen. We have subpoenas on the Senate 
side saying, Mr. President, allow us to see what Enron had to do with 
the administration at its task force meetings on energy.
  Let us stop the secrecy. Let us have a clean vote and not mortgage 
our children's future.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that the gentleman from California says 
that I agree with. We came here in the same year, in 1993. I have been 
working to try to hold down the increase in spending and thereby hold 
down the increase in the public debt. I hope that we can have a real 
debate on just how much debt do we want to leave our kids and our 
grandkids.
  It is a mortgage, after all. I feel, like I am sure many of us, just 
like any family or any business, if you are going to go deeper into 
debt and borrow money, there should be some plan to start paying off 
that debt in the future, not just let it perpetually grow and grow and 
grow. Of course, that is what happened in the last 40 years in this 
Congress. Republicans came in and took the majority in 1995, and we 
came in with vim and vigor and tried to put pressure on the increase in 
spending.
  I have heard some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle 
suggest that it is the tax cut that is causing the deficit. Maybe that 
is true, if you say, look, we have no control over spending and we are 
just going to increase spending 2 and 3 and 4 times the rate of 
inflation.
  But if we are doing what we should and having spending increases more 
consistent with inflation in this country, then there would not be any 
problem of digging into the Social Security trust fund or any of the 
other trust funds.
  Let me say that our current deficit is the result of an explosion of 
spending. Let me give you this example. In 1998, we passed and executed 
a plan designed to balance the budget in fiscal year 2002. That budget 
projected a fiscal year 2002 revenue of just under $1.89 trillion. 
Actual revenues for this year are going to be slightly over. The CBO 
now projects $2 trillion, or more than 5 percent above the projection. 
So revenues, even with the tax cuts, are coming in much stronger than 
we even anticipated for a balanced budget.
  Even if you subtract out the cost of the war on terror and the 
increased money for defense and this supplemental today, we would still 
have a balanced budget, if it were not for the outrageous increase in 
spending that this Congress, the House and the Senate, and the 
President have passed over the last few years.
  The growth in discretionary spending over that period has been 
explosive. Discretionary outlays will rise at an annual average rate of 
7.4 percent between 1998 and 2003. The President's proposal for $789 
billion in discretionary spending in 2003 is a full $124 billion, or 18 
percent, more than the President Clinton projected for this year in his 
last budget.
  The point is, it is spending. It is not tax cuts, it is not digging 
into Social Security, but it is the tremendous growth in spending that 
is our problem.
  The $35 billion in increased defense expenditures and $6 billion in 
expanded homeland defense for fiscal year 2003 are not even half of the 
total increase since President Clinton left office. Yet we heard 
complaints that even these gigantic increases are not enough. We need 
to get serious about controlling spending and deciding how much debt we 
want to leave to our children and grandchildren.
  I am proposing debt ceiling legislation that would do a better job of 
assessing the government's true liabilities. It would include the debt 
held by the public and the debt held by government trust funds, as does 
the current limit, but it would add to that all of the unfunded 
government liabilities coming due within 10 years. This is going to 
give us a better position in deciding just how much debt we want to 
leave to our kids and grandkids. But I say let us not demagogue the tax 
cuts, let us not demagogue the issue on Social Security and Medicare. 
Let us face the real problem, and that is the significant increase in 
spending.
  So I would hope I am not hearing from the other side of the aisle as 
we go through the appropriation process criticizing that there is not 
enough money for this issue or that issue or this program or that 
program. This is war. Those programs should have minimal increases or 
no increases, if we are going to win this war on terror and control 
spending.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     Enforcement and Border Affairs

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     Enforcement and Border Affairs'' for emergency expenses 
     resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 
     $75,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this Act, or in Public 
     Law 107-117, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service's 
     Entry Exit System may be obligated until the INS submits a 
     plan for expenditure that (1) meets the capital planning and 
     investment control review requirements established by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11, 
     part 3; (2) complies with the acquisition rules, 
     requirements, guidelines, and systems acquisition management 
     practices of the Federal Government; (3) is reviewed by the 
     General Accounting Office; and (4) has been approved by the 
     Committees on Appropriations: 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: 
     Provided further, That $40,000,000 shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount that includes the designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           justice assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Justice Assistance'' for 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance 
     authorized by sections 819 and 821 of the Antiterrorism and 
     Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and section 1014 of the 
     USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) and for other counter-
     terrorism programs, including first responder training and 
     equipment to respond to acts of terrorism, including 
     incidents involving weapons of mass destruction or chemical 
     or biological weapons, $175,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, 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.

              DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     emergency expenses for increased security requirements, 
     $1,100,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     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: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President of the Congress.

[[Page H2984]]

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

             National Institute of Standards and Technology

             Scientific and Technical Research and Services

       For an additional amount for ``Scientific and Technical 
     Research and Services'' for emergency expenses resulting from 
     new homeland security activities and increased security 
     requirements, $4,000,000: Provided, 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.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                   Fisheries Finance Program Account

       Funds provided under the heading, ``Fisheries Finance 
     Program Account'' for the direct loan program authorized by 
     the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations during fiscal year 2002 for the 
     principal amount of direct loans not to exceed $5,000,000 for 
     Individual Fishing Quota loans, and not to exceed $19,000,000 
     for Traditional loans.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     emergency expenses resulting from new homeland security 
     activities, $400,000: Provided, 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.

                             THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                    Care of the Building and Grounds

       For an additional amount for ``Care of the Building and 
     Grounds'' for emergency expenses for the Supreme Court 
     building, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, 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.

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     emergency expenses to enhance security and to provide for 
     extraordinary costs related to terrorist trials, $6,258,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, 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: 
     Provided further, That $3,115,000 shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount that includes the designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President of the 
     Congress.

                 DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    Diplomatic and Consular Programs

       For an additional amount for ``Diplomatic and Consular 
     Programs'' for emergency expenses for activities related to 
     combating international terrorism, $51,050,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003: Provided, 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.


               Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

       For an additional amount for ``Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Programs'' for emergency expenses for activities 
     related to combating international terrorism, $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, 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: 
     Provided further, That $10,000,000 shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount that includes the designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress.


            Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance'', for emergency expenses for 
     activities related to combating international terrorism, 
     $200,516,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     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.

              International Organizations and Conferences


              Contributions to International Organizations

       For an additional amount for ``Contributions to 
     International Organizations'' for emergency expenses for 
     activities related to combating international terrorism, 
     $7,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003: 
     Provided, 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.


        Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'' to make United States 
     peacekeeping payments to the United Nations at a time of 
     multilateral cooperation in the war on terrorism, 
     $43,000,000: Provided, 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.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors


                 International Broadcasting Operations

       For an additional amount for ``International Broadcasting 
     Operations'' for emergency expenses for activities related to 
     combating international terrorism, $7,400,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003: Provided, 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.


                   Broadcasting Capital Improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Broadcasting Capital 
     Improvements'' for emergency expenses for activities related 
     to combating international terrorism, $7,700,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, 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: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                   Securities and Exchange Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     additional staffing to respond to increased needs for 
     enforcement and oversight of corporate finance, $20,000,000 
     from fees collected in fiscal year 2002, to remain available 
     until expended.
       In addition, for an additional amount for ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'' for emergency expenses resulting from the 
     September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, $9,300,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, 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: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated by this Act for the 
     Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Department of State 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 313 of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995, section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, as amended, and section 504(a)(1) of 
     the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1)).
       Sec. 202. Section 286(e)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(e)(3) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``is authorized to'' and inserting 
     ``shall''; and
       (2) by striking ``authorization'' and inserting 
     ``requirement''.
       Sec. 203. (a)(1) During fiscal year 2002 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year, notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to the contrary, in order 
     to permit victims of crimes associated with the terrorist 
     acts of September 11, 2001, to watch trial proceedings in the 
     criminal case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the trial court in 
     that case shall order, subject to paragraph (3) and 
     subsection (b), closed circuit televising of the trial 
     proceedings to convenient locations the trial court 
     determines are reasonably necessary, for viewing by those 
     victims.
       (2)(A) As used in this section and subject to subparagraph 
     (B), the term ``victims of crimes associated with the 
     terrorist acts of September 11, 2001'' means individuals 
     who--
       (i) suffered direct physical harm as a result of the 
     terrorist acts that occurred in New York, Pennsylvania and 
     Virginia on September 11, 2001 (hereafter in this section 
     ``terrorist acts'') and were present at the scene of the 
     terrorist acts when they occurred, or immediately thereafter; 
     or
       (ii) are the spouse, legal guardian, parent, child, 
     brother, or sister of, or who as determined by the court have 
     a relationship of

[[Page H2985]]

     similar significance to, an individual described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i), if the latter individual is under 18 
     years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, has a serious 
     injury, or disability that requires assistance of another 
     person for mobility, or is deceased.
       (B) The term defined in paragraph (A) shall not apply to an 
     individual who participated or conspired in one or more of 
     the terrorist acts.
       (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to eliminate 
     or limit the district court's discretion to control the 
     manner, circumstances, or availability of the broadcast where 
     necessary to control the courtroom or protect the integrity 
     of the trial proceedings or the safety of the trial 
     participants. The district court's exercise of such 
     discretion shall be entitled to substantial deference.
       (b) Except as provided in subsection (a), the terms and 
     restrictions of section 235(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the 
     Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (42 
     U.S.C. 10608(b), (c), (d), and (e)), shall apply to the 
     televising of trial proceedings under this section.
       Sec. 204. For purposes of section 201(a) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (relating to 
     Federal sources of supply, including lodging providers, 
     airlines and other transportation providers), the Eisenhower 
     Exchange Fellowship Program shall be deemed an executive 
     agency for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of 20 
     U.S.C. 5201, and the employees of and participants in the 
     Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program shall be eligible to 
     have access to such sources of supply on the same basis as 
     employees of an executive agency have such access.

                               CHAPTER 3

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY MILITARY PERSONNEL

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $206,000,000: Provided, 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.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $226,000,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2003: Provided, 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: Provided 
     further, That $119,000,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for $119,000,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $53,750,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003: Provided, 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: Provided 
     further, That $17,250,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for $17,250,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $60,500,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2003: Provided, 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: Provided 
     further, That $19,500,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for $19,500,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $751,975,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2003, of which $420,000,000 
     may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     payments to Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating 
     nations for logistical and military support provided to 
     United States military operations in connection with the 
     Global War on Terrorism: Provided, That such payments may be 
     made in such amounts as the Secretary may determine, in 
     accordance with standard accounting practices and procedures, 
     in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget and 15 days following notification to the 
     appropriate Congressional committees: Provided further, That 
     amounts for such payments shall be in addition to any other 
     funds that may be available for such purpose: 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: Provided further, That $12,975,000 shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for $12,975,000, that includes designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress.

                    Defense Emergency Response Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Defense Emergency 
     Response Fund'', $12,693,972,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2003, of which $77,900,000 
     shall be available for enhancements to North American Air 
     Defense Command capabilities: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer the funds provided in this paragraph 
     only to appropriations for military personnel; operation and 
     maintenance; procurement; the Defense Health Program; and 
     working capital funds: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     the preceding proviso, $100,000,000 of the funds provided 
     under this heading are available for transfer to any other 
     appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense, for 
     certain classified activities, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such funds may be obligated to carry out 
     projects not otherwise authorized by law: 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 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 herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation: 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: Provided 
     further, That $1,393,972,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for $1,393,972,000 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 23, line 15, strike ``$1,393,972,000'' and insert 
     $603,972,000'' and on line 17 strike ``$1,393,972,000'' and 
     insert ``$603,972,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona seek recognition?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, just simply to say that the majority is 
prepared to accept this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is to take away the 
President's line item veto authority of the money that this bill 
contains to fund full mobilization for the Guard and Reserve.
  As I indicated earlier, we had been told that one of the things that 
held up the administration's request for a supplemental was the 
argument between OMB and DOD about whether or not full funding should 
be provided for the mobilization costs associated with Guard and 
Reserve forces after September 11. DOD lost the argument, and that 
meant that they did not get the money which would require 20 percent 
demobilization. That comes despite the fact that the Secretary of 
Defense on May 13 sent a memorandum to his senior staff reading as 
follows:
  ``We have had stop-loss in place for some months preventing people on 
active duty from leaving the service. In addition, we are extending the 
assignment of thousands and thousands of Guard and Reserves who have 
been called away from homes and normal employment to serve on active 
duty.

                              {time}  1630

  The entire force is facing the adverse results of the high pace 
OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO.''
  We are past the point where the Department can, without an 
unbelievably compelling reason, make additional commitments. Yet if OMB 
were to be listened to, we would not have all of the funds necessary in 
this bill to provide for the continued use of Guard and Reserve forces 
in the post-September 11 activities that they are now engaged in.

[[Page H2986]]

  Again, we have heard a lot of talk on this floor today about the need 
to support our troops. Well, this is a concrete way we can do it. This 
makes certain that every dime that this bill contains will actually be 
provided for those forces. I think it is the responsible thing to do, 
given the fact that we have been given fresh warnings that a 
reconstituted al Qaeda force is planning something even worse than they 
planned on September 11.
  There is good reason to keep these forces active, given the strain 
that we have on regular forces, and I appreciate the fact that the 
gentleman has accepted the amendment on behalf of the committee and 
would support a vote.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly support this amendment, and I fully 
support the war against terrorism. I support the bill as reported from 
the Committee on Appropriations, and I rise to comment on one of the 
important deficiencies in this bill: funding for our National Guard and 
our Reserve personnel.
  Since September 11, some 83,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists 
have been called to active duty to support the war on terrorism. These 
are citizen soldiers, every bit as important as the regular active duty 
personnel, and these servicemembers are serving around the globe in 
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea and elsewhere. They are helping to 
prosecute the war against terrorism. We have a duty to fully support 
them.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. The supplemental requested 
by the administration includes only $4.1 billion for military personnel 
modernization and readiness. Because of the size of the National Guard 
and Reserve call-up, the duration of that call-up, and the use of stop-
loss authorities to keep personnel on active duty once they have been 
mobilized, the bill on this personnel call-up comes to $1.8 billion 
above the $4.1 billion requested by the administration.
  I commend the Committee on Appropriations for partially addressing 
the funding shortfall. The bill includes an additional $790 million. 
That still leaves about $1 billion that the Department of Defense will 
have to absorb in order to pay for those already incurred costs.
  I do not know who is to blame, OMB or the Defense Department, but the 
failure to pay this bill will force unwise deactivation of personnel 
and harkens back to the days when the National Guard and Reserve were 
second-class citizens. We cannot and we must not let this happen.
  Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush have said they will do whatever 
it takes to pay for the war on terrorism. I only wish the budget 
reality matched that rhetoric.
  Our military personnel, National Guard, Reserves, active duty, are 
being stretched thin with missions around the globe. We have an 
obligation to provide the funding to make sure they can do the jobs we 
ask them to do. While I will vote for the bill, I hope we will be able 
to fully fund these must-pay expenses in conference so that the 
Department of Defense does not have to compromise other important 
programs for this war on terrorism.
  Let me add, this debate is about the future of Social Security, as 
many have noted; but it is more than that. We are at war. It is not a 
war we sought; it is a war that was forced upon us. All of us agree 
that we need to defeat the terrorists who attacked us, most recently on 
September 11, and that the antiterrorism and homeland security funding 
in this supplemental appropriations bill is needed.
  In prior wars, we have mobilized and sacrificed to defend freedom and 
defeat tyranny. I remember the day after Pearl Harbor. I was a boy. 
Thousands lined up at recruiting offices. Eventually, more than 15 
million Americans served in uniform. Millions more worked in defense 
plants. There was rationing of critical materials needed for the war 
effort.
  To win this war, we have asked a relatively small number of Americans 
to sacrifice, to endure hardship, or even to die in defense of our 
freedom. There is no draft; there is no rationing. In fact, the 
administration has even opposed recruiting more troops to ease the 
burden on those in the field, and Americans have been urged to live 
normally and spend more money to stimulate the economy.
  So this debate is about a moral question: Who do we ask to sacrifice 
in time of shared national peril? At least in the War Between the 
States, the wealthy had to buy their way out of serving. In the War 
Against Terrorism, the majority proposes to pay the wealthy through a 
tax cut and send the bill for the war to our grandchildren.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              PROCUREMENT

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $79,200,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2004: Provided, 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.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'', $22,800,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2004: Provided, 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.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Navy and Marine Corps'', $262,000,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2004: Provided, 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.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $2,500,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2004: Provided, 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.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $3,500,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2004: Provided, 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.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $129,500,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2004: Provided, 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: Provided 
     further, That $36,500,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for $36,500,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air force

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Air Force'', $115,000,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2004: Provided, 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.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $735,340,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2004: Provided, 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.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $104,425,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2004: Provided, That funds may be used to 
     purchase vehicles required for physical security of 
     personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to 
     passenger vehicles, but

[[Page H2987]]

     not to exceed $175,000 per vehicle: 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: Provided further, That $4,925,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $4,925,000, that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 27, line 1, strike the colon and all thereafter up to 
     the period on page 27, line 11.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is simply a technical correction to do 
the same thing for Intelligence that we just did for the Guard and 
Reserve.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the majority has no objection to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

         For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, 
     Test and Evaluation, Army'', $8,200,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided, 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.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, as we get close to 5 o'clock and the dinner 
hour all across the east coast and back in my home State of Indiana, I 
want to talk about where we are overall on this piece of legislation.
  If this legislation were a bill to support our troops, our brave and 
courageous men and women overseas, fighting terrorism, it would pass 
unanimously, right now. If this bill were simply a bill to protect our 
homeland from terrorists, it would pass right now, unanimously. 
Instead, we have a piece of legislation with an accompanying rule that 
denies the minority their rights and thwarts the majority of their 
principles.
  Over the past I have talked at length about the Committee on Rules 
denying the minority party, the Democrats in this case, denying the 
minority party the ability on the defense authorization bill, denying 
the minority party on the Welfare Reform Act our opportunities to 
change and amend and modify legislation. That is wrong in a law-making 
body.
  But today we have gone even a step further than denying the minority 
their precious rights of participating in this great system. We now 
have a rule that is tucked in and hidden into this bill that is not 
just about terrorism or homeland security, it is about the majority 
party, the Republicans borrowing $750 billion of the taxpayers' money 
and not wanting to have a vote on it; not wanting to discuss it; not 
wanting, as Secretary O'Neill is advocating, to talk about the 
obligations and the faith of the government when we borrow money. That 
has been denied. That has been hidden.
  As the father of four children, we often play games like kick the 
can. The Republicans, if they have kicked the can down the road on this 
one, that would be one thing; but they have played hide and seek. Hide 
and seek. Instead of letting Members vote the way they should vote on a 
difficult issue in the light of day in bringing this debt ceiling bill 
up, they have played hide and seek, and they have tucked it away in the 
bill and given everybody cover and ducked the debate.
  They have also not only denied our minority party the right to debate 
that, they have thwarted the majority party on their principles. They 
have tucked into this bill, not to fight terrorism, not to protect our 
homeland security, not to help our troops win the war on terrorism, a 
trade provision that changes a law that this body passed by a vote of 
234 to 163. This body, with the majority, voted on the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative to send certain products down there for dying. Now we have 
changed that with a little provision in the rule that is tucked into 
this bill to help pass another bill to help reward a Member of 
Congress. That has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, nothing to do 
with protecting the homeland.
  That is what Democrats have a problem with today. We stand in this 
great Chamber and we look around this Chamber and we have great 
lawmakers here: Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence; 
Mason, who wrote the Bill of Rights; Moses, who thundered down the Ten 
Commandments from Mount Sinai. Yet, in this great body, we cannot 
debate these simple issues. And some people make this an issue of 
patriotism.
  If this was defending our homeland, it would be a unanimous vote. If 
this was helping our troops overseas, it would be a unanimous vote. 
But, in fact, it is more complicated than that. Tucking provisions in 
bills, hiding amendments, providing no opportunity for the minority 
their rights, thwarting the majority their principles.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that in the future, we will have rules and 
bills that allow the great justice and freedom that we are fighting for 
overseas to take place in this great deliberative body.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of my concern. I want to first of 
all compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the committee 
for adding $750 million on this issue of mobilization of the Guard and 
Reserve. I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), for his earlier statement.
  As of yesterday, May 22, a total of 81,403 Guard and Reserve 
personnel were currently called up on active duty. The President's 
request for Guard and Reserve mobilization funding in this supplemental 
was so inadequate that DOD has begun planning to demobilize 14,500 
Guard and Reserve personnel.
  This funding reduction was imposed by OMB. It was not requested by 
the Department of Defense. In fact, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on 
March 13 issued a memorandum which reads in part:

       The entire force is facing the adverse results of high-
     paced OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO. We are extending the assignment 
     of thousands and thousands of Guard and Reserves who have 
     been called away from homes and normal employment to serve on 
     active duty. And finally, we are past the point where the 
     Department can, without an unbelievably compelling reason, 
     make additional commitments.

  Despite the stresses Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld described so 
eloquently which are on the Armed Forces today, OMB would have us 
demobilize 14,500 guardsmen, increasing exponentially the burden on the 
active duty force.
  The Committee on Appropriations, as I mentioned, added $790 million 
to try and avert this disastrous demobilization. I understand the 
amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was accepted 
earlier.
  I just raise this because when we look at a whole series of items in 
this supplemental and we see that OMB has intervened to reduce the 
funding for the Department of Energy, for the Department of 
Transportation, I mean, here are people coming in with their best 
estimates of what is needed to do this job, and the money is not 
winding up in the budget. This is after the President has pledged to 
all of us and to the American people that the money will not be an 
obstacle for Homeland Security.
  Obviously, we have to be concerned about unnecessary or unwise 
spending. But in my mind, if we are talking about protecting our 
forces, if we are talking about having an adequate military force, and 
the Department of Defense is telling us that they may have to add to 
the active duty force, if we are going to have to add to the active 
duty force, why are we in the midst of a demobilization of our Guard 
and Reserve forces when they are doing an outstanding job?
  I just think this is another example of this budget being not 
adequate to

[[Page H2988]]

deal with this problem. I worry about my good friend, Tom Ridge, who I 
think is trying to do a good job. He is hampered by not having an 
agency around him. I think that the legislation introduced by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and others which creates a new, 
independent agency is also essential here. We also have to support the 
Coast Guard.
  So I rise today in concern that we are not doing enough here on 
homeland security. We have gone through a disastrous attack on 
September 11. I hope it does not take another disastrous attack on the 
country, which many are today warning us of, before we get serious 
about creating an agency, about supporting the Guard and Reserve, and 
about doing what is necessary to make all of this work for our country.
  We have a lot of catching up to do, because we have not focused on 
homeland security for years because we thought we were completely 
secure. Where we have done a great job in many other areas and have 
CINCs all around the world, we are in the midst of creating a CINC for 
the United States and for Canada and Alaska, the Northern Command.
  I just want to join my colleagues here in raising these issues. The 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has talked about this. The Guard 
and Reserve play an incredibly important role in our country, and they 
are needed, I think, today. I just hate to see OMB continuing to 
intervene and somehow getting the support of the administration to 
undercut the decisions that Mr. Rumsfeld and the Department want to 
make.
  We saw this last year on the supplemental, we saw it on the overall 
request for the 2003 budget. I just hope somebody down at the White 
House will bring them under control and support what the Department of 
Defense is asking for.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate that we have been having the last day and a 
half is not about the troops or the commitment of this body to the war 
on terrorism. I think that is pretty clear, that every Member supports 
the troops, and that every Member wants to make sure that our troops 
have everything they need in the field in order to do the job that we 
have asked them to do for the American people.
  But I think, rather, that this debate is about our commitment to 
being honest with the American people. The Republicans, unfortunately, 
want to cloud the debate on the issue of the national debt and the 
budget by hiding behind the war. I think that is a shame.
  The Democrats do not seek to forestall the war effort. We simply 
think that the American people are entitled to the same open and honest 
debate about the future of our Nation's fiscal policy: How we will save 
Social Security; how we will pay for a prescription drug program that 
both parties have said they want under Medicare; how we will pay down 
the national debt, instead of adding to the national debt, as the 
majority seeks to do through the sleight-of-hand in the rule for 
consideration of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen Members of the majority come down to the 
floor and admit that, yes, we need to raise the debt limit, and yes, 
the procedure for considering this bill will allow for that, possibly 
by as much as three-quarters of a trillion dollars. If that is so, then 
why not bring a bill down separately to raise the debt limit? Bring it 
down to the floor of the House and let us debate it out in the open in 
front of the American people, so we can tell them how we intend to pay 
off that debt and how we intend to balance the budget.
  Ironically, it is the Republicans who do not want to do that. They 
want the American people to grant them an extension of credit of 
another $750 billion without any discussion of repayment, without any 
discussion of restoring the fiscal responsibility, and thus the 
creditworthiness of the United States, in order to pay for that.
  Is it not ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the same majority 8 years ago, 
when I was a freshman in this body, shut down the government, nearly 
caused a default on the Nation's debt, and threw the economy into chaos 
until the President would sit down with them and negotiate with 
Congress on a plan to balance the budget by 2002?
  In fact, back in November of 1995, having shut down the government 
and failing to lift the debt limit, the Republicans put forth a 
proposal to allow for only a 1-month debt limit extension in order to 
bring the President to the table. Now they want $750 billion and far 
more than a month, far more than what is necessary to give the troops 
what they need in the field today, tomorrow, a month from now, a year 
from now, and more than a year from now.
  Today, with the Bush administration seeking three-quarters of $1 
trillion more in debt, the Republicans want a blank check with no 
explanation, no questions, no plans on how to balance the budget; none 
of that. How ironic that 7 years ago it was the same Republican 
majority that threatened default. Yet, now, having wanted to balance 
the budget by 2002, they have driven us back into deficits by 2002.
  Instead of having the debate that we had a year ago over how much 
debt we could pay down, they want to raise the debt, but they do not 
want to talk about it anymore. They do not want to sit down with the 
White House anymore. They do not want to explain to the American people 
anymore how we are going to pay for increasing the public debt. That is 
wrong, and that is what we are upset about.
  Bring the supplemental without the debt limit extension in it and we 
will vote it out, and we can be gone in half an hour. Bring the debt 
limit extension down as a separate piece of legislation, so we can ask 
Members and we can ask the President the same questions they wanted to 
ask the prior President about how we are going to balance the budget 
again, and how we are going to pay down this debt, and how we are going 
to fix Social Security and provide for prescription drugs. That is all 
we want. In a democracy, that is what the American people ought to 
have.
  So, Mr. Chairman, that is what is the problem with this bill. We are 
tired of seeing the red ink. We are tired of having excuses, and we are 
tired of seeing our colleagues on the other side with really no answers 
hide behind a war effort that all of us and all the American people 
support.
  I would hope that we could resolve this impasse by stripping out the 
debt limit increase part of this bill, bringing it back as a separate 
bill, and let us get on with our business of providing the troops with 
what they need and providing the war effort and the American people 
with what they want. Let us get on with our business.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, there is no division in this House, or I 
believe in this country today, over the question of whether we want to 
fully and vigorously support the war on terrorism. I join what I would 
believe to be a near unanimous or unanimous body in this House in favor 
of providing the funds to get that done.
  There is a division within this House over the question of 
accountability. The lack of accountability is one of the real sad 
phenomena in American culture right now. It is even more sad that what 
we are doing in the House today is a continuation of that culture that 
says that it is okay not to be accountable.
  The great political scandals of our time at State and Federal and 
local levels for both Republicans and Democrats are usually about the 
failure of elected officials to be held accountable.
  We had a debate on this House floor within the last 2 weeks about 
holding welfare recipients accountable when they receive public funds, 
as I believe we should. There has been discussion in every corner of 
America about the lack of accountability of the executives of the Enron 
Corporation seemingly being able to take vast amounts of money from 
their shareholders, from their employees, from their pension funds, but 
not be held accountable.
  The division between us today is about accountability on the question 
of raising the national debt, on the question of borrowing $750 billion 
to run the government.
  Mr. Chairman, I readily accept the proposition that there are 
different views as to whether or not we should do that. There are 
different views as to

[[Page H2989]]

how much we should borrow. There are different views as to how we 
should pay for the way that we run the government.
  That is what we are here to do, is to debate those different views. 
But that is not what divides us today. What divides us today is an 
unwillingness of the majority to be accountable at all on this 
question, to put this question up for a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, all across America today, Americans are voting on 
questions that come before community groups. Parent-teacher 
associations are voting this afternoon on whether to have a car wash or 
a cookie sale to raise money for the school library. Youth soccer 
leagues and civic groups and unions are going to vote tonight as to 
whether or not to spend their money to improve their association a 
certain way, or to elect someone to lead it. City councils and State 
legislatures are voting on questions of how to change their law and how 
to invest their resources.
  Voting is what we do in governments and in community organizations 
around America. What is wrong with what is going on here today is we 
are not voting. The Members of the majority are refusing to be held 
accountable for a decision that they made in 2001.
  In 2001, the majority rolled the dice on the U.S. economy and we all 
lost. In 2001, we were faced with the prospect of endless surpluses. 
The majority leader of the House came to this floor in March of 2001, 
during the debate over the tax cut, and I quote him as saying, ``Over 
the next 10 years, taxpayers will be overcharged by a staggering $5.6 
trillion. Even after paying down the payable debt and funding all our 
priorities, Washington will still be awash in cash surpluses.'' So said 
the majority leader in March of 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, he was wrong. Today we are not 
awash in a cash surplus, we are borrowing money to run the Federal 
Government. The majority does not want to deal with the consequences of 
their mistake. They do not want their Members to go home and say when 
we made the decision to drain the Federal Treasury of $2 trillion in 
March of 2001, and we said there would be money to pay for all these 
other expenses, and we would be awash in cash surpluses, we dropped the 
ball. Now, as a result of it, we have to borrow money to run the 
government.
  That would be the accountable thing to do. That is what the majority 
refuses to do. We are not asking the majority to adopt our view of what 
the budget should be. We are not asking the majority to cut spending or 
raise taxes or to come up with some formula we would come up with.

                              {time}  1700

  We are asking the majority, we are demanding that the majority be 
held accountable for their decisions the way city councils and unions 
and boards of directors are, hold them accountable.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am frankly saddened by the tone of this debate. The 
Republicans say that they are in charge here. They have the majority 
and they have a duty to pass the military supplemental to continue the 
war efforts in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda and other terrorist 
groups. We agree, we do have a responsibility to pass the supplemental; 
and the thing I am sad about is the majority knows we agree with it. We 
know we have to pass this supplemental, but what we object to is all of 
the other things that are tacked onto it because the majority does not 
have the courage to deal with them head-on, independently.
  As the majority party, the Republicans also bear the responsibility 
for the health of our economy. And frankly, that is why the Republican 
majority claims that it passed last year the tax cuts which primarily 
benefit the wealthy. Well, that is fine. They thought that would help 
the economy. Guess what? They thought wrong. We did have some 
intervening events. We had a recession. We had the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, and the need for relief efforts and bioterrorism efforts 
in this country and we have the war against terrorism.
  At that point, to exert leadership, what the majority party should do 
is say, the combination of our tax cuts for the wealthy and these 
crises have left us in a position where we have the largest 1-year 
increase in deficit spending in our Nation's history. But do they do 
that? No. Instead they shirk their duties of leadership, and they try 
to sneak language into this very important relief bill to increase the 
debt ceiling and to allow us to go even deeper in debt instead of 
working with the majority and the minority to find a way that we can 
readjust our budget so that we can deal with the very real economic 
issues.
  Then the majority demagogs this issue by blaming it on the minority 
party by saying we are unpatriotic because we object to just slipping 
this increase of the debt ceiling into a bill that should pass and 
should pass unanimously.
  I have got to say I, for one, am sick to death of being called 
unpatriotic. Is it unpatriotic to say that we should face our economic 
responsibilities as a Congress instead of shrinking into greater and 
greater debt? Is it unpatriotic to say that we should protect Social 
Security for the grandparents of the men and women who are fighting 
overseas against terrorism? I do not think so. Is it unpatriotic to 
want to deal with our changed economic circumstances as a result of the 
tax cuts, the recession and the terrorist attacks? I do not think it is 
unpatriotic. In fact, I think it is the height of patriotism, and that 
is why I object to this tactic.
  Here is why this is such an important issue. As I said, we just had 
the largest 1-year plunge in our national deficit spending. If we look 
at this chart, what it shows, we had some deficit spending throughout 
the 1970s. And when Ronald Reagan's tax cut went in in 1981, we were 
plunged even deeper into deficit spending which culminated in 1991. 
Finally, Congress had the guts to do something about it, and they 
passed legislation to make our economy strong.
  As you can see in 2000, for the first time we were actually running 
surpluses. But once that tax cut for the wealthy was passed, and 
everything else happened, this year we have been plunged into the 
largest deficit spending in our Nation's history.
  What you do not see on this chart is 2 years out. This goes through 
2006. In 2008 the baby boomers will start to retire and when the baby 
boomers start to retire, the grandparents of our fighting men and 
women, we will have raided their Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds, and we will have an economic crisis in this country like you 
will not believe.
  So here is what I think we should do. Let us strip the provision for 
the debt ceiling out of this bill. Let us pass this bill immediately. 
Let us pass this bill right now, and then let us come back and let us 
sit down and have an economic summit. Let us talk about what we can do 
about these tax cuts for the wealthy. Let us talk about how we are 
going to pay for a prescription drug benefit so our seniors are not 
having to choose between paying rent and paying for their medicines. 
Let us figure out how we are going to fund our economy.
  In my personal household, if I went home and said to my husband, I 
know we have had some economic hard times lately; our roof has been 
leaking and the kids are sick, so I have decided to go to Saks Fifth 
Avenue and buy a new wardrobe, my husband would not be too happy. And 
the Nation should not be happy with this, with what this Congress is 
doing either.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I need to clarify something here. I have heard 
a number of speakers say that we should not be considered unpatriotic 
because we have a difference of opinion here. I do not think anybody on 
my side of the aisle suggested that anybody in this House is 
unpatriotic. To the contrary, I appreciate all of the Members who came 
together with us after September 11 to provide the supplemental 
appropriations bill that the President used to get the war started. We 
appreciate that. We appreciate the way that we work together, and I 
know that we are going to continue to work together for what is in the 
best interest of America, what is in the best interest of our troops 
that are defending America, and what is in the best interest of those 
who are seeking out terrorism wherever it is in the interest of 
America. But what is happening here is there are those who are trying 
to change the direction of what this bill really is all about.

[[Page H2990]]

  Now, this bill is about providing a defense emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill. That is the basic bill that we are talking about. 
And we need to get that money available quickly. Because of the war, 
the military services have used up money that they would use normally 
in their fourth quarter. We need to replace that money quickly. We need 
to replace the missiles and bombs that have been used. We need to 
replace the airplanes and helicopters that are worn out. We need to do 
all of these things because we are at war.
  I want to say something else, Mr. Chairman. For those who are not old 
enough to remember Pearl Harbor, that was World War II for us, that was 
the war that we were fighting because we were attacked. But now count 
all the other wars after World War II, whether it was Korea, which was 
next; whether we are talking about Viet Nam, which was a terrible 
tragic experience for many of our people, especially the military; 
whether it was Granada; whether it was Panama; whether it was Haiti, 
Somalia, Rwanda, wherever it might be up to and including Desert Storm, 
we were fighting somebody else's war. Listen to that. We were fighting 
somebody else's war.
  Today for the first time since World War II we are fighting our war. 
We were attacked. America was attacked. Our Pentagon, the headquarters 
of our national defense was attacked. The World Trade Center, the 
center of our economy was attacked. Thousands of our American people 
lost their lives in a sneaky terrorist attack. That is what this bill 
is about. And the attempts to change it into something else just do not 
fly. This is a national defense emergency bill and we need to get to 
it. We need to focus on what this bill really is about and how we need 
to respond quickly to get this bill passed and get it to the President 
so that, in fact, those funds that have already been spent can be 
replaced to fight the war and to seek out the terrorists.


             Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Obey 
amendment that was adopted to the paragraph that spans pages 26 and 27 
be modified by the form that I have placed at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       On page 27, line 1, strike ``the entire amount'' and insert 
     ``$99,500,000''; and
       On page 27, line 4, strike the colon and all thereafter up 
     to the period on page 27, line 11.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to modifying the amendment after its 
adoption?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
only do so to allow time for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to 
give an explanation of exactly what this request is about.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the 
gentleman doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simply a technical fix to the amendment on 
Intelligence, which was passed just a few moments ago and accepted by 
the committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to adopting the amendment in the 
modified form?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is readopted in the modified form.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman of Florida (Mr. Young) I would say 
what he talked about sums up the beginning part of my statement in 
talking about the fact that we will commemorate Memorial Day this 
weekend, and the day when we come together to share a special salute to 
all of those who have paid the ultimate price for our country and to 
offer prayers of comfort to the family members left behind.
  I think we would all agree this Memorial Day will be very different 
from the last. September 11 changed everything. And since that terrible 
day, we have all been forced to acknowledge for the first time since 
Pearl Harbor that the cruelties of war are closer to home than most of 
us have ever imagined. But I think we would all agree, as well, we will 
continue to fight terrorism head on, wherever it lives and wherever the 
perpetrators live and conspire to hurt innocent people, because we have 
no choice.
  It is the only way to preserve our way of life, our freedoms and our 
liberties. It is the only way to truly honor the thousands who lost 
their lives on September 11 and the men and women who are currently 
serving in Afghanistan under very difficult conditions. This Memorial 
Day is for them.
  I am reminded of a famous statement made by Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt, who once said: ``We too born to freedom are willing to fight 
to maintain freedom. We and all others who believe as deeply as we do, 
would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.''
  These are the words I will be speaking on Memorial Day. The American 
people are intelligent. They know we face many problems as we try to 
combat terrorism. We are prepared to bear their fair share of the 
burden. However, this bill does hide one of those burdens, a necessary, 
but politically unpopular, increase in the debt ceiling. The majority 
fears, I think, an honest debate on why the debt ceiling must be raised 
and what impact that action will have on Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds. So they hid it in an important appropriations bill and 
hope that people will not learn of it until after it becomes law.
  Today we face a fiscal crisis. The government may not be able to pay 
its bills unless it has the authority to borrow money. A year ago we 
had projected surpluses. Now we have projected deficits. How did we get 
to this point? A response to terrorism? Yes. An economic slump that 
reduced tax receipts? Yes. And especially an ill advised tax cut last 
year which wiped out our surplus. To keep our government operating, 
Treasury had to borrow from Federal retirement accounts twice this 
year. Now the majority will increase the debt ceiling so it can 
continue to borrow from our Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  On October 24, 2001, the House first debated a tax bill that could 
have helped pay for this war on terrorism, and I stood here and urged 
this Congress to act responsibly. For the benefit of my colleagues who 
were not present at the time, let me repeat one thing. I want to quote 
from 1917 when Congress was considering how to pay for World War I, 
Ways and Means Chairman Claude Kitchen said, and I quote, ``Your 
children and mine had nothing to do with bringing on this war. It would 
be unjust and cruel and cowardly to shift upon them the burden.''
  Our leaders in World War I and World War II knew that we had to pay 
for those wars and we could not risk our economic security. Further 
raising the national debt in the long term makes us vulnerable, which 
is exactly what the terrorists want, and we cannot let that happen. Now 
is our time to step up to the plate and prove that we too can be a 
great generation. Rather than standing tall in the face of the enemy, 
in this body, we slink away from its duties.

                              {time}  1715

  The majority lacks the backbone to pay for the war honestly. Instead, 
we are passing on the burden to those who are fighting, to those who 
are fighting the war and to their children. They have to pay more for 
interest on the debt in the future.
  Few of us oppose the objectives in this bill. Quite frankly, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) and the appropriations people and my colleagues have done 
good work. They have addressed defense and homeland security and 
veterans' health, and I do not have but a few problems with the 
specifics, but I could be persuaded to support it if the majority 
leadership had allowed an open debate on the debt and raids of the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  Please do not accuse anybody of being weak on terrorism. Do not 
accuse anybody of not supporting our valiant forces abroad. I support 
our troops and families. Unlike some here, I also supported the troops 
when they responded

[[Page H2991]]

in 1999 to another commander in chief's directive, April 28, rollcall 
103. Some of my colleagues ought to check that. My support for our 
troops does not depend upon who send sits in the Oval Office, and we 
need to be honest with the military forces.
  I am disappointed and I hope that we can get this majority to 
reconsider its actions.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I will not consume the entire 5 minutes. I know the committee would 
like to resume its work. Indeed, I came down here earlier to speak and 
the committee was taking action so I left, went back to my office, and 
I saw again a lot of what I would describe as political rhetoric.
  One of the reasons why I do not buy anything you all say is where is 
your budget? Where is your budget? Why did not you produce a budget 2 
months ago, 3 months ago? Where is your budget? You do not have a 
budget. How are you going to pay for the war? The troops are in the 
field. We have raided all of the accounts. We have got to replenish 
those accounts.
  That is what the gentleman from Florida is trying to do in this 
supplemental. He is trying to put money back in for ammunition. They 
are out in the field and they have no weapons. They have no ability to 
continue to fight. We are trying to give the troops what they want.
  We put all this in our budget. Where is your budget, I ask you? And 
then you come to this floor over and over and say you want a straight 
up-and-down vote on the debt ceiling. Are you saying you will vote for 
that? I want to ask you all that question. Can I interpret that to 
mean, if we give you a straight up-and-down vote, you will vote for an 
increase in the debt ceiling? That is baloney.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. No, I will not yield.
  Ms. PELOSI. You were asking a question. You were challenging.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. You guys have been talking for 8 hours 
straight.
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Eight hours straight you have been talking.
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Now I have another question.
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend. The Chair would like to 
remind all Members to address their remarks to the Chair.
  The Chair would further like to remind all Members that once a Member 
has indicated he or she does not intend to yield, Members should not 
continue to interrupt.
  The time is controlled by the gentleman from Florida. He may proceed.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would pose another question to 
my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  The Social Security trust fund, they keep bringing that issue up. Are 
they trying to say to our troops in the field they consider it more 
important that we do not raise the debt ceiling, that we do not use the 
Social Security surplus moneys than put the ammunition in their guns, 
that we give them the fuel that they need?
  We all know what is going on.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so I can answer 
the gentleman's question?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. You can get your own time.
  We all know that under Lyndon Johnson we went under a unified budget. 
The gentleman from Iowa got up earlier and talked about how he was not 
here. I was not here either, but the reason I am here, the reason I 
left my medical practice is year after year, $200 billion being 
borrowed after you raided the Social Security trust fund. We all know 
we have a unified budget. We all know that.
  I will tell you what I think this is all about. I think this is all 
about wanting to spend more money. That is the way I interpret it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Florida 
but in my own way, if I could, during my 5 minutes.
  I just wanted to say I have been here for 14 years. I came in 1988, 
and before that I was in the State legislature and I was a city 
councilman, and I was actually shocked when I came down here to see how 
much deficit spending went on. When we were in the city council, we 
were in the State legislature, we could not do deficit spending. We had 
to have a balanced budget every year. That is the way we operate.
  And I want to say I was almost, I was actually proud of the fact that 
in those first 6 or 8 years that I was here, that I would see 
Republican Members of the House, some Democrats, too, but a lot of 
Republicans who would come down on the floor almost every night during 
special orders, during one-minutes in the morning and talk about how 
they had a problem with the deficit and how deficit spending was a bad 
thing for the country. And I remember some Members had a digital clock 
that I know would talk about how the deficit kept rising every day, 
billions of dollars, trillions of dollars. I do not see that anymore on 
the Republican side of the aisle. I do not see my Republican colleagues 
coming down here and worrying about the fact that we are $100 billion 
indebted, now maybe as much as $300 billion in debt this fiscal year.
  All of the sudden, the concern on the part of the Republican party 
for the budget and the deficit and fiscal responsibility has almost 
disappeared from the floor of the House of Representatives, and I 
cannot believe how irresponsible you have been in the way you have 
proceeded.
  The gentleman from Florida talked about a budget. If the gentleman 
listened to what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said, he 
said we want to sit down with my colleagues. We know that the situation 
has changed because of the war against terrorism. We are all very 
patriotic. I am not going to get into that because there is not anybody 
here who would not be out there serving their country or helping their 
country. We are all patriotic. That is not the issue.
  The fact of the matter is that the Republican leadership in this 
House is no longer listening to the concern about the deficit, and 
where we are going with deficit spending. The Democrats are saying one 
simple thing here today. You put this tax cut into effect, and that is 
a big part of the reason why now we are going into a deficit, and it is 
not acceptable to us.
  It is not acceptable to the American people to keep spending and 
running up this credit card debt and something has got to be done about 
it, and you cannot just come here in the last minute and sneak in this 
language about the debt ceiling and act as if it is not there. It is 
there and the reason it is there is because you realized that in order 
to continue this deficit spending you had to pass some resolution or 
some action that raises the deficit, raises the debt, raises the amount 
of credit card debt, so to speak.
  So all we are saying is sit down with us, talk to us about the 
budget, acknowledge that the budget that you presented a few months ago 
is not realistic anymore because of the increasing amount of debt, and 
also acknowledge that if you continue along this path of deficit 
spending that you are going to dip into the Social Security trust fund, 
that you are going to dip into Medicare. We are not going to be able to 
do the things we want to do with prescription drugs, that we are not 
going to able to do the education programs that the President talks 
about are so important, none of these things are going to be possible, 
rather than sit here and talk about who is patriotic. There is not 
anybody here who is not patriotic. There is not a soul on the floor of 
this House of Representatives, man or woman, who would not be willing 
to vote for this bill and for the funding for the war effort.
  That is not the issue. The issue is the fact that the Republican 
leadership has reneged and forgotten its responsibility with regard to 
the Nation's finances, and we cannot keep running up this credit card 
debt, because if we do, we are not going to be able to fund Social 
Security, we are not going to be able to fund Medicare. We are not 
going to be able to do the educational programs that the President is 
so proud of. He is proud of it, but where is the money? It is not going 
to be there.
  So let us have the opportunity to basically go back to the drawing 
board. Bring back a clean bill. Forget about this sneaky language on 
the debt ceiling. Let us have an up-or-down vote.

[[Page H2992]]

We are talking about the debt ceiling. Do not crowd it out with all the 
talk of the war effort. That is not the issue. We are all willing to 
spend the money for the war. That is not the issue.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent over 40,000 Army soldiers at Fort Hood, the 
largest Army installation in our country. I care deeply, as do all 
members of this House, about supporting our troops, be they at home, 
serving our Nation, or be they abroad, or be they today in Afghanistan, 
and that is exactly why I am so offended by this rule and this process 
and what has happened to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who have been confused by this debate, let me 
simply list what has happened.
  Fact number one. Under the able leadership of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the Committee on Appropriations, on which I sit, 
passed out quickly a bipartisan bill to fund the war against terrorism 
and provide for essential emergency homeland defense funding.
  Then on Tuesday night of this week, the Committee on Rules, directed 
by the leadership of this House, took a bipartisan bill that was 
literally flying through this House for the right reasons and turned it 
into a partisan bill by adding late at night, behind closed doors, 
amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with fighting our war on 
terrorism.
  Let us look at what is actually in the bill, because I have heard a 
great deal of discussion about if you want to support our soldiers and 
troops in the field, vote for this bill. Earlier I offered to yield 
time. No one took me up on this. I would be glad to reiterate that 
offer. I will yield time right now if any Member of the Republican 
majority can explain to me how section 1404 of this bill actually helps 
fund our war against terrorism.
  In case my colleagues do not know what that section says, let me read 
it: Treatment of certain counties for purposes of reimbursement under 
the Medicare program. Reclassification of certain Pennsylvania 
counties, in Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wyoming, Lycoming and Columbia 
Counties, Pennsylvania, such counties are deemed to be located in the 
Newburgh, New York-Pennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical area.
  I am sure that is very interesting. It may be important to the people 
of that area. However, can any Member of this House right now use my 
time to explain what this has to do with funding our troops in 
Afghanistan? I did not think so.
  Well, let us go on in the next paragraph. In Mercer County, 
Pennsylvania, I am sure there are good people that live in Mercer 
County, Pennsylvania. This county is now deemed in this bill to be 
located in Youngston-Warren, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area.
  Can anybody in this House explain to me how rewriting geographical 
maps in Pennsylvania has anything whatsoever to do with funding our war 
on terrorism? Let us go on.
  Well, we also do a little geographic rewriting in Orange County, New 
York in the same section. We make Orange County and Dutchess County, 
New York, part of the large urban area of New York, New York, for 
Medicare purposes.
  I do not quite understand how this amendment, which was never debated 
by our Committee on Appropriations, has anything to do with funding our 
war against terrorism.
  I question whether the real goal of funding our war against terrorism 
perhaps has been undermined by a much less important goal of supporting 
the reelection of certain Members of this House.
  Regarding section 1405, I would be glad to yield time if one Member 
of this House can tell me how the amendments to the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act, dealing with knit fabrics and woven fabrics, has 
anything to do with funding our war against terrorism.
  I notice, Mr. Chairman, once again nobody in this House has chosen to 
explain to me what that has to do with homeland defense or war against 
terrorism. I am not trying to discredit the importance of knit fabrics 
versus woven fabrics, but I am not really sure we ought to slow down 
the funding of homeland defense programs and funding our war against 
terrorism to get into a debate over the Caribbean initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, this is politics as usual. The unrelated provision 
added by the Rules Committee, including a massive $750 billion increase 
in the national debt ceiling, should be deleted from this bill so we 
can quickly fulfill our responsibility to provide emergency funding for 
our war against terrorism and for homeland defense.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, what we do have is $15.7 billion for DOD. 
That is $1.7 billion over the President's request. If the gentleman is 
suggesting that supplemental appropriations bills that come to this 
floor should never be passed if they have anything extraneous, then he 
is suggesting something that is very unrealistic, and my recommendation 
is that if the gentleman looks through this, and we have got money, 
$7.2 billion for ongoing military operational costs, $4.3 billion for 
personnel costs, $500 million.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Absolutely. And reclaiming my time, that is exactly why 
the bill passed so quickly through the House before these extraneous 
partisan amendments were added late at night in a secret meeting of the 
Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues on the other 
side, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is standing back there, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I think the majority of the Democrats are 
just as tough in fighting for the defense of this country as most of 
us.
  I am a veteran, and I want to tell my colleagues something. Using our 
military as White House waiters, to me, is not patriotic. Putting them 
in harm's way, our rangers in Somalia, and not giving them the tools 
that they need, and we saw Black Hawk Down, is not. And I would tell my 
colleagues on the other side, I feel the same way about our Marines 
that were left in Lebanon that were hurt. To me, that was not patriotic 
either, and that was under a Republican administration.
  It is not patriotic to me to cut veterans' COLAs and military COLAs 
for those families that fight for us and have to move all over the 
country. But yet in 1993, the Democrats controlled the White House, the 
House, and the Senate, and they did just that.
  I heard my colleagues talk about, well, in 1993, we had a program, an 
economic stimulus package, and not a single Republican voted for it. 
Absolutely right. Why? Because in that bill they cut military COLAs. 
They cut veterans COLAs. Talk about Social Security, my colleagues 
increased the tax on Social Security. That is a fact. And all the 
leadership that is standing up here today and talking about raiding the 
Social Security trust fund, when the Democrats had control of both 
bodies and the White House, they raided every dime out of the Social 
Security trust fund and had a $300 billion debt, plus increased 
spending.
  We inherited nearly a $5 trillion, a billion dollars a day on just 
nearly the interest. And has the debt gone up? Absolutely. It is kind 
of hard to pay off $360 billion every year that accrues, and then 
interest on that.
  Then I heard my colleagues say, well, under their leadership there 
was a surplus. Not one of President Clinton's economic plans passed 
this House with a Republican majority. Not one. And matter of fact, we 
restored the veterans' COLAs. We reinstated the military COLAs. 
President Clinton's gutting of veterans' health care we put back in. We 
increased it. And we increased the defense of this country, and I would 
say with bipartisan support with my colleagues on the committees.
  But when we look at or talk about the Social Security trust fund, it 
took me months to collect, and I have a document that I am going to 
bring to the floor, it is about that thick, it is every single time the 
Democrat leadership voted to take and steal every dime out of the 
Social Security trust fund. So when my colleagues talk about it, be 
careful, because we will point out every single time the Democrats 
voted to steal the money out of the Social Security trust fund.
  Now, was it bad? Not necessarily. Because our country is at war, and 
there

[[Page H2993]]

are debts to pay. But do not demagogue here for political reasons and 
say that we are raising the debt to raid the Social Security trust fund 
when, in fact, my Democrat colleagues stole the money. We came up with 
a lockbox. The gentleman in the other body, who I cannot mention on the 
floor, threatened to filibuster for a Social Security lockbox. We had 
to fight that.
  We had to fight welfare reform on this floor with many of my 
colleagues. And I will say that there are many of the people on the 
other side of the aisle here that vote consistently against defense 
bills, that vote against intelligence bills, that bring amendments to 
the floor to gut military and intelligence every single year. To me, 
that is not very patriotic, my colleagues.
  Our military today, our kids, are hurting. We are trying to make up 
over a $250 billion deficit that was built up from 127 deployments: 
Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia. Billions of dollars. Kosovo. We flew 86 percent 
of the missions in Kosovo. We paid for 90 percent of that bill. That is 
wrong. Because who ends up paying for that? We were only keeping in 22 
percent of our military under President Clinton because they were so 
abused in our equipment. We can do better. We can pass this bill, and 
we can fight for our military.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. All Members are reminded not to make improper 
references to the Senate during floor consideration.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this weekend we will celebrate Memorial Day, a day to 
honor our Nation's war heroes. This holiday began during the Civil War, 
my colleagues, when the women, and many of them widows and daughters of 
those who fought in the Civil War, made a decision to decorate the 
graves of soldiers from both North and South, regardless of the side on 
which they fought, to decorate their graves. It was for many, many 
years, decades, known as Decoration Day. The act of reconciliation 
between the North and South that these women initiated is something 
that is carried on in a tradition to this day. Today, we call it 
Memorial Day, and it is something that we are very, very proud of.
  Many young women are in harm's way today as we speak so that the 
democratic process can flourish in the world, certainly in our country, 
and to begin to emerge in Afghanistan.
  As the senior Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I know full well, as I know we all know in the body, 
Democrat and Republican alike, that we must make the necessary 
investments to protect Americans in the Armed Forces and to protect our 
country. I do not think there is any doubt of that, and I do not think 
anyone questions the wholehearted commitment of every person in this 
body to do that.
  We all agree, Mr. Chairman, that additional resources are needed to 
meet our Nation's defense and homeland security needs. We all support 
that, Democrats and Republicans alike. I want to commend the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, on which I am proud to serve, for his great leadership 
and the manner in which he conducts the work of our committee. And I 
want to also commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), for working closely with Chairman Young. They both worked 
to bring this bipartisan product to the floor.
  We had hoped that the priorities that were spelled out in the 
Committee on Appropriations to meet the necessities of force 
protection, homeland security, and helping to meet the needs of those 
who suffered as a result of September 11 would not be a matter of any 
controversy whatsoever. That is why it was so sad to see the leadership 
of the Republican Party in this House desecrate, desecrate this 
important piece of legislation which was committed to protecting our 
forces, protecting our homeland and helping those, as I said, affected 
by September 11. This is an act of desecration when we should be acting 
in a manner to honor those who serve us and those who have suffered.
  We all support the President in the war on terrorism. We have been 
united with him, shoulder to shoulder, since September 11 to that end. 
But we do not support and cannot support the shameful tactics of the 
Republican majority to prevent debate and limit democracy. Instead of 
proposing a bill to meet our legitimate needs to fight terrorism in a 
fiscally responsible way, the Republican majority has sneaked the 
second largest increase in the debt limit in this Nation's history 
without a vote on any debate.
  I wonder how they thought that they could get away with such a thing, 
or why they thought it was even appropriate. As the majority party in 
the House of Representatives, in the Capital of the United States, a 
model for the rest of the world, why did they think it would be a good 
idea and okay to sneak the second largest increase in the debt limit in 
history in a stealth manner, not even to be voted on on the floor, 
bypassing the democratic process?
  And the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means shed some light 
on that earlier. He came to this floor and he said, in essence, how can 
we expect to vote on every single item, every single piece of 
legislative business? We do not have time. It would be ridiculous to 
think that we would have the time to vote on every single little item. 
Well, we think differently about protecting Social Security for 
America's seniors. We do indeed.
  I did not know we thought as differently until I heard it expressed 
and Social Security trivialized as just another legislative item that 
we do not really have time to debate or to vote on separately. That was 
very enlightening. And I think it probably points out the difference 
between the Democrats and the Republicans.
  We think Social Security is important. We will vote to protect it. We 
would like to do so in a democratic way. And I am so sad and 
disappointed that the Republican majority would desecrate this 
important piece of legislation by undermining Social Security to give a 
tax break to the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republicans are hiding this plan from the American 
people. They are hoping to take the money and run, without letting the 
public know their intentions.
  Make no mistake about it. They are voting today to authorize taking 
$750 billion out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to pay 
for other programs.
  When you review the Republican proposal, you have to wonder: what 
happened to all the budget deficit hawks on the Republican side? Have 
they become an endangered species? Indeed, I think they have become 
extinct.
  Today, without telling anyone, those same Republicans are requesting 
the second largest increase in the debt limit in our Nation's history 
to continue their raid on Social Security and Medicare.
  We must have an up or down vote on their stealth plan to mortgage our 
children's future.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, so much has been said on this floor about Social 
Security that I think somebody has to get up and get the record 
straight.
  There have been errors made on both sides, but particularly on the 
minority side, when they refer to this bill in any way jeopardizing 
Social Security for our seniors. It is more and more of the same old 
thing: scare our seniors, scare our seniors.
  Let me give an example which I think absolutely shows 100 percent 
that this particular bill in no way endangers Social Security. To begin 
with, we hear time and time again on this floor that the Republicans 
are raiding the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Chairman, there is no 
money in the Social Security trust fund. There are only Treasury bills.
  The way the Social Security System works is the money that comes into 
Social Security that is not used to pay benefits goes into the general 
fund, which is called the surplus, and is replaced in the trust fund 
with Treasury bills. So anyone getting up and making this statement, it 
is a great statement to make from a political standpoint, but from a 
factual standpoint it simply is not true. It is not true.
  I ask this question of my Democrat friends: In all of the years, the 
40-some years they were in charge of this House, and they had deficit 
spending as far as the eye could see, and I have looked at the chart up 
there and it shows all the Presidencies that the Democrats keep putting 
up, during those periods of time, those were Democrat-controlled 
Congresses. In most of those cases, on both sides, the Senate and the 
House, those were Democrat.

[[Page H2994]]

But no President has ever spent one dime that was not specifically 
appropriated right here in the House of Representatives. That is a 
fact.
  So when we start talking about the deficits and we start trying to 
recreate history, let us look at the real facts.
  Now, the question comes up, in all of those years did the Democrats 
raid the Social Security trust fund? No. Did they spend the Social 
Security surplus? Yes. In part of this are we going to be looking to 
spend Social Security surplus? Probably so. But that does not in any 
way endanger Social Security. It simply delays the paying down of the 
national debt.
  Now, when did we finally balance the budget in this House? We 
balanced the budget after the Republicans took control. That is a 
simple thing and we cannot rewrite the history. The history is very, 
very clear.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for getting 
up and making this statement. I think the rhetoric here has been 
inaccurate on both sides of the aisle. A gentleman from California on 
your side of the aisle just got up a few minutes ago and said that 
Democrats were stealing the money out of the Social Security trust fund 
when the Democrats controlled the House. The gentleman from Florida, 
Mr. Shaw has explained this in a way that I think is accurate for the 
American people. I do not think any of us should be in the business of 
trying to misinform senior citizens. I do not think it works. I think 
senior citizens are smart enough to know that it is not accurate. We 
ought to be honest about how Social Security is funded amongst 
ourselves and in the debate on the floor. I commend the gentleman for 
his willingness to correct the record.
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for those comments. I again would 
like to repeat what Chairman Young said and I think he said it so 
eloquently: We are fighting our war. We were attacked.
  This is a time of emergency. If we have to spend some of the Social 
Security surplus, so be it, but we are not spending one dime of the 
Social Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund is secure. 
The FICA taxes are going to be there to pay every benefit through 2017. 
The retirees and the disabled in this country have the first call on 
the Social Security money that comes into the trust fund. Let us get an 
even and balanced argument here. And for God's sake, why does every 
Member in this House, in this Chamber, not spend a little time and 
figure out and learn how the Social Security system works in this 
country and also recognize the fact that we are looking at a $25 
trillion deficit in Social Security if we do not move together in a 
bipartisan way to reform Social Security. My door is open. As soon as 
we get any cooperation or see any cooperation from the other side of 
the aisle, or the other side of this Capitol, we will move and we will 
save Social Security for our kids and our grandkids. That is important. 
That is key. But right now we have an emergency, we have been attacked, 
and this country must react and we must react in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the war supplemental.
  Some do not remember history, but we do. The gentlewoman from 
California, for instance, Mr. Chairman, just stood up and said that 
Memorial Day began during the Civil War. It certainly did not. It 
actually was the product of an order issued by General John Logan on 
May 5, 1868. A minor mistake. One of the Democrat Members who spoke 
today actually came to the floor and said that Memorial Day was a day 
established in 1916 where we remember veterans in service of our 
country. An honest mistake, Mr. Chairman. I would not deign to 
embarrass a colleague by saying who made the error between Memorial Day 
and Veterans Day. The truth is that in life, some remember history and 
others do not.
  I think that frames very well the arguments that we have heard on 
this blue carpet today, Mr. Chairman, because while some on the other 
side do not remember history, we do. And it is my conviction that the 
overwhelming majority of the American people who join us today do as 
well.
  They argue, for instance, of great anxiety, even using terms like 
desecration of this war supplemental bill, suggesting that our efforts 
to meet all of the obligations of the United States of America with 
full faith and credit by allowing a discussion in the conference 
committee about debt limit is a desecration of this bill. The 
gentlewoman again from California says she has no idea where this 
approach came from. It used to be called the Gephardt rule, and I know 
the distinguished minority leader is on the floor at this moment. It 
was in September of 1979 that the distinguished gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) developed a rule which allowed the Democrats to increase 
the debt limit virtually automatically whenever they went into red ink 
overspending the taxpayers' money. And we are to be denounced and 
accused of desecration by those who created a rule to do 
surreptitiously what we choose to do in the light of day?
  Some do not remember history, Mr. Chairman, but we do. They argue 
that we are about the business of overspending in this bill. We hear 
laments on the floor from Democrat colleagues who are worried that 
conservatives like me have lost our commitment to fiscal restraint. Mr. 
Chairman, I am astonished by that comment, because I spent a lot of 
time on the floor in March of 2002 as one Democrat colleague after 
another came to the floor to explain how much more money needed to be 
added to our budget resolution. And our effort to deem that budget, to 
live within the confines of that budget during this time of war, is now 
being ridiculed as excessive spending by those who wanted to make that 
budget much, much larger. Some do not remember history, but we do.
  And they argue, of course, as I just heard from the gentleman from 
Florida and my colleague, they argue that by fulfilling our commitments 
to the veterans that are in the field, the soldiers in the field that 
are fighting this war on terrorism, both abroad and at home, that we 
raid Social Security, when we remember, Mr. Chairman, that it was in 
the 1960s when a Democrat administration decided to borrow from the 
Social Security trust fund to finance a war. The only distinction 
there, Mr. Chairman, is they did not stop for 40 years. Long after the 
Vietnam War was history, the practice of raiding the Social Security 
trust fund was the practice of a Democrat Congress. Some do not 
remember history, but we do.
  Mr. Chairman, I would offer to you as we continue this debate and its 
vitriol that I am a guy that believes it is possible to disagree 
without being disagreeable, but I believe that it is our obligation to 
speak honestly and candidly on this floor about the issues that we 
face. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that they have no budget, they simply 
have criticisms of our effort to meet the needs of our soldiers, to 
meet the needs of homeland security and to move legislation forward 
that will make our country distinctly safer and bolster the confidence 
of the American people as we go forward in these uncertain days.
  It is of them that I close, Mr. Chairman. You see, I know that the 
majority of the American people know what Memorial Day is about. They 
also know what a big tax-and-spend liberal Democrat Congress would be 
all about if they were in charge. They may not remember history, but 
the American people do.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have the luxury of time today. We do not have 
the time to divert the vitally needed national security enhancements in 
this bill by taking a dangerous detour into a thicket of secondary 
issues that have no direct bearing on our urgent need to secure our 
country and defeat our enemies. We cannot afford to drag out the relief 
in this bill to serve an unstated political agenda that seeks advantage 
at the very expense of swift assistance. The people defending America 
do not deserve a legislative IOU today. They deserve timely action.
  On the eve of Memorial Day, this House should not abdicate our 
mission by dragging out the urgent relief in this bill for our 
military, our homeland security and our hard-pressed intelligence 
agencies. As we all know, we

[[Page H2995]]

have taken great strides since September 11 to enhance our ability to 
detect, defeat and destroy the international terror networks. We have 
strengthened our homeland security. We have empowered our military 
commanders to secure victory. And we are moving aggressively to 
understand all the lessons from the terror attacks. But we also know 
that our job is far from over.
  Our country has serious ongoing liabilities that we address through 
the relief in this bill. We cover the cost of our operations in 
Afghanistan and the call-up of Reserve and National Guard troops. We 
provide almost a half a billion dollars to firm up our coalition. We 
speed the elimination of unneeded chemical weapons. We supply the spare 
parts and replace the high tech munitions that our military needs to 
keep its edge, and we meet pressing needs for our special operations 
forces.
  On the domestic front, we give the FBI the sophisticated technology 
systems that they need to coordinate and manage the flow of 
information. Clearly this improvement is urgently needed. We send 
resources to the INS to identify those people that are breaking the law 
by illegally overstaying their visas. We secure our airports with over 
a billion dollars in assistance to help detect bombs hidden in baggage. 
We provide substantial funding to harden our nuclear weapons 
facilities. In addition, we help the Secret Service build partnerships 
with sophisticated high tech firms to uncover terror's electronic 
footprints. And we also boost our intelligence capacity by sending the 
CIA and other agencies substantial resources to win the war on terror.
  Today, Democrats, who we are asked to believe are motivated by a 
newfound passion of fiscal restraint, walked out on our work to provide 
the resources to improve our national security. They retreated from our 
responsibility to put politics aside when the time comes to strengthen 
our country. This campaign of jockeying for domestic political 
advantages while delaying swift action on our need to send these 
resources is beneath contempt. It is cut from the same shoddy cloth as 
the shameful campaign to sow doubt about the President's commitment to 
protecting the American people.
  Following decade after decade of deficit spending when they held the 
majority, the idea that Democrats could now credibly lecture 
Republicans on the virtues of fiscal discipline just will not hold 
water. Their counterfeit fiscal discipline could be the most garish and 
grotesque case of ideological cross-dressing in the history of American 
politics.
  House Republicans brought fiscal discipline back to Washington. We 
are the ones who balanced the budget. We cut taxes every year that we 
have been the majority party. We paid down over $450 billion in debt on 
our children. And despite the war and the recession, we are still 
committed to holding the line on spending. We are the true party of 
fiscal discipline.
  Under our budget, we are going to pay down another $180 billion on 
the debt. And once our economy gains a head of steam, we will pay down 
much more than that. If Democrats were truly concerned about fiscal 
discipline, why were they AWOL in March when House Republicans passed 
our budget by ourselves? They could not even offer a budget, because 
they did not want to divulge the taxes they are planning to raise or 
the security spending they are likely to slash.
  In time of war, we cannot dawdle around in carrying out our 
constitutional obligations. This bill carries critical resources to 
defeat the enemies of freedom and we ought to put them to work today. 
Anyone who leaves town wondering how deep the Democrats' commitment to 
fiscal discipline actually runs should consider one salient fact: The 
House passed the President's budget over 2 months ago, but the Senate 
has not acted yet. They have not passed a budget.
  Pass this bill and let us go home.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the most bizarre rewriting of fiscal 
history that I have heard on that side of the aisle in at least the 
last 5 minutes. Let me try to bring us back to reality and recite what 
the true record of fiscal discipline has been over the past 25 years.
  Up until Ronald Reagan walked into the White House, we never had a 
deficit larger than $73 billion. Then Ronald Reagan introduced in the 
Congress the David Stockman wonder bus budget and somehow we were 
supposed to be able to double military spending, cut taxes by huge 
amounts, especially for those at the top end of the scale, and we were 
told that would finally produce balanced budgets. Instead, the deficits 
quadrupled. The national debt rose from less than $1 trillion to over 
$3 trillion. So much for Republican fiscal discipline in the 1980s.
  We then had an initial effort by the father of the existing President 
to try to get those deficits under control. He took the first needed 
steps in order to reduce the rate of increase of the Federal deficit. I 
congratulate him for his efforts. But that only got us to the point 
where the size of the deficits were slowing in their rate of increase. 
It did not turn them downward.
  So then Bill Clinton was elected and he proposed a series of economic 
and fiscal measures to the Congress and over time, over a period of 8 
months, we were able to put together the votes to enact that package.

                              {time}  1800

  We did so without the vote of a single Republican in either House. 
Not a single Republican Senator or House Member voted for that package. 
We were told by Mr. Gingrich, your Speaker, we were told by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), your floor leader, that it would lead 
to a massive recession and job loss. Instead, just the opposite. We had 
the longest period of sustained prosperity in the post-war period in 
this country.
  But it cost us, because we had to do unpopular things, and because of 
that we were attacked by your side, unmercifully so, and we lost our 
majority. But in the process of losing our majority in this House we 
were able to put this country back on a sound financial footing, and 
not a single Democrat on this side regrets that.
  Mr. Clinton was succeeded by Mr. Bush, and within 1 year you blew it. 
You imposed tax cuts that over the next 20 years are going to result in 
$7 trillion of lost revenue to the Federal Treasury. Then you wonder 
why we are not going to have enough money in the till to pay down the 
debt so we can prepare ourselves for the day when the baby-boomers 
retire and we are going to need to shell out huge amounts under Social 
Security.
  So now, after you did that and after you committed us to massive 
future tax cuts, you now see that we are facing potentially $300 
billion deficits again, and at least half of those deficits are caused 
by your tax action. So now you come in here and try to sneak through 
the place a fancy two-stepper, which will enable you to raise the 
national debt, raise the national credit card limit, by $750 billion, 
so you can continue to pay off your rich friends with their tax cuts.
  That is what this fight is all about. We are resisting that because 
we care about the future of this country and we are dedicated to fiscal 
responsibility. No Democrat after the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, the 
free-lunch-era, no Democrat in either House has to take any lectures 
from the Republican Party leadership, most especially the gentleman who 
just talked, about fiscal responsibility. That gentleman himself added 
an amendment to the bill which added $200 million to the cost of the 
bill.
  So I would say: End of history rewrite! Bring us back to reality. You 
know what the truth is. Every person in this Chamber does.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I have listened for the 
last day, day and a half, to the arguments on this floor, the finger-
pointing and the charges that have gone back and forth. ``They are more 
fiscally irresponsible.'' ``No, they started before.'' ``They want to 
raise the debt ceiling.'' ``They did it before.''
  We have raided the trust fund, and they did it before that. It is 
back and forth with these charges. None of this has been very 
productive to the legislation that is before us tonight. None of it is 
productive at all.
  We all acknowledge that this Nation is at war against terrorism, and 
we all acknowledge this supplemental appropriation is needed. We all 
acknowledge

[[Page H2996]]

that our troops in the field need to have this done.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of substantive and real amendments 
to be considered to this bill that are relevant to the war on 
terrorism, that are relevant to American foreign policy, and I would 
just say to my colleagues, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, I would hope we could allow this debate to move forward, 
that we could allow the Clerk to read.
  We had started, made a good and honest effort a few minutes ago, to 
get a start on that. I would hope that we could move forward, begin to 
read and consider some of the amendments for which there is a 
legitimate reason for us to debate and consider these amendments that 
are part of this bill. I say that with all due respect to my good 
friend on the other side and all of my friends on both sides of the 
aisle who have very deep feelings about this legislation and the things 
that were added to it.
  I am part of a very tiny minority on this side of the aisle that did 
not support the rule yesterday. But this is where we are at. This is 
the bill we have got. It is an important bill, and there are important 
amendments, and I just hope that this body can now proceed with 
actually considering some of these so that the American people and our 
American soldiers, men and women in uniform, will know that we are 
dealing with the business at hand that affects them in fighting this 
war on terrorism.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman, and I am 
perfectly willing to ask people on my side of the aisle to withhold 
their comments so that we can get to additional amendments, if the same 
thing would happen on that side.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am making that plea to 
people on my side of the aisle as well, that we do that and move 
forward here, I hope, with reading the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Air Force'', $99,800,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided, 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: 
     Provided further, That $39,000,000 shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for $39,000,000, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $72,000,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided, 
     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: Provided further, That $20,000,000 shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for $20,000,000, that includes designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 301. (a) The appropriation under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'' in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 
     107-117) is amended by adding the following proviso 
     immediately after ``September 30, 2003'': ``: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available for 
     the V-22 may be used to meet unique requirements of the 
     Special Operations Forces''. (b) The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall be effective as if enacted as part of 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 302. During the current fiscal year, amounts in or 
     credited to the Defense Cooperation Account under 10 U.S.C. 
     2608(b) shall be available for transfer, obligation and 
     expenditure, consistent with the purposes for which such 
     amounts were contributed and accepted, by the Secretary of 
     Defense to such appropriations or funds of the Department of 
     Defense as the Secretary shall determine, to be merged with 
     and to be available for the same purposes and the same time 
     period as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: 
     Provided, That the Secretary shall provide written 
     notification to the congressional defense committees 30 days 
     prior to such transfer: Provided further, That this transfer 
     authority is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense: 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: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall report to the Congress quarterly all transfers made 
     pursuant to this authority.
       Sec. 303. During fiscal year 2002, the President may 
     continue to provide assistance to Russia under cooperative 
     threat reduction programs and under title V of the Freedom 
     Support Act (Public Law 102-511; 106 Stat. 3338) without 
     regard to the certification requirements in section 1203(d) 
     of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     5952 (d)) and section 502 of the Freedom Support Act (22 
     U.S.C. 5852) if the President submits to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate a certification that providing such assistance is 
     vital to the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 304. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made available 
     by the transfer of funds in 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): Provided, That any funds 
     appropriated or transferred to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for agent operations or covert action programs 
     authorized by the President under section 503 of the National 
     Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2003.
       Sec. 305. Section 8005 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2002 (division A of Public Law 107-117; 
     115 Stat. 2247), is amended by striking ``May 1, 2002'' 
     before the period at the end and inserting ``June 15, 2002''.
       Sec. 306. (a) Funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense for fiscal year 2002 for operation and maintenance 
     under the heading ``Chemical Agents and Munitions 
     Destruction, Army'', may be used to pay for additional costs 
     of international inspectors from the Technical Secretariat of 
     the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 
     pursuant to Articles IV and V of the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention, for inspections and monitoring of Department of 
     Defense sites and commercial sites that perform services 
     under contract to the Department of Defense, resulting from 
     the Department of Defense's program to accelerate its 
     chemical demilitarization schedule.
       (b) Expenses which may be paid under subsection (a) 
     include--
       (1) salary costs for performance of inspection and 
     monitoring duties;
       (2) travel, including travel to and from the point of entry 
     into the United States and internal United States travel;
       (3) per diem, not to exceed United Nations rates and in 
     compliance with United Nations conditions for per diem for 
     that organization; and
       (4) expenses for operation and maintenance of inspection 
     and monitoring equipment.
       Sec. 307. (a) In fiscal year 2002, funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for assistance to the Government of 
     Colombia shall be available to support a unified campaign 
     against narcotics trafficking, against activities by 
     organizations designated as terrorist organizations such as 
     the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the 
     National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense 
     Forces of Colombia (AUC), and to take actions to protect 
     human health and welfare in emergency circumstances, 
     including undertaking rescue operations.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be considered at this time..
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

     Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       In section 307 (relating to Department of Defense 
     assistance to Colombia), strike ``to support a unified 
     campaign against narcotics trafficking, against activities by 
     organizations designated as terrorist organizations such as 
     the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the 
     National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense 
     Forces of Colombia (AUC), and''.
       In section 601 (relating to Department of State assistance 
     to Colombia), strike ``to support a unified campaign against 
     narcotics trafficking, against activities by organizations 
     designated as terrorist organizations such as the 
     Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National 
     Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of 
     Colombia (AUC), and''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment at this 
point in the bill?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to make a point of order 
against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not make a point of order against the

[[Page H2997]]

amendment. I simply want to say while I oppose the substance of the 
amendment and a point of order could be made because it considers 2 
separate provisions, I will not object to that so that we can have the 
debate at this time on the entire issue, a very important issue, and 
that is the issue of the war on terrorism in Colombia and our Plan 
Colombia down there.
  So I withdraw my reservation, and I am pleased to proceed with the 
debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the amendment being considered at 
this point in the bill.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a critical issue 
of American foreign policy. Tucked quietly into this supplemental is 
language that will significantly increase United States involvement in 
the civil war in Colombia. Along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), I am offering an amendment to strike that troubling and 
dangerous language and restore some common sense to our Colombia 
policy.
  The supplemental bill expands our role in Colombia beyond 
counternarcotics and into counterterrorism. The problem is that in 
Colombia, counterterrorism means counter-insurgency.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, if the Colombia language in the supplemental 
survives, the United States will be plunging head first into a 
grinding, violent and deepening civil war that has plagued Colombia for 
nearly 4 decades. This House should think long and hard before it gives 
a green light to such a momentous shift in our policy.
  For the past several years, the U.S. has invested billions of dollars 
into counternarcotics efforts in Colombia. It is difficult to argue 
that our investment has paid any dividends. Indeed, since the inception 
of Plan Colombia, coca production in that country has actually 
increased by 25 percent.
  Now, having said that, our amendment will not affect our funding for 
counternarcotics. In addition, our amendment protects language in the 
supplemental that allows U.S. resources to be used for humanitarian 
assistance, including rescue operations.
  Two weeks ago, this House unwisely voted to grant the Secretary of 
Defense the ability to waive the cap on the number of U.S. military 
personnel in Colombia. When you add it all up, increased U.S. troops 
plus increased involvement in the civil war equals bad policy. But that 
is the door that this bill will open.
  The majority of U.S. aid to Colombia goes to the Colombian military, 
a military with an abysmal human rights record, a military that 
continues to maintain ties to paramilitary groups that are listed on 
the State Department terrorist list. I do not believe that American 
taxpayer dollars should be used to fund an institution like that, and I 
certainly do not believe that we should expand American resources 
beyond fighting drugs and into fighting guerrillas.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also deeply troubled by the timing of this 
Colombia language. On Sunday, Colombians will go to the polls to elect 
a new president. Polls show that the winner of that election will be 
Alvaro Uribe. Mr. Uribe has based his campaign on a promise to expand 
the civil war, and there are widespread indications that the violent 
right-wing paramilitaries that are responsible for so many of the human 
rights abuses in Colombia are actually supporting the Uribe campaign.
  Now, I believe it would be a huge mistake to pledge additional U.S. 
troops and resources to the Colombian government before we see what the 
Uribe government will look like. Indeed, if Colombia decides to 
increase its own investment in fighting its civil war, it would be a 
dramatic shift. Right now Colombia spends less than 2 percent of its 
GDP on the war effort. People with high school diplomas are exempted 
from serving in combat roles, leaving the dirty work to the poor and 
uneducated. Our troops and our resources are simply too precious to be 
used as proxies in Colombia's civil war. If American personnel are not 
targets now because of our counternarcotic efforts, you will be sure 
they will be targets when we pick sides against the guerilla force of 
over 20,000 well-armed fighters.
  Mr. Chairman, we all support the efforts to combat the kind of global 
terrorism that threatens our interests and people. We all support the 
campaign to dismantle al Qaeda. But Colombia is not Afghanistan. It is 
the site of a terrible, terrible civil war. Kidnapping and other 
homegrown acts of terrorism have been part of this war since the very 
beginning and used by all sides. There is no new war on terrorism to be 
waged in Colombia, there is only more of the same.
  Mr. Chairman, what is our plan? How many U.S. troops? How much money? 
What is the end game? Colombia is a huge country, three times the size 
of Montana, 53 times the size of El Salvador. It is a hideously complex 
place with widespread poverty and social unrest.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment. Getting directly involved in 
Colombia's civil war is a mistake, plain and simple. Let us demonstrate 
the good sense to think long and hard before we plunge ahead.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the McGovern-Skelton amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Let me 
begin by saying what the amendment does. It strikes 2 provisions, and 
the reason we agreed to the unanimous consent is because it strikes one 
section dealing with the Defense Department and one much later dealing 
with the State Department, so a point of order could have been made 
against this amendment. The McGovern amendment strikes the same 
language both in Defense and in the State Department chapters that 
permits the administration to allow U.S. assistance for Colombia to be 
used in a war against terrorism, not just simply against narco-
trafficking.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by observing that this amendment does 
undermine a bipartisan compromise that this committee worked very hard 
to obtain regarding broadened authority for U.S. assistance in 
Colombia. Similar language with a good deal more conditions is also 
contained in the Senate bill, so this amendment would negate not only a 
bipartisan, but a bicameral agreement that has been reached.
  The amendment would preclude the U.S. from supporting Colombia's 
counterterrorism efforts. When the Clinton administration began to seek 
support for Plan Colombia from Congress about 3 years ago, 1 argument 
was that the revenues from the narcotics industry were increasing the 
ability of the FARC, the ELN and the AUC, the guerrilla groups and the 
terrorist groups that operate in Colombia, to destabilize Colombia.
  Now, 3 years later, with Plan Colombia under way, the groups are, 
unfortunately, stronger than ever, eradication has not kept up with new 
plantings, and Colombia is facing a more unstable future than it was 
before. It is time for a change in American policy.
  The existing authorities to spend U.S. assistance are narrowly 
written, too narrowly written, to allow U.S. assets and U.S. trained 
forces only to be used in counternarcotics activities. I have been to 
Colombia twice since Plan Colombia was approved, and to me it is 
patently obvious that we are operating with restrictions that are much 
too narrow.

                              {time}  1815

  The lines between counternarcotics and counterterrorism are not clear 
anymore; I do not think they ever were. They are certainly not clear 
today. In today's environment, with terrorists attacking the U.S. and 
U.S. citizens abroad, this imaginary line between counternarcotics and 
counterterrorism ought not to be maintained.
  With many of my colleagues, I tried to convince the administration a 
few months ago that by not approaching Congress to clarify the 
authorities under which the U.S. would provide assistance, they would 
jeopardize congressional support for U.S. assistance to Colombia. This 
came after the Colombian Government, President Pastrana, had announced 
that they were abandoning their plans to try to achieve peace because 
the many attempts to negotiate with the guerillas

[[Page H2998]]

had come to naught, and they were going to pursue a military response. 
And I urged this administration, that if they were going to change U.S. 
policy, they should come and seek that approval from Congress, and that 
is exactly what they have done. This is a counterterrorism 
supplemental, and I commend the administration for requesting in the 
supplemental the language that we have in it today to allow 
counternarcotics assets to be used to fight terrorism.
  Starting with the President's request, the committee arrived at a 
bipartisan compromise. And let me tell my colleagues a couple of things 
it does not do. The bill language does not extend through 2003, which 
was requested by the President. We are going to get into a markup of 
the 2003 appropriations bills in not too many weeks, so we decided to 
address 2003 in the fiscal year 2003, as I think we ought to. We have 
included report language that states our intent to use this bipartisan 
approach in the fiscal year 2003 bill, so we are making clear we 
probably will do so; and we can have this debate again in a few months 
if we need to have it, and that debate will take place after the 
elections and perhaps even after the inauguration of the new President. 
We want to see what the new Colombian administration will do after it 
is inaugurated in August.
  Further, the committee deletes the broad ``notwithstanding any other 
provision of law'' provision, which was requested by the President. It 
was the conclusion by the committee that the authority is simply not 
needed by the Department of State at this time, given the existing 
authorities within the international narcotics and law enforcement 
account. And all existing human rights provisions, the caps on U.S. 
personnel in Colombia and the prohibitions on visas to individuals with 
terrorist links, are maintained.
  With these conditions in place, with no large increase in the 
resources requested or provided to the Colombian military, this change 
in policy is not a major expansion of the U.S. role in Colombia's civil 
strife. It is a realistic approach to the situation in Colombia to 
combat terrorists using existing assets.
  The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations had a hearing on U.S. 
assistance for Colombia in March. At that hearing the Under Secretary 
of State said on the record that the broader use of authorities would 
primarily make available U.S.-owned helicopters for counterterrorism 
purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to retain the compromise language that 
is in this bill that has been reached on both sides of the aisle and on 
both sides of the Capitol building.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment. I 
am surprised that the gentleman from Arizona omitted a bit of history, 
because American troops were sent initially to Colombia and a line was 
drawn and it was drawn to provide training in antidrug activities only. 
This is a major step. This is a Gulf of Tonkin amendment that is in the 
bill that we seek to strike.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I speak today having recalled on so many occasions 
within the Committee on Armed Services and here on the floor, pointing 
out the fact that our troops are stretched, they are strained, their 
families are paying a severe sacrifice on their loved ones being gone 
so much, and that we have to increase the number of troops that we 
have. So with that in mind, I think that what is in the bill needs to 
be stricken. The implication is clear, that American servicemembers 
would become engaged in a broadened United States military effort in 
Colombia.
  My concerns with the bill are several. Expanded American military 
activities will embroil us in a civil war that has been raging for 40 
years. This is no small thing, as the gentleman from Arizona pointed 
out. This is a major policy change. We could find ourselves engulfed in 
a morass that would eat up American soldiers like we have not seen in 
years.
  Second, and perhaps the most important, is that our military 
personnel are performing more overseas missions today than ever. In 
just the past several months, our forces have been deployed to the 
Philippines, to Yemen, to Georgia, in addition to the major operations 
in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, not to mention Korea, not to mention 
the young men and women aboard ships on the seas. If the administration 
follows through with its plans to invade Iraq, invade Iraq, we simply 
will not have enough people to perform the missions, at least not to 
perform them very well.
  So we should carefully weigh the consequences before undertaking 
expanding missions in places like Colombia. The administration has 
simply not made the case for this expansion of our role. It is well 
known that the Colombian law allows wealthy and educated youth to avoid 
military combat. Their own sons are not sent out to fight the 
insurgence, but American sons can do it. I do not think that is a good 
policy for the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, expanding the drug program in Colombia to include 
terrorist activities is inviting war in Colombia. It runs the risk of 
embroiling us in an intractable civil war at a time when our military 
is stretched already. A vote for this amendment is the right policy for 
Colombia.
  The bill says that the Department of Defense funds can be used for a 
unified campaign. That is a magic phrase. That means, as I interpret 
it, that it is a license to change the rules of engagement for our 
troops that allows them to engage in combat or war. If this bill is 
adopted without this amendment, we could be embroiled in a no-kidding 
shooting war; and we will know that this is a Gulf of Tonkin effort 
that we have passed, unless this amendment prevails.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, 
and I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this to us. 
There has been a lot of discussion in the last 2 days, a lot about the 
deficit; and it strikes me as a bit of an irony, especially because it 
comes from many, and I have to say on both sides of the aisle, that do 
a lot to raise the national debt and the spending, and yet the debate 
went on and on. For some reason, I think there has been a lot of 
politics in the debate.
  The interesting thing about what is going on right now, there is no 
politics in this. This is about war, and this is important, and this is 
about policy. It is said that we would like to get things like this 
through without a full discussion; but this, to me, is a key issue. 
This amendment is about whether or not we will change our policy in 
central America and, specifically, in Colombia.
  Mr. Chairman, a year or so ago we appropriated $1.6 billion, and we 
went into Colombia with the intent of reducing drug usage. Instead it 
is up 25 percent. Drug usage is going up! They sprayed 210,000 acres, 
and now there are 53,000 more acres than ever before. It reminds me of 
Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan for less than a year and drug 
production is going up! I just wonder about the effectiveness of our 
drug program in Colombia.
  But the theory is that we will be more effective if we change the 
policy. Pastrana tried to negotiate a peace and we were going too deal 
with the drugs, and we were going to have peace after 40 years of a 
civil war. Now Uribi is likely to become President and the approach is 
to different. He said, no more negotiations. We will be fighting and we 
want American help, and we want a change in policy, and we do not want 
spraying fields; we want helicopters to fight a war. That is what we 
are dealing with here. We should not let this go by without a full 
discussion and a full understanding, because in reality, there is no 
authority to support a military operation in Colombia.
  What we are doing is we are appropriating for something for the 
administration to do without a proper authority. He has no authority to 
get involved in the civil war down there. We cannot imply that the 
issue of war is granted through the appropriation process. It is not 
the way the system works. The constitutional system works with granting 
explicit authority to wage war. The President has no authority, and now 
he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my 
colleagues, if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this.

[[Page H2999]]

This dilutes our national defense, it dilutes our forces, exposes our 
troops, takes away our weapons, increases the expenditures. If we 
ignore this issue I guess we can go back to demagoging the national 
debt limit.
  So I would say, please, take a close look at this. We do not need to 
be expanding our role in Colombia. The drug war down there has not 
worked, and I do not expect this military war that we are about to wage 
to work either. We need to talk about national defense, and this does 
not help our national defense. I fear this. I feel less secure when we 
go into areas like this, because believe me, this is the way that we 
get troops in later on. We already have advisory forces in Colombia. 
Does anybody remember about advisors and then eventually having 
military follow in other times in our history. Yes, this is a very 
risky change in policy. This is not just a minor little increase in 
appropriation.
  So I would ask, once again, where is the authority? Where does the 
authority exists for our President to go down and expand a war in 
Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national defense or our 
security? It has more to do with oil than our national security, and we 
know it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that 
it is not well protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we 
deal with this at times. So I would say think about the real reasons 
behind us going down there.
  It just happens that we have spread ourselves around the world; we 
are now in nine countries of the 15 countries that used to be part of 
the Soviet Union. And every country has something to do with oil. The 
Caspian Sea, Georgia, and why are we in the Persian Gulf? We are in the 
Persian Gulf to protect ``our'' oil. Why are we involved with making 
and interfering with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? I 
thought we were for democracy, and yet the reports are that we may well 
have participated in the attempt to have a democratically elected 
official in Venezuela removed. I think there is a little bit of oil in 
Venezuela as well. Could that have been the reason.
  So I would say, once again, please take a look at this amendment. 
This amendment is a ``yes'' vote, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules and good friend, as well as the amendment of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my mentor and good friend on military matters.
  I do not think anyone is insincere in this House of Representatives 
about wanting to be involved in doing what is right to protect our 
country and to maintain the President's vision with reference to the 
war on terrorism.

                              {time}  1830

  All of us are for the same set of circumstances. But my colleagues on 
the Republican side do not want spending in certain areas in America.
  I harken back one night to one of the finest speeches ever made in 
the House of Representatives by John Kasich in a run-up to a budget. 
When John finished, I walked up to him and complimented him. I said to 
him, you know, John, the difference between you and I, and we were only 
going to spend $1 trillion or $3 trillion at that time, the difference 
is he wants to spend the money on what he wants to spend it on, and I 
want to spend it on what I want to spend it on.
  I do not think anything has changed very much on that, from that time 
or any other time. They have the power to do Plan Colombia, but they do 
not want to spend; they want to cut programs in this country that I 
consider to be critical.
  Some Members do not even have a clue about what is going on in 
Colombia. Certainly, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
does, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) does, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) does, and the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) does, but most of the Members in this House, 
half of them cannot even point out where Colombia is.
  Yet, we are going to stand up here and go forward and get ourselves 
involved in something that could help lead this country to the black 
oblivion of ignominious defeat. We never won a war on terrorism or on 
counternarcotics. We have spent countless dollars in South America and 
elsewhere around the world that did not bring us to fruition with 
reference to our wishes.
  While we are here doing this debate this evening, the Middle East is 
raging; India and Pakistan are poised to go to war with each other; 
Indonesia and Malaysia, and I harken to tell my friends that if 
Indonesia implodes, we will have eight Afghanistans on our hands; 
famine and war is all over Africa.
  I have been in this body when nobody cared about genocide occurring 
on the African continent, and yet we come here prepared to involve 
American troops in our hemisphere, knowing full well that it may lead 
to further difficulties.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting in my office or here on the floor 
listening to this debate all day. Frankly, I am astonished by the 
rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy that have come out of the mouths of some 
of our colleagues here.
  As a Democrat, all Democrats over here have been called unpatriotic, 
undemocratic, irresponsible, and un-American. I heard all of that from 
the other side. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, all of us 
and I certainly take offense to those unpatriotic, undemocratic, 
irresponsible, and un-American comments. Nobody in this House has any 
lock on patriotism. There are 535 patriots and 5 persons from other 
areas in this country of ours that serve this country in the best 
manner that they can. We disserve ourselves when we allude to others 
being unpatriotic.
  I sat in the Committee on Rules Tuesday night and listened to 
Republicans' plans to increase the debt limit. I think that there 
should be some measure of increase.
  At the time, I figured that the majority just did not get it. Today, 
I am certain that the majority not only does not get it, but they 
cannot sell it. They did not sell it to their own members, and they are 
certainly not going to be able to sell it to the American people.
  So the Republican leadership has done what it does best: Rule with an 
iron fist. Never mind about who did it before them, they are doing it 
now. The leadership attached controversial and extraneous provisions to 
a widely supported bipartisan bill, and when the Republican leadership 
realized they did not have the necessary votes, it reminded its caucus 
that the bill is blanketed under the highly political title of a 
wartime emergency supplemental. I guess, Mr. Chairman, old habits are 
just too hard to break.
  Like Americans all over this Nation and Members in this House, I 
strongly support the expenditure of supplemental funds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALLENGER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) that no one has suggested tonight that Members 
of this body are not patriotic. This is a healthy debate, and this is a 
good debate. It is one that we need to have.
  I want to say in response to one point made by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I think it is a red herring to 
compare the language in this bill to the Gulf of Tonkin. We are talking 
about keeping the same number of troops, not expanding the number of 
troops, and not expanding their authority.
  To suggest that we can make a distinction between a shot that is 
fired from a drug trafficker or a terrorist is

[[Page H3000]]

ridiculous. When a helicopter takes off and goes into a firefight, how 
can they determine whether the bullet coming at them is from a drug 
trafficker or a counterterrorist? That is all we are acknowledging here 
is that we cannot make that distinction.
  Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have been to 
Colombia many times. I would also like to say that no additional troops 
to the 400 that we have there at the present time, and it is capped at 
400, have been asked for or will be asked for by the Colombian 
government.
  But I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts which removes the freedom of the Colombian 
government to use our aid and makes them fight with 2 hands tied behind 
them. Colombia today is a nation under siege by 3 terrorist 
organizations. Two of these terrorist organizations, the FARC and ELN, 
have kidnapped over 50 Americans and murdered at least 10. The third, 
the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, is a vicious, violent 
terrorist organization that indiscriminately murders Colombians.
  All three of these terrorist groups have been designated by the 
Secretary of State as foreign terrorist organizations because it has 
been determined that they are a threat to our Nation's security. 
Terrorism in Colombia is financed by illegal trafficking in narcotics 
that kills up to 40,000 of our young people in the United States each 
year.
  The largest terrorist organization in Colombia, the FARC, has in 
essence declared war on the Colombian people. This group is attacking 
Colombia's democratic institutions. The FARC is holding a presidential 
candidate, Colombia legislators, and local elected officials as 
hostages. They also attack police stations and kill innocent people.
  The Colombian government is continuing its efforts to negotiate a 
peace agreement with ELN, and we should support those efforts. No one 
has done more than President Andres Pastrana, however, to hold that 
door open to a negotiated political agreement with the FARC. His 
perseverance and forbearance have made one thing clear: It is the 
FARC's willful disregard of the rule of law and human rights that led 
President Pastrana to make the decision to end the FARC's safe haven 
and send in Colombia's security forces to reestablish legitimate 
government.
  On March 6, this body passed a bipartisan resolution expressing the 
sense of the House that ``The President, without undue delay, should 
transmit to Congress for its consideration proposed legislation, 
consistent with United States law regarding protection of human rights, 
to assist the government of Colombia to protect its democracy from 
United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations and the 
scourge of illicit narcotics.''
  The Bush administration responded to this invitation and included 
such a proposition, so it is in this bill. The Committee on 
International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations have both 
held hearings in which the administration discussed its proposal.
  The language that the gentleman from Massachusetts is seeking to 
strike is itself the product of a bipartisan compromise. We must help 
the people of Colombia in their darkest hour. Colombia is a democracy 
and an ally of the United States. It is under attack by terrorist 
organizations funded by illegal drugs.
  Colombia is not asking us to send troops. The democratically-elected 
government of Colombia is asking that we make it possible for us to 
help them defend their democracy from these terrorists. The 
restrictions on the use of aid should be removed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendments being 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as my friend, chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations 
indicated, we have traveled together frequently to Colombia, so I am 
all too familiar with the incredible violence that has plagued Colombia 
for far too long.
  I acknowledge we must accept a certain responsibility, for it is our 
insatiable demand for cocaine and for heroin that has exacerbated that 
violence and brought it to a new horrific level.
  Assistance and support for Colombia is part of our responsibility, 
but it is extremely important that we be clear about what kind of 
assistance we should offer and what we should expect from the 
Colombians. I believe that what we have been doing recently lacks that 
clarity.
  The U.S. policy is undergoing a sea change in such an incremental 
fashion so as to be unnoticeable. That, I submit, is unfortunate and 
very risky. During debate on the original Plan Colombia, which I 
supported, I rejected the argument that our involvement in Colombia 
could lead us to a Vietnam-like quagmire, in part because there were 
clear and bright lines in Plan Colombia as to the limits of our 
support.
  But now we are beginning to blur those lines, Mr. Chairman. We are 
removing those conditions and restrictions contained in Plan Colombia 
on a piecemeal basis. We are on the verge of making commitments that 
quantitatively and qualitatively substantially change our role in 
Colombia.
  There have been recommendations that we increase military assistance 
and enlarge our direct counterterrorism role in Colombia, and I 
underscore ``direct'' role in Colombia, all this without a thoughtful 
and extensive debate that carefully weighs the implications of such a 
fundamental shift in American policy.
  For example, 2 weeks ago, Plan Colombia contained an explicit 
ceiling, 500, on the number of U.S. military personnel permitted to 
enter Colombia. On May 10, this House passed a defense authorization 
bill that would essentially allow the Pentagon to introduce an 
unlimited number of American troops into that brutal conflict without 
any consent or notice to Congress.
  Today, the supplemental contains $6 million to protect a single oil 
pipeline in Colombia. But let us be clear: It really is simply a 
downpayment, because it is estimated that the full cost to the American 
taxpayer to protect that one pipeline is $98 million, and I believe 
that those additional monies will be included in the regular course of 
the appropriation bills we have to consider.
  How much will the next pipeline cost the American taxpayers? One can 
imagine American taxpayer dollars being utilized to protect all sorts 
of infrastructure projects in Colombia: bridges, aqueducts. The United 
States ambassador in Bogota indicated that there are more than 300 
strategic infrastructures in Colombia that need protection.
  Now we are also considering whether to eliminate the restrictions 
that limit our current assistance to counternarcotics purposes. As 
others have said, make no mistake, not only will this result in an 
increased involvement by American forces in an expanding conflict, but 
it will be interpreted in Colombia as a willingness on the part of the 
United States to become directly engaged in actual conflict. That will 
be the interpretation that the Colombian people will make on their own. 
Now, do we really want that? Do we really want to chart this course 
without more debate?
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has expired.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. SOUDER. I object, reluctantly. I think we should stick to the 5-
minute rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). We have traveled to Colombia 
together. We have some agreements and some disagreements.
  I think it is important that if each one of us got up and extended 
our remarks, we will not be following House order. It is not from any 
objection to the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

[[Page H3001]]

Delahunt), though I may not agree. I assume that I will stick to my 5 
minutes as well; if not voluntarily, then forcibly.
  I think the first fundamental question here is do we have a 
compelling national interest. When we look at an issue like this, if we 
do not have a compelling national interest in Colombia, where would we 
have a compelling national interest?
  Clearly, it is in our hemisphere, Colombia; clearly, the drugs on our 
streets that are resulting in deaths from cocaine and heroin in Fort 
Wayne, Indiana, in Massachusetts, in Florida, and North Carolina, 
throughout our Nation, are predominantly coming from Colombia.

                              {time}  1845

  Clearly we have a threat to the democracy in Colombia. As even the 
past speaker acknowledged, it is certainly exacerbated by our drugs, 
and we must accept responsibility. If it were not for our drug habit, 
quite probably Colombia could handle their problems.
  Fourth, we clearly have a terrorist threat as the international 
terrorist groups interconnect and as the drug money provides support 
for terrorist groups around the world, not only within their country 
but in international networks. We have a terrorist threat. Clearly we 
have a trade threat. In fact, if the pipeline in Colombia collapses, 
Colombia has less ability with which to defend itself, not because they 
could not have protected their pipeline themselves, but if it is our 
cocaine and heroine money that threatens their pipeline, clearly that 
has complicated their ability to protect themselves and we have 
multiple products that are critical to trade with Colombia, and it has 
been one of the more stable countries historically in South America, 
both democratically and economically.
  Clearly there is a threat and a potential threat to the Panama Canal, 
where now that we have turned it over to the Panamanians which, 
remember, was cut out of Colombia, and as we have seen the drug 
traffickers move into the Darien Peninsula and put many of their 
facilities in Panama, we have a direct threat to potentially cutting 
off our trade ability if the drug cartels get more control over Panama.
  Clearly we have an energy threat. Colombia is either our seventh or 
eighth largest supplier of oil. Our economy depends on that. We already 
have instability in the Middle East. We have more compelling reasons to 
be involved in Colombia than almost anywhere else in the world.
  Direct on our streets 16,000 deaths minimum last year because of 
illegal narcotics compared to the other categories of direct threat to 
the United States. They all pale in this area. So we have a bill before 
us today that reflects the truth, which we all have acknowledged and we 
realize was developing, that is, that there was a revolutionary 
movement that was, you can argue what their predominant roles were, but 
it was the FARC and other groups there, they were at one time 
revolutionary. As they progressed and as they funded themselves, they 
increasingly started to provide narcotics protection. So did the 
paramilitaries that were initially designed to protect the people from 
other revolutionary groups to provide protection to individuals and 
families and businessmen. As they evolved, they started to look for 
drug money for protection.
  So we have seen the paramilitary groups, we have seen the FARC and 
other groups basically move to protection for drug cartels and 
increasingly as we saw in the DMZ to actually protecting the people who 
were growing it, distributing it and processing it.
  So what we are recognizing, increasingly that we just cannot fight 
narcotics, we have to also be able to fight the terrorist efforts in 
Colombia if we are going to have an effect on narcotics, if we are 
going to have an effect on protecting the democracy, if we are going to 
have an effect on protecting the trade, the Panama Canal, the oil 
pipelines, and most importantly the people in my neighborhoods who are 
being attacked by drugs.
  This amendment, if it passed, would in effect start the repeal of our 
ability to help protect American citizens from illegal narcotics and 
our ability to help our friends in Colombia who have stood with us.
  This is not Vietnam. This is not us going in to fight. This is 
whether we are going to adequately equip them and train them to fight 
their own battle, a battle they would not be having in Colombia were it 
not for our drug habits in the United States. They have some drug usage 
in Colombia, but Western Europe and the United States are the primary 
places that have funded these terrorist groups.
  When they see these different people who are undermining the 
democracy in terrorizing the communities, they do not say, we are the 
drug division. We are the terrorist division. They cannot poll each 
one.
  We have worked hard with the government in Colombia, and we will 
continue in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources and the other committees of this Congress, to make sure that 
they follow human rights, that they follow human rights policies, that 
we monitor to make sure that they are doing the best they can, that as 
we work through trying to make sure that these groups follow the human 
rights and they get vetted units and they make sure that they are 
fighting both their battle and our battle, if they are successful, it 
is not just for the people of Colombia, it is for the people of 
Indiana. It is very important that we continue to support them and 
acknowledge what is going on on the ground, or we will lose Colombia 
and this Congress will have sat there and put our kids more at risk and 
our families at risk if we do not defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first comment on the gentleman's 
comments, the last speaker. We have spent close to $1.5 billion in 
fighting drugs, and coca production is up by over 25 percent. Even in 
what we are supposed to be doing, we are not succeeding the way we 
should.
  Secondly, I would like to and I am not being sarcastic here, I would 
like to commend those in the administration who have decided now that 
every time we are going to get involved somewhere it is to fight 
terrorism. And so how can you argue against fighting terrorism?
  Well, Colombia is not about terrorism. Terrorism is my city. I 
understand it was the people who attacked the Twin Towers, who attacked 
the Pentagon, and they wanted to attack the White House. Yes, there are 
terrorists groups throughout the Nation, throughout the world.
  We participate wholeheartedly behind President Bush and this Congress 
and the Senate in fighting that war. But this is a civil war. It has 
been going on for over 35 years. And history should tell us that every 
time we get involved in a civil war, we come out in a very bad 
situation.
  I was thinking as I was listening to the speakers prior to me that 
there must have been folks, historical figures in this House, who sat 
here and debated this right before we escalated our involvement in 
Vietnam. And at that time they were probably questioned too, after all, 
were they unpatriotic in their desire not to fight Communism at that 
point, the same way some of us may not be patriotic in our desire not 
to fight terrorism? But Colombia, I repeat, is a civil war.
  With all due respect to the people in Colombia who are the victims of 
this war, it is very hard on any given day of the week to determine who 
the good guys are and who the bad guys are in Colombia. No one can 
stand here and tell us that Colombia's governmental history has been 
one of stellar behavior. No one can tell us that the FARC is an 
organization that is respected by anyone. No one can tell us that the 
right wing paramilitaries are respected by anyone. No one fighting that 
war at one time or another is respected by anyone because it is very 
hard to determine who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
  And I suggest to you that to go in as we do in the change of language 
in this bill, and take sides, is the most dangerous thing we can do at 
this point.
  Let me also make another comment. For many years now the left in 
Latin America has been pretty dormant. My friends, the sight of 
American troops in uniform on Latin American soil, as we will surely 
have as we escalate, would

[[Page H3002]]

only invite a backlash of anti-American sentiment that we do not need 
at this point. What we need above all is to continue to help in the 
peace process of Colombia.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) said it best, and I know it 
upsets some people, this is a Gulf of Tonkin resolution that we are 
voting on today. Make no mistake about it. We are moving towards a 
dangerous situation here, and we will not know how to get out of it.
  Some people have said that I exaggerate when I say that, when I say 
Colombia could be a Spanish-speaking Vietnam for us; and that is the 
difference, the language we will have to learn to be able to stay there 
for 5, 10, 15 years. But when you have had a situation going on for 
that long and you cannot get people to agree on anything, how do you 
determine that we know how to handle this? How do you determine that we 
are the ones who will solve that problem?
  What we should be doing is, one, making sure that we try to force the 
peace process to continue to take place somehow, somewhere for the 
Colombian people; and, secondly, that we stay away from any 
involvement.
  Now, I know that some people on this floor are going to try to tie 
this in to other issues in Latin America. It is a natural for us. Let 
me just say that there is no involvement here by any other government. 
This is a civil war. In fact, the Pastrana government has said that he 
has received help from many other places, including the Cuban 
Government, on trying to bring about the peace process. And so no one 
is in favor of continuing this situation in Colombia.
  Now, one last thing that we need to also remember. We Americans, I, 
myself included, refuse every so often to understand that if we use 
drugs at the alarming rate that we continue to use, someone will always 
grow it for us, someone will always produce it. So rather than to stand 
here and bash the Colombian society for what is a major problem and 
then try to solve that problem by getting involved militarily, that is 
a mistake.
  A couple of years ago I said that we would be back here to expand. I 
hope I am wrong, but we will be here again to expand. I support this 
amendment. We should get out right now.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not profess to be an expert on Colombia or any 
other country. In fact, I do not profess to be an expert on anything, 
but I have been involved in some of these issues because I chaired the 
committee that my good friend from Arizona now does so well in 
chairing, and I was intimately involved when we first created Plan 
Colombia.
  Let me just give my colleagues some insight into what really 
happened. All of the G-8 nations got together, and they recognized 
collectively that there was a tremendous problem in Colombia because 
they were the basis for the supply of narcotics all over the world. The 
Europeans recognized it. The Japanese recognized it. Everyone 
recognized the problem. So they had a donor conference and they agreed 
collectively to come up with $7 billion to fight this problem. So we 
went to President Pastrana and we said, Mr. President, we are going to 
participate too. Our participation is going to be $2 billion. And the 
rest of the nations, according to the Clinton administration, at the 
time said that they were not going to contribute anything until we did. 
So we ponied up. We came up with our $2 billion, and we sent our $2 
billion mostly in the form of black hawk helicopters. But we sent our 
$2 billion and we told President Pastrana, here we are. This is the 
first step towards eliminating the problem in your country and thus 
helping the United States of America.
  What happened then? Well, unfortunately, most of the other nations 
forgot their obligation. They have not still to this date come up with 
their contributions. Here is the first 2 billion. There is another 5 
billion coming, so you eliminate this problem, only to find that the 
rest of the world has not contributed what they promised in the donor 
conference, including most of the nations in Europe who are now 
complaining about the cocaine that is flowing into Europe originating 
in Colombia.
  So while there has been some fault with all of this program, we 
cannot blame it all on the Colombian government, we certainly cannot 
blame it on our government. We cannot blame it on this Congress because 
we did what we promised at the donor conference.
  So what our administration ought to be doing, and I have emphasized 
this to the Secretary and to the Treasury Department and the Treasury 
Secretary, that they ought to be going to these countries who made 
these commitments and tell them to do what they promised they would do; 
but unfortunately in other circumstances where they all meet in these 
grand palaces all over the world and they agree that we are going to 
solve the problems, none of them will do anything such as in Bosnia 
until we put up our money first. We in good faith put up our money and 
the rest of the world has not, and they ought to be ashamed.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Alabama yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree more with the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). He is correct. The European Union has 
failed to meet its commitment. Let me also suggest that the Colombian 
Government in terms of professionalizing and providing the resources 
necessary for its own military has failed its people. During the course 
of World War II the American people paid 40 percent of the GDP to the 
war effort. In Colombia today it is less than 2 percent of the 
Colombian GDP that is devoted to the military. And I suggest that this 
is an absolute appropriate rationale for us not to appropriate 
additional funds until the Colombian and the Europeans stand up to the 
plate.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, at the same time, we do not want to leave 
the President of Colombia out on a limb. He has come back to us. He has 
told us what the problem is and we are having to fill in a void, but 
the void has been caused by the failure of the other nations and 
especially the European nations to fulfill their promise.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree. I think it is time we 
sit down and consult further with the Colombians, but on Sunday the 
Colombian people will begin the process of selecting a new president, a 
new president with different ideas, some of which we may embrace, some 
of which we may reject. What is the rush? I suggest this is risky, that 
this is premature and this is why the McGovern-Skelton amendment should 
be supported.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment, and I 
want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this important 
issue.
  The Bush administration and the Republicans would have my colleagues 
believe that a change in our control policy, a shift from the policy of 
a counternarcotics to that of counterinsurgency is a logical part of 
our plan to eradicate the global terrorist network.
  Last year's supporters of Plan Colombia were promising us that our 
efforts in Colombia were just about reducing the flow of drugs. They 
had many Members convinced that the policy was justified and that it 
was going to be successful. To date, our policy has been a spectacular 
failure and now it is even less justified.
  It is a fact that despite our aggressive drug eradication efforts, 
coca cultivation has actually increased by 25 percent in Colombia. 
Despite our efforts, human rights abuses continue. Paramilitary death 
squads continue to brutalize innocent Colombians, and they operate with 
impunity from the military, and perhaps most disturbingly, military 
officials implicated in the deaths of the very people they are supposed 
to protect remain unpunished and on the Colombian government's payroll.
  Anyone who thinks that the links between military and brutal 
paramilitary

[[Page H3003]]

forces have been severed are simply ignoring the realities on the 
ground, which I was able to see myself when I went with the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to Colombia and listened to the 
people.
  The May 6 Chicago Tribune editorial on this subject had it right. 
``There is no advantage to the United States getting deeper into the 
40-year old Colombian civil war. Money spent on drug interdiction there 
would be much more productively used for treatment of addicts here. And 
more American military aid is hardly going to advance chances of a 
political solution to this multi-headed conflict. This failed foreign 
policy cannot be salvaged, certainly not by pouring good money after 
bad. The House has an opportunity to put a stop to this.''
  In 1999, I stood here in this Chamber and I warned my colleagues that 
Plan Colombia would be just the first in a series of blank checks for 
the war, with no foreseeable future.
  Along with the sponsors of the amendment, I appreciate that the 
committee worked to narrow the parameters of the administration's 
original wide-open request to expand our role in Colombia. However, 
this bill still opens the door, and we all know that once a door is 
opened, it is very hard to shut.
  This language reaches back and allows all fiscal year 2002 military 
aid, personnel and equipment to be used for counterterrorism, including 
any additional aid that might be sent under a continuing resolution 
later this year. Military escalation is built into this appropriation 
bill, but an exit strategy is not. Once we cross into counterinsurgency 
we are committing the might and the resource of the United States to a 
4-decade old war that cannot be won militarily.
  All of my colleagues should be reminded of President Johnson's agony 
and his inability to extricate the United States from a jungle quagmire 
in Vietnam. I would not wish that on a president of any party.
  I want to also say in closing that I understand that tonight that the 
Republican leadership is going to adjourn at midnight, start a new 
legislative day, and it is just another strategy to shut down debate, 
and even as we argue the supplemental budget and wave the flag as we 
should for our military forces around the globe and for strengthening 
our fight against terrorism here at home, and even as we talk about 
strengthening democracy in Colombia, the leadership here is working 
furiously to be able to curtail democracy here on the floor of this 
House. We should not be so hypocritical as to be waving the flag and 
promoting democracy in the supplemental and then saying but we cannot 
have democracy here to debate what is legitimate debate here on this 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I am a bit perplexed when I hear the argument that there is no 
democracy in this Chamber, and hour after hour after hour after hour, 
we have been hearing debate on multiple issues, and the argument has 
also brought out that on this issue we are debating at this instance, 
at this instance, which is the aid that the United States is providing 
to our democratic ally, the democratically-elected government of 
Colombia, I am hearing that we cannot debate that as well.
  The contradiction makes no sense. We are debating it right now, and 
we in the Committee on Rules permitted, authorized this debate and it 
is taking place. So that is one thing that struck me that I was not 
able to understand how the argument can be made that we are not 
debating when we are debating. We are debating. We have been debating 
hour after hour after hour after hour, and now we are debating on the 
issue, the very important issue of United States assistance to the 
democratically-elected government of Colombia.
  The point was made previously that we do not know who the good guys 
are and the bad guys are in Colombia. The reality of the matter, that 
is not an issue to be decided by the United States. There is a 
democratically-elected government in Colombia that is a friend and an 
ally of the United States, and it is the democratically-elected 
government in Colombia that is under attack by 3 major, extremely well-
financed terrorist groups that engage in narco-trafficking.
  The supplemental that we are debating today is a counterterrorism 
supplemental, and I think it is appropriate for us to consider not only 
to debate but in this case to help the democratically-elected 
government of Colombia in counterterrorism efforts. That is the subject 
matter that we are dealing with in this supplemental.
  Another point was brought out previously incorrectly as though this 
legislation would raise the cap on the number of American trainers that 
are in Colombia. There is a number of approximately 500 now, and that 
is not being affected by the legislation. The legislation, that I am 
informed by my friends on the Committee on Appropriations is the 
product of a bipartisan compromise, was voted out with votes on both 
sides of the aisle, and leaders from the Democratic party, with whom we 
have very serious differences on many issues, agreed in the Committee 
on Appropriations to this compromise.
  So I think that it is very important, especially when we are 3 days 
away from a presidential election in that country, that friend and ally 
Colombia, when all of the major candidates for president agree that 
assistance from us, from the United States, is required for Colombia to 
achieve peace, that we at this point continue with the bipartisan 
compromise that came out of the Committee on Appropriations and that we 
say in a consensus fashion this evening, again in a bipartisan way, 
that we realize what is going on in Colombia, that the majority of 
terrorist attacks in the world are against the people of Colombia. They 
may not be covered by the media, but the reality of the matter is there 
is not a day that passes that tragedy does not strike the people of 
Colombia from the terrorist groups that we are helping the 
democratically-elected government of Colombia combat, and that we are 
helping in this supplemental by increasing our assistance to the 
democratically-elected government of Colombia.
  Those 3 terrorist groups have a stranglehold on our democratic ally 
in Colombia and that ally deserves and has received and must continue 
to receive our aid because those terrorist groups that are narco-
terrorists are massacring, they are killing each day, attacking the 
fabric of society each day.
  So that is why I think that the bipartisan compromise that was worked 
out is to be commended. I hope that this House this evening supports 
what the Committee on Appropriations passed and overwhelmingly defeats 
the McGovern amendment which would in effect tell the Colombian people, 
just a few days before their election, that we do not care about them 
and we do not respect their democracy. Vote down McGovern.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Very interesting. I cannot believe what I just heard the gentleman 
from Florida say. He said we ought to support the bipartisan compromise 
that has just been worked out in the committee on this product. That is 
what we have been saying for the last 2 days with respect to the entire 
bill.
  What we have said on the bill is we had a bipartisan bill as it came 
out of the committee. It has been hijacked by the Republican 
leadership. If you want to continue bipartisan cooperation, which we 
ought to have, if this is indeed a war supplemental, then drop the 
partisan agenda that has been imposed by the Republican leadership of 
this House and stick to the bipartisan compromise. That is what we have 
been saying.
  We have been ignored all day long until now. Suddenly it meets 
someone's convenience to utter those same words. Stick to the 
bipartisan compromise.
  Well, I am going to do that. I happen to think that our policy in 
Colombia is futile. I have been following developments in Colombian 
society for almost 40 years. I do not for the slightest moment think 
that they have the capacity either economically or politically or 
socially to do what is necessary to help themselves against the FARC 
and the other terrorist organizations in that country, and I do not 
believe in getting involved in futile exercises. That is why I think 
the whole policy is stupid and doomed.
  Frankly, if I had my way I would flip it. This language that is in 
the bill

[[Page H3004]]

does not particularly bother me because the language says if you are 
already going after FARC and the ELN and the paramilitary groups on the 
drug front, also go after them on the terrorism and kidnapping front. I 
do not have a special problem with that. In fact, I wish it were the 
other way around.
  I would be a whole lot more comfortable seeing them focus on 
terrorism than on drugs because on drugs we are only fighting half a 
battle. We are sending our troops down to Colombia to advise them how 
to fight a war on drugs when we are not fighting that same war at home. 
We have tried consistently, consistently, at home to say that if you 
are going to invest $500 million or $1 billion in Colombia to fight 
drugs, do the same thing at home to build enough drug treatment slots 
so that we take care of the demand here. That is the way to fight 
drugs, but we have not been able to get the majority party to support 
that.
  There is one difference between me and the leadership of your party. 
I am going to stick to the bipartisan deals that I sign on to. They 
have not. They sucker us on each bill. They say put together a 
bipartisan compromise, work together, and we do, and then they decide 
to impose a partisan agenda. So I do not have any faith in this policy, 
but we worked in good faith with the gentleman from Arizona and others 
to work out language on this bill as part of a bipartisan compromise 
that would prevent the administration from providing all of the waivers 
that are in existing law that are protections against excess 
involvement, and while I am not satisfied with that and I do not think 
in the end it will work, because I believe on whole I am a person of 
integrity, I am going to stick to the deal that we made even though I 
do not think that it will work, and I hope that we can in the Senate 
work out a different arrangement.
  So I am going to take the advice of the gentleman from Florida. I 
believe on the big questions, as well as the little ones, we should 
stick to the bipartisan compromise. God, I wish your leadership agreed.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I heard the gentleman from Florida a few moments ago talk about the 
importance of debate and democracy, and of course, that is very true.

                              {time}  1915

  And of course that is very true. But the essence of democracy is the 
ability to vote, and we are being deprived of the ability to vote. That 
is what democracy is all about. Let us have some votes on some of these 
issues.
  I also want to take this opportunity to express my deep respect for 
the gentleman from Arizona. He is a true humanitarian. I have had an 
opportunity to observe that firsthand. But the policy that we are 
arguing about in this bill is contrary to that. We are in the process 
of getting ourselves into a very deep mess in Colombia. We have already 
gone too far. But now we are being asked to go even further.
  As we learned just a few moments ago from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Colombia's own contribution to its military is limited. 
It spends less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product on the 
military, and recruits with high school degrees are exempted from 
serving in combat. High inequality, gaping urban-rural divisions and 
government abandonment of poor populations underlie this decades-old 
conflict in Colombia. U.S. military aid, as we are being asked to 
provide now, is only going to make this problem worse, reinforcing the 
inequities that exist in Colombia between the educated and the 
noneducated, between the poor and the rich.
  There is already evidence that the United States aid has not made a 
dent in the drug war. In fact, things have worsened recently. Coca 
production rose by 25 percent last year. Killings of civilians rose 
from 14 per day in 1999 to 20 per day in 2002; 300,000 civilians were 
forcibly displaced last year. Most recently, on May 2, 117 innocent 
civilians were killed in the crossfire of the FARC and the United Self-
Defense Forces, the AUC. While seeking safety in a church, these people 
were slaughtered. The Colombian military did nothing to ensure their 
safety, in spite of numerous calls for help.
  According to human rights groups, 85 percent of Colombia's political 
killings and so-called disappearances and 76 percent of all civilian 
massacres were committed by the illegal paramilitary groups like the 
United Self-Defense Forces, which has extensive links with the 
Colombian military. Despite this, since 1997, 80 percent of U.S. aid to 
Colombia has been given to the military forces. It makes absolutely no 
sense to send aid to a military that works with a terrorist group.
  If we are really interested in helping Colombia, we should support 
its civil institutions and effectively implement alternative 
development programs to support the rural communities which are most 
adversely affected by the war. We must continue to provide humanitarian 
aid to internally displaced persons, especially the Afro- Colombian 
community. We must demand the Colombian military break ties with the 
paramilitaries.
  We must also recognize that our counternarcotics efforts in Colombia 
have failed to curb domestic drug abuse here in the United States. 
Instead of aiding and abetting a civil war, we should be spending more 
money at home on drug treatment and prevention programs to reduce the 
demand for drugs here in the United States. It is by dealing with the 
demand side of this problem that we will reach a solution to it. We are 
never going to reach a solution by focusing all of our attention and 
energies only on the supply side. Administration after administration 
has failed in that regard.
  Let us not allow U.S. forces to be deployed anywhere in the world 
under this undefined global war on terrorism. We are being asked over 
and over again to provide military aid and assistance, to send our 
troops to places far away, dispersed in the so-called war on terrorism, 
a war that has not been defined by the administration. We do not know 
who the enemy is precisely. We do not know who we are fighting. 
Nevertheless, we are asked to spends billions of dollars on this ill 
defined, unclear, vague war on terrorism and send our military people 
out there to do the fighting. It is a serious mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to support this McGovern-Skelton amendment 
before we send more money to known human rights violators and become 
enmeshed even more deeply in a brutal civil war on the side of the 
oppressors and against the oppressed.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard from the gentleman from Florida a lot of talk 
about democracy. Today we stand here talking about democracy, and yet 
we are going to be adding $750 billion to our citizens' credit cards, 
increasing their credit card debt. And at the same time we fight this 
war, this war is being paid for by our seniors, the ones that are least 
capable of doing that, from our Social Security and Medicare fund.
  Every single war that we have had, we have had a tax, all the way 
from the Spanish-American War. And in fact we still have it to this 
day. Every single war, we have been there and we have been willing to 
pay that tax to pay for that war. This is the first war that I know of 
that we have rewarded the corporations by giving them a tax cut to the 
most wealthy, and we put it on the backs of the ones who least are able 
to pay. In addition, not only are we doing that, but we put it on the 
backs of our soldiers that are out there fighting the war. We expect 
them also to pay the debt later on after we are gone.
  The amendment before us, authored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), and we all know him to be the ranking minority member on the 
Committee on Armed Services, is an amendment that I would ask for my 
colleagues to look at seriously. It is an amendment that talks about 
the fact that for the longest time in South America we talked and they 
learned the lingo. In South America, they learned, well, if we talk 
about Communists down here, we might get some money from the Americans; 
if we talk about drug dealers, we might get some money from the 
Americans. And now the lingo is, let us identify them as terrorists, 
and we might get some money from the Americans.
  The reality is that in Colombia the commitment on their part when we 
look in terms of their expenditures for

[[Page H3005]]

the military and our expenditures, we are basically funding their war. 
I know later on we will hear from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) about the haves and a large number of have-nots. So we have a 
struggle for the last 35 years, a genuine struggle for democracy in 
that effort; and we have a struggle that we are now deciding to get 
involved in.
  I sit on the Committee on Armed Services; and when they first came to 
us, I will be honest, I voted for the amendment to go and get involved 
in Colombia. One of the first questions I asked, because we asked the 
military for a military response, and that is what we got, we got a 
military response, and I asked them, how are you going to make a 
distinction between who the dealers are, who are the good guys and who 
are the bad guys? Initially, they could not respond. They said they 
were going to go after the drug dealers.
  We recognize that there are both drug dealers on the right, on the 
left, on the genuine side and even on the government side. They are all 
over. The key is, who do we go after? The gentleman from Florida talks 
about the fact that it is a democracy. Yes, it is a democracy, and we 
need to push it forward. And we can do some things to help them to move 
forward, but this is not the way to do it.
  When they came before us, I also asked them, in dealing with drugs, 
how do you expect to be able to contain it to just Colombia? We talked 
about it, and there was analogy made that if we put the squeeze on 
Colombia, we knew darn well that, like a balloon, when you squeeze the 
balloon, and if there are drug dealers there, they are going to move 
elsewhere. And sure enough, now they have come to us and they have 
said, you know what, this thing has gone into the other surrounding 
countries. So now we are funding about seven other countries around 
there because there are also drugs occurring there. That is exactly 
what we did not want to occur, but we have that happening now. We put 
the squeeze on them and they are gone.
  The reality is in dealing with drugs in this country, and we have to 
face it, and we know it full well, that we have been unwilling to deal 
with it here in this country. I worked as a drug counselor, as a social 
worker for 7 years, with both heroin addicts and adolescent substance 
abuse. And in the 1970s and 1980s, I recall the district attorneys 
every election time they would come up and pick up a lot of the heroin 
addicts. Very few times did they ever pick up the ones who were 
actually pushing to make the money. Most of those people, as we well 
know, some are pillars of our community that we have chosen not to go 
after. We have chosen our scapegoats.
  It is better to go spend our resources in South America and 
elsewhere, because we have chosen not to go after those pillars of our 
communities after those drugs. And until we decide to do that, and 
until we decide that is the way we will be able to fight this, this is 
only going to escalate and go further.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, while today our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle continue their dilatory tactics, our Armed Forces are in combat 
and the Nation is at war. The bill before us represents Congress' 
simple role in fighting that war. It provides necessary funds for our 
ongoing military operations, and it improves our security at home.
  The bill provides a total of $15.7 billion for the Department of 
Defense. These additional funds represent the additional personnel 
costs associated with force mobilization, the replacement of critical 
spare parts, and the procurement of essential high-priority munitions. 
We need to pass this and encourage our troops.
  However, our friends on the other side of the aisle are only willing 
to approve these necessary funds if, and I emphasize if, they are 
brought to the floor under the terms that they would dictate.
  Admittedly, the bill contains funding that would not go to the war 
effort and homeland security, but that is nothing really new with any 
kind of supplemental. Nothing new in this Chamber. The reality is each 
of us can find something wrong with this bill, but overall the bill is 
necessary and our colleagues know that that is true.
  Mr. Chairman, it is now time to end the debate and move on and pass 
this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate, and I believe that 
it is a crucial debate. I rise to support the McGovern-Skelton 
amendment, and I raise a number of questions today.
  This is an emergency supplemental; and, therefore, the basis of this 
amendment should be in the context of an emergency. I am concerned that 
we are creating an emergency.
  I had the opportunity to speak to both the president of Colombia and 
the ambassador. Let me say that I am certainly impressed with the 
efforts that are being made by this new president. I believe that he is 
sincere. I am also aware of what Colombians seem to be confronting.
  As was said early on the floor, they spend little, if any, on their 
own military personnel. In addition to the 14 a day that have been 
killed since 1999, we now know that they are killing 20 per day in 
2002. Included in those deaths are elected officials, women who have 
been assassinated, who have been decapitated, those who are speaking 
about democracy.
  So when we come to the floor with legislation that begins now to 
pierce further into the dilemma in Colombia, the war that Colombia is 
having, and we begin to start designating terrorist organizations and 
funding terrorist organizations, we have to raise this question of 
whether or not this is the right direction.
  I understand they had hearings in the Committee on International 
Relations, but I am not sure of any resolution that came about as a 
result of those hearings.

                              {time}  1930

  The issue required their deliberation, but the decision was made not 
to pursue a markup. I would have wanted to hear their input. Because 
what I view in the present legislation is almost similar to the open 
rule that I thought we had and would have allowed us to vote on the 
increase in the debt ceiling. This is smoke and mirrors. We now have 
language in this emergency supplemental that, one, characterizes this 
as an emergency in a war supplemental, and so it suggests to me that we 
are actually going to war and that now we have defined fighting drugs, 
which have not been that successful in Colombia, to now fighting 
terrorists. What does that mean? It means that a whole new set of armed 
forces and military personnel may find themselves, U.S. personnel, to 
Colombia on the basis of we are fighting the war on terrorism.
  Let me just suggest to my colleagues, realizing that I have the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on the floor, and I know that he 
has worked on this issue, that this is bad policy in an emergency 
supplemental to start a whole new war. I am disturbed and believe that 
the McGovern-Skelton amendment is the right approach to take because 
what it says is it will narrow us to the work that we were intended to 
do, to try to be successful on that work, which already has its faults, 
and not begin to wage war against terrorists without any further 
investigation of such.
  This language in the supplemental would open up sending our young men 
and women to Colombia to fight a war not thought out and where Colombia 
sends few of its own to fight. This is bad foreign policy and should 
not be pursued.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas very much for 
yielding.
  To my dear disingenuous friend from Florida who wants to know why the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) was complaining about the 
procedure, it is not that we are debating it now. Is there a Member 
here that does not know that at midnight you are going to run a rule 
through us and keep us up until 3 or 4 in the morning? Oh. Oh.
  To my dear friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) who 
said, ``Colombia is a democracy. It is a friend and an ally. What are 
we doing questioning this?''

[[Page H3006]]

  The answer is that they only spend 1.9 percent of their GDP for 
defense. That is why.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not about Colombia. It is about our own military. 
That is what this bill is about. That is what you people should be 
talking about.
  Freedom is not free. I am standing here before you as a 29-year Air 
Force veteran. During that time I had the honor of running two military 
bases. At that level, you know firsthand what it takes to keep our 
military safe, strong and secure. And when you are in charge, you want 
to give them the best. They need great planes, tanks, trucks and 
munitions. This bill helps give our military men and women just that.
  America is a whole different country since September 11. A terrorist 
attack, designed to tear us apart, has actually put our Nation closer 
together. We cannot desert our troops now.
  Despite the ill wishes of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, this bill shows our military that America cares about them and 
wants the best for them. This bill would replenish depleted attack 
munitions. The war will be long. Our troops have been strong. So we 
must give them more munitions they need if they are going to fight for 
our freedom.
  Sadly, no one knows more than I the horrors of fighting without 
munitions. I fought in both Korea and Vietnam. When I was in Vietnam, 
we ran out of munitions because this Congress would not fund them. We 
are at that same point again. I had to carry munitions on a mission 
that I was not supposed to carry that munition on. They were 
cannibalizing airplanes. They are doing that today in our services. And 
the gun that was cannibalized on my airplane did not fire. Because that 
gun did not fire, I was shot down. I tried to fire at the enemy, but 
nothing came out.
  It was on that tragic mission, April 16, 1966, that started my 7 
years in captivity, more than half of that time in solitary 
confinement. Please, I urge you not to let that happen to any other 
member of our military. We must learn from our mistakes. Our men and 
women in uniform deserve the best America has to offer, not the worst.
  Make no mistake, the U.S. military has come to the aid of America. It 
is time that America came to the aid of our military. We must win the 
war for freedom. It is not for freedom just for America. It is for the 
freedom of the world.
  Let us help our military. God bless you all. I know you will.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment and 
I want to particularly salute the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Forces.
  Let me begin by saying I believe that every Member here cares about 
Colombia and wants to see peace for our South American neighbor. There 
is this disagreement which leads to a discussion about how to get 
there.
  I argue for not rushing to a change of policy. That is all this 
amendment does. Because if we do, it will be hard to undo. Because in 
such a short time, Colombia will have a new president and congress. And 
so, my friends, the prudent and commonsense course of action would be 
to wait until after the Colombian presidential elections and the new 
administration is installed in August. Can we not wait until August to 
find out who is going to be running the country? Of course we can. At 
that time it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss strategy and 
commitments that the new government is willing to make regarding human 
rights, judicial reform, alternative development and peace efforts. 
Then let the Congress consider it fully after, and not before, we know 
who will make up the Colombian government, because we have got some 
problems there. We have got paramilitary getting elected to this 
democratic form of government.
  There is an unknown aspect of this conflict about Afro-Colombians 
that I would like to raise, not well known. Afro-Colombians, my 
friends, make up 26 percent of Colombia's 40 million people. There are 
few in the Congress who are aware that Afro-Colombians have 
constitutionally protected cultural and territorial rights. Their 
Federal Law 70 of 1993 sets out a land titling process by which Afro-
Colombian communities may be granted collective title to lands that 
they have traditionally lived on. Yet they suffer immensely and are 
often neglected. They make up a disproportionate number of displaced 
persons in Colombia. Some say they make up half of the two million to 
three million internally displaced persons in that country. They have 
been forced to flee, mostly by the paramilitaries, sometimes in 
collaboration with the Colombian military, and sometimes by apparent 
neglect by the Colombian military. Some question why these Afro-
Colombians are being pushed off the land, which brings me to the May 2 
church massacre already referred to by the gentleman from New York, the 
church massacre in Bellavista, Choco, the Colombian province with the 
greatest percentage of African-descended Colombians. At least 119 
people died. A third were children, 95 wounded, 40 missing, and now 
thousands displaced. All of the victims were of African descent. The 
bomb that burned the church was thrown by the FARC guerillas in a 
battle with the AUC paramilitaries. I deplore the actions of both of 
these illegal and armed groups. But what is disturbing and more 
alarming was the inaction of the Colombian government. Despite repeated 
warnings of imminent violence issued by the Colombian Human Rights 
Ombudsman's office beginning in July 2001 and up until a week in 
advance of the massacre, the Colombian armed forces did nothing.
  The warnings were echoed by the United Nations High Commission for 
Human Rights in Colombia. Yet the Colombian armed forces did not even 
arrive until three days after the massacre.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment. 
Let me begin by saying that I believe that every member cares about 
Colombia and wants to see peace for our South American neighbor. There 
is disagreement on how to get there.
  First, we should not rush into a change of policy that will later be 
hard to undo. Why? Because in such a short time, Colombia will have a 
new president and congress. The prudent and common sense course of 
action would be to wait until after the Colombian presidential 
elections and the new administration is installed this August. At that 
time, it would be appropriate to discuss strategy and the commitments 
the new government is willing to make regarding human rights, judicial 
reform, alternative development, and peace efforts. Then let Congress 
consider it fully, after, not before, we know who will make up the next 
Colombian government.
  Second, the situation of Afro-Colombians is not a well-known aspect 
of the Colombian conflict. Afro-Colombians make up 26% of Colombia's 40 
million people. There are few in the Congress who are aware that Afro-
Colombians have constitutionally protected cultural and territorial 
rights. And, Law 70 of 1993 sets out a land titling process by which 
Afro-Colombian communities may be granted collective title to lands 
they have lived on traditionally.
  Yet, Afro-Colombians suffer immensely and are often neglected. They 
make up a disproportionate number the displaced persons in Colombia. 
Some say they make up more that half of the 2-3 million internally 
displaced persons in Colombia. Once displaced, many Afro-Colombians 
face the double discrimination of being black and displaced. They have 
been forced to flee mostly by paramilitaries, sometimes in 
collaboration with the Colombian military, and sometimes by apparent 
neglect by the Colombian military. Some question why the Afro-
Colombians are being pushed off their land.
  Which brings me to the May 2, church massacre in Bellavista, Choco, 
the Colombian province with the greatest percentage of African-
descendants. At least 119 people died, a third were children, 95 
wounded, approximately 40 are missing, and now thousands are displaced. 
All of the victims were African descendants. Yes, the bomb that burned 
the church was thrown by the FARC guerillas in a battle with the AUC 
paramilitaries. I deplore the actions of both of these illegal armed 
groups. But what was perhaps more alarming was the inaction of the 
Colombian government. Despite repeated warnings of imminent violence 
issued by the Colombian Human

[[Page H3007]]

Rights Ombudsman's office beginning in July 2001, and up until one week 
in advance of the massacre, the Colombian Armed Forces did nothing. The 
warnings were echoed by the United Nations High Commission for Human 
Rights' office in Colombia. Yet, the Colombian Armed Forces did not 
arrive in the area until after May 5th according to a report in El 
Tiempo, Colombia's largest daily newspaper.

  In fact, 24 members of Congress and I signed a letter to President 
Pastrana asking him what happened. We give Colombia money to develop an 
early warning system to prevent such atrocities. But early warning does 
not work if it is not followed by early action by the Colombian 
government. Ambassador Anne Patterson called my office immediately upon 
receiving the letter. We have yet to hear from the Colombian 
government. This is not an encouraging example of Colombia's commitment 
to protect its own citizenry. To top it off, there were reports of 
paramilitary and Colombian military collusion. The Colombian government 
invited the UN to investigate this tragedy. Then according to El 
Tiempo, high officials in the Colombian government criticized the UN 
Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, Mr. Anders Kompass, when he 
mentioned reports of the collusion between the Colombian military and 
the AUC paramilitaries, who are a US-designated foreign terrorist 
organization.
  The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson defended the 
work of the Commission in Colombia and said it was lamentable that the 
Colombian government questioned their work. The UN Commission just 
completed its report and found the FARC and the AUC responsible for the 
massacre because of their fighting near civilians. The Commission also 
found the Colombian government responsible due to its inaction and what 
looks like collusion with the paramilitaries. The paramilitaries 
traveled by air and boat in the area and were not stopped by government 
forces.
  Again, the situation of Afro-Colombians is not well known. Some 
question why the Afro-Colombians are being pushed off their lands. 
Afro-Colombian territories are strategically located and rich in 
resources. Law 70 requires that Afro-Colombian communities be consulted 
regarding projects that may impact their lands. This is not happening, 
if people have had to flee. Also, a number of displacements and 
massacres occurred shortly after collective titles were granted. This 
land-terror aspect of the Colombian conflict needs to be investigated. 
So, before we change our policy in Colombia, I would like to know what 
commitments the next government will make to protect its citizens, in 
particular Afro-Colombians. I would like to know how their territorial 
rights are being protected and if the government has a plan to ensure 
people's safety so that they can return to their lands. We all know the 
Colombian government does not have a perfect human rights record. Given 
the past, there are many important questions to ask of the next 
administration.
  In addition, President Pastrana wrote an op-ed that was published in 
the Herald on May 1, 2002, the day before the Bellavista massacre. In 
it he wrote that ``for the first time, the Colombian military is 
capable of defeating the terrorists on the battlefield,'' and that his 
administration is spending more money on defense. If that is the case, 
where is the emergency? And, where was this capable army after the 
early warnings in Bellavista?

  This is a nearly 40 year-old civil conflict. In 1967, 35 years ago, 
Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of the use of American helicopters against 
rebels in Colombia in his anti-Vietnam War speech, exactly one year 
before he died. And this war is still going on. Where is evidence that 
Colombia has a winning solution now? The House Defense Authorization 
bill grants Secretary Rumsfeld a waiver allowing him to lift the 500-
person cap on US military personnel in Colombia in the name of national 
security. He then only has to inform Congress within 15 days after the 
fact. Colombia begins to look like more like Vietnam every day. There 
are no Al Qaeda cells in Colombia. But, the State Department admits 
that the Colombian Armed Forces still collaborate with the AUC 
paramilitaries, a US-designated foreign terrorist organization. Why 
would we give lethal aid to a government that works with one terrorist 
group to fight another? Where is the consistency in our policy?
  The military leader of the AUC paramilitaries, Salvatore Mancuso, 
recently claimed that their candidates received more than 35% of the 
seats in Colombia's March legislative elections. If Mullah Omar claimed 
that Taliban candidates received more than 35% of the legislative 
elections in Afghanistan, you can bet that would be investigated. Also, 
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson has expressed 
concern about this claim. She also is concerned that the leading 
candidate has spoken of arming one million civilians and warned that 
the civilian population should not be dragged into the conflict.
  We are told peace is our goal in Colombia, yet the House has not even 
had one hearing on the Colombian peace process. Why are we seeking a 
military solution in such haste? What is the hurry in going down what 
appears to be a slippery slope? And what ever happened to our own 
homeland security in the War on Drugs? Why is there no money in this 
bill to fund substance abuse? The administration and some members of 
congress are obsessed with taking drug money away from guerillas, but 
don't share the same obsession when it comes to helping the American 
people who need drug treatment. The Office of National Drug Control 
Policy spends millions of dollars on television ads trying to persuade 
our citizenry that those who do drugs in the United States are 
supporting terrorism. So, in this ``Global War on Terrorism'', should 
it not be a priority to help our own people overcome their addictions?
  To change our policy before knowing who the next government will be 
would be premature, imprudent, and naive. The common sense course of 
action is to wait until we know who we are dealing with and what 
commitments they are prepared to make.
  Vote yes on McGovern-Skelton.
  Note--Even though the authority granted in this bill would run out 
September 30, 2002, that still would give an unknown government 54 days 
to wage war. A lot can happen in 54 days.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The reason I do this is 
that I, along with other members of the Committee on Agriculture, spent 
time in Colombia in January. We spent quite a bit of time with 
President Pastrana. We spent quite a bit of time with their ambassador. 
I do not believe that a lot of people in the United States really fully 
realize the situation there.
  At the present time, the guerrillas and the paramilitary forces 
control most of the firepower and control most of the money in the 
country. And so we are concerned about the fact that the government in 
Colombia is not providing enough aid to the military. The reason is 
that most of the money is in the hands of the guerrillas.
  At the present time there are 600,000 acres of coca plants in 
Colombia. Out of that 600,000 acres of coca plants, 90 percent of the 
cocaine coming into the United States comes from those fields. The only 
way presently that anyone down there knows to control the problem is to 
bring in gunships, helicopters, which hover over those fields and 
protect the spray planes that then come in and spray the coca. Without 
those gunships and without that military aid, they have no chance, 
because they do not have enough military help and they do not have 
enough financing to battle this issue.
  I certainly agree with one of the previous speakers when that person 
said that we need to dry up the demand. That is the number one thing 
that we have to do in this country. Drugs are ruining our young people 
and we have to fight drugs on every front. Interdiction is part of 
this.
  And so I think that we are missing the point here if we say we just 
do not want to help Colombia, because they have a significant problem 
and we are talking about fighting terrorism around the world and the 
people who are controlling the situation in Colombia right now are 
terrorists. There is no question. We talked to President Pastrana. He 
spent one week in the control of those terrorists and escaped 
miraculously through many fortunate events. Of course, since then they 
have had other politicians that have been captured by those terrorists 
and have been killed. So we went to Cartagena, which was the one city 
we could find in Colombia that was reasonably safe, that was reasonably 
under friendly control down there. So many other cities were not even 
safe to attempt to control at that time.
  That is why I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for, and I am sorry he is 
not on the floor anymore, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). I 
have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Osborne), the former coach. But they have come to the wrong conclusion 
on this.
  I think I have been to Colombia more than any Member of Congress in 
the past 10 years. I do not know that for a fact, but I think so. I 
have lost track of

[[Page H3008]]

the trips. And I do not go to Cartagena and take the carriage ride 
through the tourist section. I have been to Neva, I have been to San 
Jose, I have been to where the pipeline is that the President wants to 
spend $98 million of our tax money to protect a pipeline owned by 
Occidental Petroleum through which Colombian National Oil Company oil 
flows and, by the way, they had record profits last year.

                              {time}  1945

  I have got to tell you, every time I come back from Colombia, I come 
back with the same sick conclusion, and that is that the Colombians are 
going to do their utmost to get us to fight this civil war for them.
  You see, what has not been mentioned yet today is unlike the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who had two sons in Desert Storm, 
the Colombians just changed their law to where if you have a high 
school diploma, you are exempt from their draft. All of us can get the 
gist of that real quick. The politicians' sons are not going to fight 
this war. The poor bubba from the countryside, he does not have a high 
school diploma, so he goes and gets shot.
  The Colombians are in the midst of a 38-year civil war, and yet they 
have cut their own defense budget in the past three years. Now, that is 
a fact.
  Let me tell you what is even worse. When I went to little towns like 
Neva, it is probably a big deal in a little town like that for an 
American congressman to show up, so their chamber of commerce came out 
to meet me. We had a very long visit. We drank a few beers. They were 
amazingly honest.
  I said, ``Guys,'' I was trying to compare their tax load to ours. I 
said, ``What do you all pay in taxes?'' These were bankers, these were 
lawyers, these were the local mayor, the civic leaders. Their answer 
was, ``We don't pay taxes. Yes, they are on the books, but we don't pay 
them.''
  You see, Americans do pay taxes, and what I really resent is a 
country where they pride themselves on not paying taxes, where they 
pride themselves on their kids avoiding military service, asking people 
in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia, whose kids do volunteer to 
serve our country, to go fight their war for them.
  I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is exactly 
right. And I will take it a step further. I want to make this as 
personal as I can. I think it is insane for this Nation to spend $98 
million to protect a pipeline that Occidental Petroleum owns with 
American lives.
  I am going to make this as personal as humanly possible. President 
Bush, I will send my kids to guard that pipeline when you send your 
kids to guard that pipeline. Because I do not think you are going to 
see your daughters down there, and I sure as heck do not want to see my 
daughters or my son down there.
  If the Colombians do not take their civil war seriously, then we 
should not either. My God, all day long we have been talking about 
being for the troops. Is not the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) 
proof positive what goes wrong when good kids go off to fight a war 
that our Nation does not really understand, that a Nation maybe should 
not be involved in? This is that case.
  Guys, this is dead serious. I shut down the House two weeks ago 
because I wanted a vote on this. I cannot go to a funeral in Wiggins, I 
cannot go to a funeral in Louisville, I cannot go to a funeral in 
Waynesboro, and look somebody in the eye and say your son or daughter 
died doing the best thing for America.
  This is not about America. The FARC and the ELN have gone out of 
their way not to target Americans. In 20 years, only 10 Americans have 
died in Colombia. They do not want us in their war. It is their war, 
and it is not worth sending my kids or your kids to die in. They do not 
even pay their own taxes. Their kids do not serve. So why on good God's 
good earth are we going to send our tax money and our kids to fight in 
it? Please support the Skelton-McGovern amendment. Do not waste one 
American life needlessly.
  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 and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  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 point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       (b) The provision shall also apply to unexpired balances 
     and assistance previously provided from prior years' Acts 
     available for purposes identified in subsection (a).
       (c) The authority in this section is in addition to 
     authorities currently available to provide assistance to 
     Colombia.
       Sec. 308. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to 
     Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 (Public Law 
     107-117), $93,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2004, is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for the procurement of three MH-47 Chinook helicopters, as 
     follows: ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'', $63,000,000; and 
     ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $30,000,000: Provided, That 
     the entire amount made available in this section 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: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for $93,000,000, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of Members have been asking me about a couple of 
the amendments that I have pending that no doubt we are going to get to 
later on tonight, or at least early in the morning. In anticipation of 
that, I have had my staff try to assemble some charts so I can stand 
here like so many experts have stood here today and back up my 
statements with charts. So as we move forward into this evening in 
anticipating that I certainly will have the opportunity later on 
tonight to explain my rationale in suggesting that we ought not give 
Israel and Arafat the $250 million that is encompassed in this bill, I 
prepared some charts. Actually, I borrowed some.
  I prepared some, like this one, that said ``we have to do this.'' It 
says ``President George Bush, August 14.'' I do not think Mr. Bush was 
talking about my particular amendment, but it is the only chart I had 
available to say, among other things, that President Bush did not ask 
for this money to be put in here to begin with, and I am sure if 
President Bush were here and I could get him on the telephone he would 
say so, but, unfortunately, he is in Europe, and, fortunately for us he 
is there, because he is trying to bring about peace throughout the 
world.
  As we go into the debate on my amendments I want to talk about the 
economy, and this is another chart that mentions the economy. I had to 
borrow this one, too. It is not exactly what I wanted with respect to 
making my point, but, nevertheless, I wanted to talk about the economy 
and Israel, I wanted to talk about the economy and Egypt, I wanted to 
talk about the corresponding economy in the United States, to make 
certain that Members understood that the economy in Israel and the 
economy in Egypt and the economy in other countries in some cases is 
better than it is in the United States.
  So by the time we get to mid-morning, when I am certain that the 
Committee on Rules will allow me to bring my amendments up, I will have 
all of these charts done in such a professional manner that you will be 
able to readily see my point with respect to what I am trying to say.
  So I have got some other charts. This one, I have to use it upside 
down to make my point. This is a chart that tells about the economy in 
Israel, about the economy in the United States and, even though it is 
not exactly what I would have liked to have had, it does personify my 
point. I will have some more charts for you.
  So as we reach this stage and as the Committee on Rules brings a rule 
tonight that permits my amendments to

[[Page H3009]]

come up, I will have some real professionally done charts to make my 
point. I am optimistic that once I make my point, not only will I 
convince a majority of this House of the merits of my amendment, we 
will also be able to convince the American people that when you adopt 
my amendment, you are doing exactly the right thing.
  So anticipating that we will be debating this later on tonight, I 
just wanted to let you all know that I am working feverishly trying to 
come up with some professional charts. I hope to have some pictures by 
1 o'clock when this probably will come up, and I probably will have.
  But all of you are asking about these amendments, and especially that 
aid to Arafat, and I want you to have the opportunity to vote on that, 
and we are going to bring it up, I am optimistic, in whatever rule the 
Committee on Rules comes out with, and I will have some charts for you 
that will prove my point.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I just was wondering if you all had some handouts like 
this one as well?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will have handouts 
as well, too, provided I have the opportunity to bring my amendment up. 
When I bring my amendment up, I will ask some of you that have been 
coming up to me telling me all day long, ``Sonny, you are doing exactly 
the right thing,'' I am going to have some handouts, and I want some of 
you to take these handouts and stand at the door and give these to the 
Members as they come in so they can understand exactly what we are 
talking about.
  It is not a question of whether or not we love Israel, because we all 
do; it is a question of what is right and wrong. So, in any event, to 
those of you that have been anxiously awaiting all day long, we are on 
the brink of having this debate, as soon as the Committee on Rules 
comes back. By the time they come back, I will have the charts that 
really bring out vividly my points.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), and he is my good friend, because we 
have worked together on so many issues, I really do not find this issue 
a laughing matter, and I do hope, my good friend, that when we bring 
the charts here, we will also show pictures of the devastation, of the 
lives that have been lost, about the empty hotels, the empty streets. 
Because of the suicide bombers, people are afraid.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, what my amendment would do would prohibit 
money from going to a terrorist that has been blowing up all of the 
people in Israel. It denies him the money to use for other things so he 
can have his money to blow up the people of Israel, and that I am 
opposed to.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was aware of several 
amendments. I am not sure if one amendment is regarding the $200 
million for Israel as well. I thought that was one of the amendments.
  I think for those of us who are in touch with people who are living 
there and hear stories of the empty hotels, the lack of commerce, the 
lack of any kind of interaction in the region, many of us had great 
hopes, as the gentleman was saying, for the economy to begin booming 
again, for trade between Egypt and Israel and the other nations in the 
region, certainly with Jordan. There was a great deal of work done with 
Israel and in the region in trying to have projects, sewer projects, 
water projects, to help lift the people up, to educate the people.
  So I take this amendment very seriously, and I do not believe that my 
colleagues should just treat it as an aside.
  I just want to say one other thing. The vast majority of funding in 
this bill was requested by the President and will be granted by 
Congress to help bolster the war on terrorism, and whether resources go 
to secure our Nation's borders, improve transportation security, help 
our men and women in uniform in Central Asia or alleviate the poverty 
and instability that provides a breeding ground for extremism, all of 
our oars should be pulling together against terrorism. And providing 
assistance for Israel, our ally, in that part of the world, is just one 
part of the campaign.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield for one 
other compliment to the gentlewoman, as you will recall, since you sat 
immediately to my right next to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) when I chaired this committee, together we gave Israel $20 
billion during the six-year period that I chaired that committee, more 
than any amount of money in any six-year history of this country. So we 
are not talking about aid to Israel that is a shortfall. It is in 
addition to the $20 billion that we have already given them.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I am afraid that I 
am quickly losing my time, yes, I was there when we were negotiating. 
The gentleman is talking about the Ne'eman Plan, and we all agreed to 
it. That was the time when there was interaction in the region. We did 
not have terrorists in the region blowing people up, blowing innocent 
children in a marketplace up. That was the time when we had hope for 
the future.
  The President has made it clear that we are united in the war against 
terrorism. We see what is going on in that region of the world, and 
that is why I have supported the amount put in the bill.
  Let me just say this: I have applauded the gentleman for crafting the 
plan. We worked together, we supported it. But times have changed. At 
that time, I would say to my chairman, my former chairman, we did not 
have a plane go into the World Trade Center. We did not have people 
dying in the street because of terrorists blowing people up.
  So I think this is very different, and I would certainly ask my 
colleagues, when these amendments come up, unless the gentleman decides 
not to offer those amendments at 2 in the morning, when they come up, 
that we understand the difference in the world today and how those 
people are suffering and how we need to deal with our allies and make 
sure that we keep that message consistent.

                              {time}  2000

  There is a war on terrorism. We support the war on terrorism whether 
it is the Middle East, whether it is in Afghanistan, no matter where it 
is; and that is the position of our President.
  So I hope the gentleman will reconsider and not offer those 
amendments.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, primarily, we are talking about the 
assistance to Arafat, the very person that we both despise because of 
the atrocities he has placed upon the citizens of Israel. How in the 
world anybody in this House could support giving money to a terrorist 
so he can use his existing money to do other things is unimaginable?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am very pleased that 
the chairman has withdrawn, as I understand it, one amendment which was 
funding for Israel, and if the gentleman is talking about the funding 
for Arafat and withdrawing that money, I agree with the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will insert in the Record at this point 
my letter to Ambassador Burns confirming my earlier conversation with 
him in which he represented before the administration that none of the 
funds provided by this bill will be made available for the United 
Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, but would rather go to NGOs and 
contractors working directly with the United States.
         Congressman Brad Sherman, 24th District, California, Las 
           Virgenes and Malibu, CA.,
                                                     May 23, 2002.
     Hon. William Burns,
     Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, The State 
         Department, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Burns: Thank you very much for your 
     telephone call this evening.
       I want to confirm with you that the $50 million in Economic 
     Support Funds for humanitarian and refugee assistance 
     provided

[[Page H3010]]

     for the Palestinian people in HR 4775, the Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill, will be distributed to NGOs and 
     contractors operating in Palestinian areas to help provide 
     for the critical needs of Palestinians.
       Thank you for confirming that none of the funds in this 
     bill will be made available by the Administration for the 
     United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
           Sincerely,
                                                     Brad Sherman,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to inform the House tongue 
in cheek that I have just been informed by an intelligence agency that 
the Netherlands are preparing for an invasion by the United States in 
response to the bill now before us. I have a note from Harry DeWit, 
counselor of cultural affairs, Netherlands Embassy saying, ``We are 
quite alarmed to hear about the impending invasion of the Netherlands. 
Our military is on high alert. We would really value you forwarding any 
news and relevant information as soon as it comes to your attention 
and, in particular, as it regards the timing. I would like to be able 
to notify my superiors at the ministry prior to any invasion, and by 
doing so, I hope to improve my chances for promotion. I would 
appreciate your contacting me at your earliest convenience.''
  Mr. Chairman, I assume that is because the DeLay amendment to this 
bill, which is now part of this bill, gives the President the authority 
to use military force to extract prisoners from the World Court if they 
are accused of war crimes, but it does not just apply to U.S. citizens, 
it also applies to allies. So we could have an appointed official from 
a foreign country who we are going to use our military force against 
such as the Netherlands in order to ``rescue.''
  If we did that, I am informed we would also be in violation of the 
NATO charter, because the NATO charter says, if you make war against 
one NATO ally, you make war against them all.
  I have a chart here which I showed my colleagues yesterday labeled 
``Tom DeLay's Proposed Invasion of the Netherlands.'' It shows that 
perhaps we might do it by sea, we might do it by air, we might involve 
paratroopers. To make sure that this time, the gentleman from Texas 
knows where the Hague is, we have listed it on the map. I do not know 
what military force the Netherlands would use to repel our invasion, 
but I assume they will use something.
  So I would simply say that this appears like a laughing matter, but 
it is not. The greatest deliberative body in the world, the House of 
Representatives, for the greatest democracy in the world, the United 
States of America, ought to approach these issues with more seriousness 
than was demonstrated by the lack of care in the drafting of the DeLay 
amendment. I think the DeLay amendment raises a legitimate question 
with respect to United States citizens, but I think the proper way to 
deal with that is to allow the President to negotiate changes in the 
treaty, rather than having Congress ride off like the Lone Ranger, 
Marshal Dillon, and Daffy Duck at the same time.
  So with that, I would urge Members to think soberly about how this 
proposal as presently constituted makes us look to the world.


                   Motion To Rise Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 252, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                               AYES--144

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--252

     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Bentsen
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Combest
     Condit
     Crowley
     Deutsch
     Dooley
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Linder
     Lipinski
     McIntyre
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Petri
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roukema
     Sawyer
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Whitfield
     Wicker

[[Page H3011]]



                              {time}  2029

  Messrs. GANSKE, COLLINS, SOUDER, WILSON of South Carolina, WELLER, 
PICKERING, BLUNT, and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.





Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: