[Pages H92-H97]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 AND HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 2, FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 15 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 15

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of
Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of
Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 15 is a closed rule providing for the
consideration of two continuing resolutions, H.J. Res. 1 and H.J. Res.
2, both of which make further continuing appropriations for fiscal year
2003. The rule provides that H.J. Res. 1 will be debatable in the House
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.J.
Res. 1, and it provides one motion to recommit the underlying measure.
H.J. Res. 15 also provides that H.J. Res. 2 will be debatable in the
House for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.J.
Res. 2. It provides one motion to recommit.
As we start this year's legislative session, I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to consideration of
the two underlying continuing resolutions, both of which will allow the
Federal Government to remain open until the end of this month. Failure
to pass these measures would mean the government, outside of the
defense and military construction appropriations bills, would have to
shut down on midnight this Friday, January 10. We simply cannot allow
that to happen to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a good reason, other than nostalgia,
to explain why we are still trying to complete our work from 2002. The
rest of America has already celebrated the new year. They have already
started to write 2003 on their checks. But for the House of
Representatives, the calendar year has not turned.
Every year this House has the responsibility to pass the 13
appropriation bills that keep this government running.

{time} 1345

Funding for education, health care, environmental protection,
homeland security, national defense all must originate here. The
scorecard from the last Congress shows that the majority could only
pass 2 of these 13 bills. So we are here today to consider a sixth
continuing resolution to keep the government open and running. We are
here for one simple reason: The majority party in this House has
failed. They did not do their job, and the American people deserve to
know that.
Members of this House get up all of the time and give great speeches
about how much they value education, about how no child should be left
behind. But when it comes to actually funding education, the majority
says maybe we will get to it later.
I just met with leaders from hospitals and home health care agencies
and nursing homes in Massachusetts that are struggling just to hold on.
They need relief and they need it now; but when it comes to actually
funding our health care system, the majority says maybe we will get to
it later.
Where is our commitment to our police, our firefighters and other
first responders? Where is our commitment to environmental protection,
and funding for our transportation and infrastructure needs? Certainly
not in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, later is not good enough. We need to act now on the
issues that matter to the American people. Indeed, we should have acted
yesterday. As even senior Republican appropriators have pointed out, we
are leaving ourself extremely underfunded in the area of homeland
security. Take a look at port security, for example. Right now 21,000
shipping containers arrive in U.S. ports every day, each one big enough
to carry a weapon of mass destruction, but less than 2 percent are
actually screened.
As the Washington Post has reported, Customs Commissioner Robert
Bonner has said there is virtually no security for what is the primary
system to transport global trade.
Worse yet, the rule before us prevents Democrats from even offering
amendments to correct that mistake and provide that critical funding.
Somehow, the majority found time last year to pass huge tax breaks for
the wealthiest Americans, but not much else. We hear a lot of talk
about homeland security, but we are not funding our homeland security
needs.
This is a time for New Year's resolutions. I hope my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle will resolve to bring our appropriation
bills to the floor in a timely manner and let the House work its will,
vote and move on. The American people deserve a House of
Representatives that functions, that does the job given to it by the
Constitution, and I hope that we can at least achieve that much during
this new year.
Mr. Speaker, there will be a vote on the previous question, and I
urge my colleagues to vote no on that previous question. A no vote will
allow Democrats to offer important amendments to fund some of our vital
interests.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, of course the CR before us is not supposed
to have items that raise the cost of government, nor agreement on what
the cost should be. There is a sleeper item in this CR that Members
need to know about because it certainly raises the cost of government a
great deal and a great deal more than was necessary.
We are treated in this CR to a lease. That is I must say an
unprecedented circumvention of the committee process. Perhaps that
could be justified

[[Page H93]]

under some circumstances. There are three hugely negative consequences
for doing so today. We have raised the price of the interim
headquarters for the Homeland Security Department. We have disrespected
the committee which was in a position to help mitigate the price and
the length of the lease, and we have undermined the economy of the
Nation's capital. Let me say a word about each of those.
First, raise the price. What we have here is something that gives
every appearance of a sweetheart lease. It was supposed to be 5 years,
it is 10 years, which is more than is necessary because this is an
interim headquarters. This is not the headquarters. It cannot be
cancelled. It is for $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars for a
10-year lease. After 10 years, we could have bought a building. Why
would we lease a building for 10 years at a time when we are cutting
appropriations to smithereens.
We disrespected the committee to the detriment of this lease because
the committee had ideas about how to meet the deadline without signing
such a long lease that in effect bought the building, but at the end of
10 years taxpayers will have nothing to show for a 10-year lease. A
quarter of a billion dollars is the least of it. We are going to have
to add millions more to enhance the security of this leased building,
this building we do not own. We could have built this building.
Finally, we have undermined the economy of the Nation's capital. What
has been done is the Federal Government has taken all of the most
valuable land in the District of Columbia off for yourself. Having done
that, all we get in return are Federal jobs. We cannot tax the people
who come in here for their Federal jobs, but at least they can leave
their disposable income here. Now we will not even have that.
Mr. Speaker, according to a survey that we had done, a study that we
had done, the cost to the District of Columbia over 10 years is a loss
of $342 million. We cannot replace that money. Under the Constitution,
there are only two sectors in the Nation's capital, government and
tourism. We are leaving the Nation's capital without an economy. We had
no fair chance to compete for the interim headquarters.
Mr. Speaker, sadly the District of Columbia had no fair chance to
even compete for the interim headquarters. That is clear if we review
the language of the request for proposal. They preselected the suburbs
from the beginning. The language gave it away. They might as well have
said, ``We want to locate this in Northern Virginia.'' What they said
instead is we want an office park setting. Give me a break. We do not
have office parks in big cities.
They took out what is standard in all RFPs for Federal sites, and
that is that there be access to a Metro. That means that the residents
of the District of Columbia, those particularly in the lower levels, do
not have any way to get there from here. This is a heartless thing to
do to the Nation's capital, but that is what has been done.
Let me put Members on notice, all the District of Columbia asks is
not that we get a site, but that we have a fair chance to get a site.
This administration did not give us a fair chance to get the interim
headquarters. We will not allow the Homeland Security Department to be
the only department other than the Pentagon whose headquarters are
located outside of the District of Columbia. The Pentagon had to be
located out of the District of Columbia because there was not enough
room for it. There is enough room for the Department of Homeland
Security in the Nation's capital. We insist that the permanent
headquarters be located here, and I ask Members of this body to assist
us in making sure that happens.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for 10 years,
and each year we have had continuing resolutions, both when I served in
the minority and also in the majority. They are always unfortunate
because it holds up the work of this House.
I would say to my colleagues a little lesson in history, in the 107th
Congress the House passed 58 bills, 58 bills that the other body
refused to either take up or pass. They gridlocked them. I would say
that this body did its work. We passed bills. And regardless of the
gridlock in the other body, we did many things together, Republican and
Democrats, that helped the American people. I worked with many of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), whom I serve with on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, we intercepted a memo from James Carville, a political
partisan, Democrat operative, and it was entitled, ``It's the Economy,
Stupid,'' and he recommended two things to the other body, one that
they not pass a budget. Why? Because a good example is prescription
drugs. The House did its work. We passed prescription drug legislation
two times in this body. The last time was for $350 billion, more than
the other side of the aisle requested during the first go-round, yet it
did not satisfy them. Carville and the other body, they requested $1.3
trillion for prescription drugs in their first go-round. Why? So they
could bad mouth Republicans to specific interest groups. And in the 13
appropriations bills if Democrats do not have a budget, they can put a
trillion here and a trillion there. In Labor-HHS, for example, over
time it was $278 billion more, yet they talk about being fiscal
conservatives and it just does not add up.
Yes, we did not pass the appropriations bills as the gentleman talked
about, but we chose to wait and see what we could do to work it
together. But with the Senate not passing its bills, it made it more
and more difficult.
The second portion of the Carville memo recommended that the Senate
not pass any of the House bills, which they did. They held 58 of them
up during that time, bills that would help the American people, such as
the energy bill, and I can tell Members California is very strapped for
energy and the need for infrastructure. Yet the other body, upon
recommendation, held that bill up.
The economic stimulus package, we all know that the economy, a lot is
based on the stock market. We had bills that we passed in this body
that would help people regain confidence in the stock market so that
the people like from Enron that invested their life savings in a
retirement plan would not have some CEO take the whole bundle of wax
and leave them with nothing. We heard testimony of a lady that had over
$200,000 in her retirement account. After Enron, she had like $15,000
in her retirement account. The gentleman says we did not do our work,
but the Senate refused to take up legislation. They refused to take up
an energy bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would tell Members yes, we did not pass appropriations
bills, but we were not going to play the Carville game.
Secondly, when the Democrats had majority in this place, we remember
in 1993 when they said they were going to help the middle class. They
increased the tax on the middle class, after months and months of the
then-majority leader saying that they were going to cut taxes on the
middle class. They increased the tax on Social Security. That is
because they had a President in the White House that would sign it.
They increased the tax on gas. They even had a retroactive tax. They
took every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund. They cut
veterans' COLAS and military COLAS, and this is when they had control.
They passed it because they had large numbers in the majority in the
other body.
In the other body, we have a 2-vote margin. We do not have 60 votes
to pass things in the Senate. They are not like the House where it is a
simple majority. Yes, in the future there is also going to be gridlock
from the Senate because the same partisan Democrats that held up
legislation in the Senate when they were in the majority are going to
hold up legislation on the Senate side.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members
not to make improper references to the Senate or characterization of
Senate action or inaction.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that we can
come together on in this House over the next 2 years; but, if we look
at the pending bill, all I have heard so far is vitriolic, partisan
points at the Republican Party. That is not going to get

[[Page H94]]

Members anywhere; it just makes us madder, like it makes the other side
of the aisle madder when they do not get their way.
There is a lot of things we can do together, which we do within the
committees themselves. But when it comes to the leadership of the
Democrat Party, that is their goal, to gridlock, to hold things up like
over the past 2 years.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

{time} 1400

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out, the name of our party
is not the Democrat Party. It is the Democratic Party. We would
appreciate it if we would at least be called by our proper name, okay?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman and my friend from
Wisconsin. The Democratic Party. I meant nothing by that and the
gentleman knows that. But there are a lot of things we can do and most
of these freshmen that came have ideals, actually sitting down and
working together. Unfortunately, we have got a Presidential election,
and there is a lot at stake for the parties. Myself, I am a fighter.
The gentleman knows me by now, over 10 years. But I would much rather
sit down with the gentleman from Wisconsin and with the leadership of
the Democratic Party and work out these things instead of this
bickering. It hurts all of us.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say to the gentleman from California that I am sorry
that my comments made him mad, but I will restate my position, that I
believe that the majority party failed to do its job in the last
Congress. You are in charge. You have the majority. You are supposed to
pass these 13 appropriations bills and you failed to do so. As a
result, here we are talking about our sixth continuing resolution; and
we are underfunding education, we are underfunding health care, we are
underfunding environmental protection, we are underfunding homeland
security; and I think the American people are furious over the
inability of the leadership of this Congress to lead. That is your job.
I would also simply point out to the gentleman that rather than
adjourning early to get an early jump on Christmas shopping, we should
have remained in session and worked out the differences with the other
body; and we should have stayed here, remained here until we did our
work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening here today is that the democratic
processes in the institution that is supposed to represent the finest
of democratic traditions in the world are being mutilated, and I want
to explain what I mean by that.
The majority party for the last year has been able to prevent this
House from making any significant decisions whatsoever on 90 percent of
the domestic budget. They have succeeded in preventing the education,
health and labor bill from coming to the floor for a vote. They
succeeded in preventing the science budget, the housing budget, the
veterans budget and others from coming to the floor.
And now that we are past the election, they are now doing two things.
By this resolution before us today, they are making it possible for the
House to consider two resolutions, both of which will be sent to the
Senate. The first resolution will continue the authority to keep the
government open for 1 month, and the second resolution will be used as
a vehicle to which the Senate will then attach all of the remaining
appropriation bills as they have been worked out in the Senate. It will
be attached to that vehicle and then sent back here for an up-or-down
vote, and no Member will have any opportunity to affect that package in
any way whatsoever. That will mean that we will have gone an entire
year without any degree of accountability for the actions of either the
majority party or the minority party. Our last opportunity to affect
the content of that budget comes today on these resolutions. We are
being denied again an opportunity to provide any meaningful alternative
to the proposition that is being put together by the majority party.
The House rules say that if the Committee on Appropriations has not
passed what is called a 302(b) allocation under which it takes its
spending authority and allocates that authority to the 13 different
subcommittees, if the committee has not done that, then the rules of
the House say that the House cannot consider an appropriation bill. The
Committee on Rules agreed to waive that provision for the majority, so
they are allowing the majority to bring a bill to the floor allowing
for a huge amount of spending, but they did not afford the same
privilege to the minority. That means that we cannot offer any
meaningful amendment to the funding level being provided by the
majority.
There are reasons for rules. Whether you are talking about a New York
Giants-San Francisco 49ers game or whether you are talking about the
House floor, the purpose of rules is to see to it that everybody is
treated the same. What this rule in essence says is that there is only
one team that can even touch the ball; that is, the Republican majority
team. And it says the Democratic team can have no opportunity
whatsoever to have any impact on the outcome. That destroys the ability
of this place to be a legitimate representative body.
After the election, I was watching McNeil-Lehrer, and I noticed in
the panel that they had, the moderator asked the panel, what were the
roles going to be for the Republican and Democratic Party after the
election. When they discussed the Democratic Party, Tom Oliphant, the
distinguished columnist, said, ``Well, they are now the minority party
and so it is their responsibility to offer alternatives to the majority
party's propositions.'' That is correct. But we are being denied by
this rule by the majority party the opportunity to offer meaningful
alternatives. That is bad for us, but it is also bad for the majority
party because it means that there is no way to hold the majority party
accountable for its decisions and there is no way to judge whether
their decisions or ours are better, or more in tune with the country's
needs. That is a disastrous result in what is supposed to be the most
representative body on the face of the Earth.
If we had not been boxed out by the illegitimate action of the
Committee on Rules, what we wanted to do is to offer a simple amendment
which would put the House on record supporting expenditures which the
majority party has already voted for on the supplemental. We wanted to
make certain that the $2.5 billion in homeland security items, for port
security, for border security, for FBI computers, et cetera, we wanted
to make certain that those contingent appropriations which were frozen
by the President, we wanted to give the House an opportunity to say
that those items should be provided in this continuing resolution. The
President has stonewalled on those $2.5 billion worth of items.
And we also wanted the House to reaffirm its support for $275 million
of additional veterans medical care, for $200 million additional
funding to fight terrorism in the Middle East, which we would have
provided to Israel. The election reform money which both parties posed
for political holy pictures about early on, we wanted to provide that.
And we are being denied the opportunity to provide all of it. None of
that adds to the spending level of the Republican-approved budget
resolution. It does add to the level in this bill, but this bill is
substantially below that resolution. Yet we are being denied the
opportunity to strengthen the homeland security of this country because
of the partisan needs of the majority party. I think that is
illegitimate.
The other thing we wanted to do is to see to it that the Securities
and Exchange Commission is funded at the level promised in the
Sarbanes-Oxley bill so that we could in fact put our money where our
mouth is and afford investors decent protection from corporate fraud in
their balance statements and in their accounting. We are being denied
by the Republican majority the opportunity to do that as well.
That is why we are going to be asking this body to vote against the
previous question on the rule so that we

[[Page H95]]

can in fact offer this legitimate amendment, to offer these items which
all of you, at least 90 percent of you on the majority party side of
the aisle have already voted for. The items I am asking people to allow
have already been supported by 90 percent of the Republicans and
Democrats in the Senate and the House. I do not think that would be too
much to ask if this House were a legitimate democratic body, which
apparently the House is not. Democracy in this House is being shredded.
The Republican Party is simply afraid to vote on these issues because
they know that they would either lose the vote or else have a
substantial segment of the American people saying to them, ``What in
God's name were you thinking when you turned those items down?'' This
is an illegitimate action, an illegitimate, arrogant and
antidemocratic, small ``d,'' operation, and the majority party ought to
be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the rule. By
prohibiting a motion to strike the imprudent and fiscally irresponsible
language in the continuing resolution concerning the housing of the new
Department of Homeland Security, this rule circumvents fair,
deliberative legislative process. This language in the CR authorizes
the government to enter into a long-term lease for a building in
Virginia to house some of the employees of the new department. The Bush
administration and the House Republican leadership have thereby created
a Department of Homeland Security that itself is not secure. This was a
backdoor deal done without participation from House Democrats, and
frankly very little participation by House Republican leadership and
members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Here is how: the CR says that the prospectus to lease the property is
deemed approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
We have not even considered it. We have not even seen it in open
committee hearing process. In fact, it was not approved by our
committee or any other relevant committee of either the House or the
Senate. We did not have a chance to meet and discuss it. The prospectus
was signed on Christmas Eve and delivered through the mail slot in our
door the day after Christmas when people were on leave. The new
department and the security of the people who work there, frankly, are
far too important for this kind of gimmickry; and in the process, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been marginalized
and trivialized.
This secretive process avoids answering questions by the
administration, such as does the commercial office space that they have
chosen meet basic security standards, such as a 100-foot setback to
protect against truck bombs? Does it have shatterproof windows? Neither
of these issues is addressed in the prospectus, nor in the CR.
At the signing of the Homeland Security Act, President Bush said,
``Our objective in creating this department is to spend less on
overhead and more on protecting neighborhoods, borders, waters and
skies from terrorists.'' Well, this lease is going to cost the
government a quarter of a billion dollars over 10 years, and in
addition the government is going to have to spend tens of millions of
dollars to make necessary security enhancements to the building. That
is not keeping overhead costs down. Furthermore, they have got a leased
building. After investing all the money, the Bush administration is
clearly prepared to walk away from that investment and stick the
taxpayers with the bill. A better solution is for the Federal
Government to build a new facility to house the department. We proposed
that solution last year in committee. The House passed it in July as
part of the Homeland Security Act. It did not continue in the final
legislation, but nonetheless there is a longstanding provision of
Federal law that requires Cabinet-level offices to be built in the
District of Columbia.

{time} 1415

Common sense tells us it is better to own your house than rent it,
and this building is not going to hold the 17,000 employees of the new
department headquarters. At most it is going to hold 2,200 people on a
10-year lease that if they try to cancel they are going to pay a huge
price. This is fiscally irresponsible. It is a disrespect to the
people, it is a disrespect to the public discussion and legislative
process, and under the rubric of security, secretive process is not
appropriate.
Vote against the rule and against the CR.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that my major
concern is that we need not continue this abdication of our
responsibility to the Senate. This is the second bill in a row that we
have said let the Senate take care of it. The people of this country
elected us in the House of Representatives to take care of some
business as well.
The other point is that I would like to have a voice before we cut
education, which this will do. I would like to have a voice before we
cut veterans care and appropriations for our veterans who served in our
wars, and particularly low income energy assistance, particularly at
this time of cold weather. We will have none of that, none of that if
we move in this direction. We cannot start this year by consistently
setting a pattern of abdicating our responsibility here in the House of
Representatives and keep saying let the Senate do it. Is that what we
are going to do when we go back and we campaign and when the people ask
``What did you do on that vote? Did you have a say?'' No, we just voted
to extend the shell, let it go over there to the Senate, let them do
the work, and then they just pass it back.
So I urge the Members to let us take another look at this and let us
do the will of the people and let this House of Representatives stand
up and be the House that we are out there on the campaign trail telling
people send me to the House of the people and let me do the people's
will. Not one time did we say send me to the House and I will abdicate
and let the Senate do our will.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would respectfully
remind the gentleman, as he previously reminded the other Member, to
refrain from improper references to the Senate.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is a close contest as
to which aspect of this bill is more outrageous, its terribly deficient
substance or its antidemocratic procedure. As to the substance, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin just mentioned, this bill continues the
Republican position of complete and total hypocrisy with regard to
corporate accountability. When the Sarbanes-Oxley bill was signed, the
President quite proudly cited this as an example of his concern for
increased corporate accountability. A key piece of that bill which the
President signed called for an increased appropriation for the
Securities and Exchange Commission so it could do the large number of
new responsibilities it is given by Sarbanes-Oxley. Consistently since
the passage of this bill at every budget opportunity, the Republican
majority in this House has refused to make one penny of that available
so that none of the additional responsibilities of Sarbanes-Oxley have
been funded. This bill continues the pattern of hypocrisy, of having
called for and signed into law funding for Sarbanes-Oxley to the SEC
and not providing it. The President has sent up before that for fiscal
2004. Of course given this Committee on Appropriations and this House's
track record, fiscal 2004 will not be passed until late in 2004, but
even if it were to be in an unprecedented way passed on time, it will
have been over a year and a half between the signing of the bill and
its funding.

[[Page H96]]

Similarly, let me warn Members that when they go back from here, they
will be told by public housing authorities if they have them in their
district and people who administer section 8 that this appropriation
substantially underfunds both, public housing authorities for a
combination of reasons, including the incompetence which has kept the
bill from being passed in a timely fashion and the priorities of an
administration that is in power. Public housing authorities will not be
given enough operating money to run their budgets.
When the Republican majority at the President's behest abolished the
drug elimination program by which public housing authorities fought
drug use, they were told, well, that is okay, they can fund it out of
their regular operating budget, but now comes the second part of that.
They have underfunded the operating budget. So first they say fund that
$300 million program nationally out of their operating budgets and then
they cut the operating budgets by hundreds of millions more so there
will be no chance of doing that.
So the Sarbanes-Oxley bill is rendered once again a nullity under
this in substantial part. The public housing authorities are given too
little money to do their basic operations, and there is not enough
money to continue the existing section 8 contracts, and as I guess as
an admission of the indefensibility of this bill, the Republicans have
of course come up with the most antidemocratic procedure imaginable so
that no amendment addressing any aspect of what I have just talked
about will be in order. So we have I guess a synergy, a terrible bill
which can only be put forward with an outrageous procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat because people ought to understand
that there is a synergy here. It is a bill so deficient in its
substance that it can only be brought to the floor under an
antidemocratic procedure that presents the substance from being
addressed. And let me say Members of this body who vote for this rule
and prevent any amendment, when they go back to their districts and
talk about their support for public housing authorities that are in
trouble, the elderly housing with the drug problems that they want to
fight, talk about their commitment to Sarbanes-Oxley, will be telling
people things that will be in direct contrast to their actions. Vote
for this rule and you vote to keep the funding needed to make Sarbanes-
Oxley a reality, you vote against allowing the public housing
authorities to meet their basic operating needs so that when elderly
people complain to you about the problems of heat, the problems of law
enforcement, the problems of maintenance, understand that voting for
this rule makes you responsible for that.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman if there are any
requests for time on his side?
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thought we had a
doubleheader here, but apparently we have a trifecta. Not only do we
have a bill that is lousy in its substance and indefensible so that
procedurally no amendment can be offered, but it is in both cases so
bad that the majority will not even explain or defend it. So the
procedure is bad, the substance is worse, and the majority confirms
that by refusing quite sensibly to try to say a word in its defense.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me close for our side by again expressing our frustration on this
side of the aisle that we are still dealing with last year's work. The
fact that we are dealing with the six continuing resolutions before us
today I do believe is a failure of the majority party's leadership in
the last Congress, and it continues in this Congress. As we bring this
bill to the floor, we continue to undercut and underfund education and
health care and transportation needs as speaker after speaker has
already said.
We are going to call for a vote on the previous question, and I am
going to urge people to vote no on the previous question. This rule is
unfair, it is undemocratic, it is arrogant, and this is an issue of
fairness. The majority has waived the budget rules for themselves, but
they have not waived those rules for the minority. This is another
abuse of power, and maybe in his closing statement the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder), my friend, can explain why one set of rules
applies to the majority and a different set applies to the minority in
dealing with an issue of this importance. By defeating the previous
question, we will restore some fairness to this debate, to this
process, by applying the waiver of budget rules to the motion to
recommit so that we can offer a meaningful motion to recommit and we
can provide the funding, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
said earlier, to the SEC so that it gets the proper funding as
authorized by the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. It also can provide much needed
moneys for homeland security which, for all of our talk about homeland
security, we continue to underfund important needs. It provides
important moneys for veterans medical care. Everybody talks about how
we are committed to veterans, and yet here we are again moving forward
on a bill that underfunds veterans medical care and we are not even
being allowed an opportunity to correct this. So I would urge all of my
colleagues to vote no on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into the Record just prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request by the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), who worried about the fact that the Republicans were not
defending the bill during the discussion on the rule, under the regular
order during the discussion of the 1-hour debate on the rule, we should
be discussing the rule. We will be delighted to defend the substance of
our bills in the subsequent debate on the bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 15 Offered by Mr. McGovern

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of
Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of
Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 1
and House Joint Resolution 2, points of order against
amendments for failure to comply with section 302(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5

[[Page H97]]

minutes the time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
Members will be reminded that the Chair will strictly enforce the 15-
minute rule.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 198, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 8]

YEAS--225

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

NAYS--198

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

NOT VOTING--10

Delahunt
Greenwood
Houghton
Inslee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Nethercutt
Pickering
Towns
Whitfield

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). The Chair
advises Members that approximately 2 minutes remain on the 15-minute
clock.

{time} 1447

Messrs. ISRAEL, DAVIS of Tennessee, HOYER, GORDON, KANJORSKI, and
EVANS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today, January 8, due to family
considerations, I unfortunately was not able to vote on several
rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on
rollcall No. 5. I also would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 6,
``yes'' on rollcall No. 7, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 8.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________