Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend just a moment or two discussing how we got to this place, and then repeat for emphasis what I just said on the rule, so people understand what it is we are going to be trying to do here today.

We are really in the situation where, well into the fiscal year, we have yet to pass 11 of the 13 appropriation bills, primarily because the budget resolution that was brought to this House floor in the first instance unrealistically stated what the needs of the country would be, or the congressional estimate of what those needs would be. So to try to keep the session moving anyway, the majority party brought out two appropriation bills. Then the system just sort of fell apart because of the unreality of the budget resolution, and we have been stuck with no other appropriation bills becoming law, so we have been operating on continuing resolutions.

I would ask the gentleman, is this continuing resolution number 13? Something like that. I have lost track, we have had so many of them.

Now we are supposed to pass yet another continuing resolution so that the House and Senate have more time in order to put together an omnibus appropriation bill which will at long last produce funding for all of the domestic agencies in the Federal Government. So this proposal is here to give us another week to get that work done.

Mr. Speaker, we have two questions left. Number 1 is, what is the appropriate funding for those appropriation bills; and number 2, when are we going to get it done? As far as I know, we still do not have paper on this side of the Capitol, so we still do not know what the Senate has done in detail.

This proposal before us now simply keeps the government open. The question is, what level of funding should we have in this short-term CR? We believe that, in addition to the funding that is being provided under the resolution being brought to the floor by the gentleman from Florida, we ought to add another $3.5 billion to fund the first responders, so that our policemen and our firemen and our public health people can get about the business of protecting us at the local level. We cannot expect State governments to provide this money, because they are in massive deficits all around the country. If we do not provide it, it is not going to get provided.

The second thing we want to do is to provide $90 million to Centers for Disease Control for baseline health screening, so we can do a long- term assessment of the health exposure experienced by first providers at the Pentagon and in New York on 9-11 when they ran into the combat zone, so to speak, and experienced an assault by many chemicals, some of which were suspected of being highly toxic.

So that is what we want to do. As I said, I think it is especially important to do this in light of the misstatement by the White House Chief of Staff on national television last week. Last week, as I said in my earlier remarks, Mr. Card, the White House Chief of Staff, told Tim Russert, the moderator of Meet the Press, that the reason that the first responders did not have the money that they needed was because Congress had not acted on the money and had tied it up.

I found that especially quaint given the fact that the President vetoed the lion's share of the money that we provided for first responders in the supplemental last year, money which would have gone through to the local communities if the administration had not vetoed bipartisan congressional efforts. So what we see is that on four occasions, as I said earlier, the White House has either blocked or resisted bipartisan efforts in both Houses to provide additional money for first responders.

I will ask the House at the proper time today to approve this motion to recommit so that we can add this funding. I want to point out that it will still keep us within the Republican budget resolution. We will still have over $1 billion head room in the Republican budget resolution if we add this amendment, because the continuing resolution is operating at a funding level significantly below that Republican funding resolution.

So I do not want to hear any claptrap on the floor today about how we are busting the budget with this motion. We are not; we are staying within the confines of the Republican budget resolution. But within that, we are saying it is time, it is time to deliver the money that the first responders thought they were going to get a long time ago, so we can get about the business, for a change, of dealing with substantive problems, rather than ping-ponging political arguments while we send no money to the people who are going to be on the front lines if we have any further terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to walk through once more what the record is with respect to dealing with this problem.

Right after 9-11, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I went down

to the White House. He and I and our staff chiefs, when we were locked out of our offices because of the anthrax scare, he and I went downtown to the White House after we had spent a week talking to every security agency in town, virtually, trying to find out what they thought the needs were on the homeland security front.

We went down to the White House, expecting to have a give-and-take discussion about what additional funding we ought to provide. We ran smack into the President of the United States, who walked into the room, shook hands, sat down, and then said, and I am paraphrasing, but this is pretty close, he said, well, I understand some of you want to provide more money for homeland security; but I want you to know that my good friend, Mitch Daniels, tells me that we have more than enough money in the budget for our request. I want you to know if Congress spends one dime more on homeland security than we have asked for in our budget, I will veto the bill. Now I have time for four or five comments, and then I have to get out of here. That is what he said.

So when my turn came, I expressed my lack of enthusiasm to that kind of rigid response, and I proceeded to ask the President a number of questions about security threats to a number of Federal installations, threats which were serious and classified. We urged the President to reconsider.

In the end, over White House opposition, this Congress on a bipartisan basis provided $4 billion additional money for homeland security, including, I believe, about $400 million for first responders. Then last year in the spring supplemental, as I indicated earlier, the White House asked for no additional money for first responders; so no money for our policemen, no money for our firemen, no money for our public health people.

The House and Senate worked again on a bipartisan basis, and we provided $551 million in that supplemental. The President vetoed $350 million of that amount. Then finally the administration slowly awoke, and it provided $3.5 billion in their budget request for 2003; but then they cooperated in a procedure that prevented that money from ever becoming law, because they agreed with the procedure that kept the VA- HUD bill and the State-Justice-Commerce bill from ever coming to the floor.

So now we are operating under a continuing resolution which provides $650 million, far less than we need for first responders. We need several billion more. Yet, even after the administration had that authority to spend the money, they refused to allocate the money to the States. They have been fiddling around about proposed formula changes, rather than getting the stuff out there so we can accelerate our preparedness at the local level.

If Members think we are ready for another attack, I invite them to read the report of the Rudman-Hart Commission, which spells out that we are still mortally unprepared to deal with local attacks.

So now we are faced with this situation, and despite the fact that the track record clearly shows that the administration has been resistent to congressional efforts to provide assistance to first responders, the White House Chief of Staff has told the country that it is the Congress that has not provided the money, when in fact the Congress on three occasions did provide the money or tried to and on each of those occasions the White House resisted.

So what we will be asking the House to do is to provide this additional funding: the $3.5 billion to first responders and the $90 million for the epidemiological studies of the health impacts on the firemen and police personnel who had to respond at the Pentagon and in New York after 9-11. And we would remind our friends on both sides of the aisle that this does not bust the budget. If you vote for our amendment, it will still keep us within the Republican budget resolution which seems to be so important on that side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me simply say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) that as far as I am concerned he has done everything humanly possible to try to see to it that we could provide the needed money to first responders. He tried that a year ago on the supplemental when he was pushed into backing away by the White House and by his own leadership, but we still got $4 billion additional homeland security money in that bill despite the resistance of the White House. And he also worked with us cooperatively to see to it that we had more money in the supplemental this previous summer for homeland security and for first responders. Again, the White House vetoed those efforts, so I congratulate the gentleman for his efforts. I just wish that the White House had been responsive to them. If they had, we would not be sitting here now worrying about the fact that they still do not have dime one that they need at the local level.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing we will do it next time around for a year and a half. Meanwhile, you have gotten zip to the local people who need it the most. We were told a year ago, oh, we will do it down the line. We were told in the supplemental, oh, we will do it down the line. Now you are saying here, we will do it down the line. Do it now.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned supplemental. I would suggest he call the White House and tell the President to reconsider his veto of the last supplemental that we sent to him where he denied us the ability to get $300 million to those first responders.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

It does require a partnership between the local and Federal Government. The problem is the Federal Government will not come out on the dance floor and dance. They are leaving the locals out there alone. They have yet to provide one dime in new money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire again how much time we have remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say the gentleman is correct, we did; and I was immensely proud of the House on both sides of the aisle for cooperating in producing that bill, and I was flabbergasted that that cooperation on the part of the White House did not extend to our next request to provide for additional money, including the first responders.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Without the pending recommit motion, certainly.

I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman contends the motion is not in order because the majority has failed to file its 302(b) allocations. If this amendment were to be ruled out of order, what that would mean is that the majority has put the fix in in the Committee on Rules so that they can bring what they want to bring to the floor but the minority cannot.

In other words, the minority would be penalized procedurally for a failure to act on the part of the majority. I would find that to be a quaint interpretation indeed. It is patently unfair to allow the majority to bring up a bill without filing its suballocations and then punish the minority for something the majority has not done.

Mr. Speaker, if the majority is going to abuse the rules in such a way that the minority is precluded from meeting its responsibilities, I have no alternative but to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I have another motion to recommit at the desk.

Safe assumption, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 5 minutes, but let me simply say that this motion simply does two things. It would provide that we will approve $3.5 billion in homeland security grants to first responders, and it will provide the additional $90 million that is needed to continue the study of long-term medical effects caused by the disaster of 9-11 when our firemen and our policemen and other emergency workers immediately responded to the hits on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

When those firemen and policemen and other emergency workers responded to the Nation's needs at the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center and in Pennsylvania, for that matter as well, on 9-11, they did not stop to ask does this fit in our fiscal year? Are we going to exceed our budgets? They simply responded, did their duty, and did what had to be done. Today I want to make clear this motion will not bust the Republican budget. Even if this money is still provided, we will still be within the overall ceilings of the Republican budget resolution. So no one can claim if they vote against this motion that they did so in order to preserve the sanctity of the budget, resolution because we do not breach it.

I would simply urge the House to adopt the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 13) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us, H.J. Resolution 13, is a continuing resolution to continue to allow the government to operate through February 7th of this year. This is merely a date extension. It does not change anything else. We have not added any anomalies to those that were previously agreed to.

We need to pass this CR today for one very simple reason. If I can just go back quickly and remember, the last CR we passed, we actually passed two CRs, one that was sent to the President to allow the government to continue to function, and the other that was sent to the other body to be used as a vehicle for the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.

The other body has now worked its will on that CR. They have added to it, the remaining 11 appropriation bills that had not been concluded prior to the adjournment of the 107th Congress. We are still awaiting the paperwork from the other body so that we can appoint conferees and go to conference on that package.

I would say to my friends that there are many differences between the Senate version of this appropriations bill and the House version, so there will have to be a conference.

If we can receive those papers expeditiously, like today or tomorrow, we will move to go to conference immediately. Some of the pre- conference work has already been done, but there is still a lot more to be done, so we are anxious to receive the papers. But since we are not to that point yet in the process, we do need this CR to keep the government up and running until February 7th.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I do so to explain to the Members that first responders are extremely important to dealing with any kind of a terrorist attack that might occur anywhere in the United States of America. And we will be addressing the issue of first responders when we do the final appropriations bill, which I have talked about in my opening remarks. But I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) because he has been very personally involved in identifying not only the needs of first responders but the needs of existing security agencies, and police agencies. And as he pointed out, he and I both did a very thorough survey of all of the needs of those agencies, especially the FBI, for example. Those will be the things that we will be addressing very shortly in the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. I appreciate his interests and I know they are genuine, but we are going to deal with them in the regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do it now. What we want to do now is get the continuing resolution off the desk and get it down to the other body and to the President. Then we will do it now on the final wrap up bill for the fiscal year 2003. And if that is not adequate to satisfy the needs of the first responders, then we will have a supplemental appropriations bill which will be before the House very shortly. And if that does not take care of everything, then we have the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill; but I think we will get this job done pretty quickly.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman just touched a sore spot, there is no doubt about that. The Congress and the President had a little different opinion on that particular bill.

But I wanted to comment on the remarks the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) who just spoke. He said that this is a national responsibility. Mr. Speaker, protecting the homeland, being able to respond to a terrorist attack or whatever the threat might be threatens everybody, not just the national government, not just the State governments, not just

the local governments. But the response to a terrorist attack has to be a partnership.

The local governments have a responsibility to do things that they do far better and far more effectively than the Federal Government. We need the ability that is provided by local governments and local organizations and local first responders.

In addition, we need the partnership with the States because the States do certain things that we cannot do nearly as well, and then, of course, the Federal Government has a major responsibility. So this is not just a national obligation or responsibility. This is a partnership.

We all have to be in position to play our respective roles in responding to a terrorist attack or preventing a terrorist attack. We all have to work together. It is not just the Federal Government. And so, again, I go back to this, Mr. Speaker, let us get this continuing resolution through the House, down to the other body and to the President, and then hopefully, during that same time period, we will be able to conference the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, and then we will clear the decks for a supplemental and for the 2004 appropriations business.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleagues that I have no further requests for speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and congratulate her. This is the first chance I have had to congratulate her publicly for her ascension in a historic way to the high position of leadership of her party. However, what it means is that she has removed herself from the committee that I have the privilege of chairing. And I would say that while we did not always agree, it was always a very distinct pleasure to work with her as a member of the Committee on Appropriations. So I would say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that we will miss her, but I am sure we are going to see her a lot during the 108th Congress.

I listened to her statement, and I appreciate the fact that she used the picture, as well as the previous speaker's use of the picture, of President Bush standing alongside a firefighter at Ground Zero in New York City. President Bush responded quickly and effectively to September 11th. No one can even challenge that. I think maybe what is happening here today, while we are talking about a continuing resolution, is a lot of debate that has to do with the regular appropriations bill. Maybe we are trying to make an argument where no argument exists.

As I listened to the gentleman from New Jersey talking about the first responders at the local level, he is absolutely right. He made the point far more effectively than I did when I mentioned the importance of first responders. The people on the scene, the people in the cities, the people in the counties, are going to respond first to any event that is of a terrorist nature or a weapons-of-mass- destruction nature. They are going to respond. And they do need the support and the help of the Federal Government and of the State governments. The States have some responsibilities as well.

So we are arguing about something that doesn't really need arguing about. The problem is the motion to instruct by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be dealing with an appropriations issue and this bill is a continuing resolution, that just continues funding at last year's level. It does not create any new programs. It does not appropriate any new money. The final bill for fiscal year 2003 that we will be dealing with is available to deal with first responders.

But I want to get back to September 11th and this picture. Again, I say I appreciate the fact that the minority used the picture of President Bush, because he did respond. He responded in a local way, in a State way, in a national way, and in an international way.

Please, do not take the picture away. It encourages me when I look at it.

The President did a really good job, but he did it in partnership with the Congress. Right after September 11th occurred, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I sat down with our counterparts in the other body, and we came up with an appropriations bill, an emergency appropriations bill, of $40 billion.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I was happy to yield to my friend from Wisconsin, but I would point out the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I sat down with our counterparts in the Senate and we produced a bill of $40 billion that was, I think, passed unanimously in the House and I believe in the Senate as well, to make money immediately available to the first responders, to FEMA, to police, to firemen, to whoever needed the money after September 11th.

As a matter of fact, we did something very unusual, Mr. Speaker. Of the $40 billion, we allowed the executive branch to use immediately $10 billion with no strings attached to respond to September 11th, to respond to terrorism, and to do what had to be done immediately. Then we gave them an additional $10 billion that they could basically do whatever they wanted to with, but there were a few congressional strings. We just required that they report to us on what they were doing with that $10 billion.

So the Congress responded rapidly. The Administration moved quickly. Then the other $20 billion, the second half of the $40 billion, we allocated through the appropriations process; but we asked the executive branch to suggest to the Congress how that money should be used. We did have some differences, but we worked out a plan that I think worked fairly well.

Now, there is a lot more that needs to be done. September 11 was something that many people in this country had never seen before. I think the only thing that really compares to September 11 was December 7, 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and we went to war in World War

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a real argument here because we are not opposed to providing this funding, and the only difference we have is that it does not belong on a CR. It belongs in the 2003 final bill, or it belongs in the supplemental which will be coming very quickly. So what I would suggest is that we defeat this motion, we pass the CR, and then we get prepared to finish up the fiscal 2003 appropriations business.

Again, as I pointed out in my earlier comments, I think what is happening here is that we are trying to create an argument where no argument really exists. We believe in homeland security and first responders as strongly as anybody else. We have already proven that. We have taken the lead in that. President Bush has taken the lead in that. We have done a good job as the majority party in leading this Congress to deal with the preemption of, and the need to respond to, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist attacks or whatever else we may have to face. And we still recognize the need to do more.

Now, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. But the funding that is called for in this motion is going to be addressed but it does not belong on a CR.

Let us kill the motion, let us pass the CR, and then get along with the rest of our business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, two important things will happen today on the floor of this House. First, we will debate and pass yet another continuing resolution, the eighth temporary stopgap measure for a fiscal year that began almost 4 months ago. This continuing resolution represents an abdication of responsibility that has become almost run- of-the-mill under Republican control. Today's resolution, which extends the date of the current CR through February 7, means that Republicans will be 4 months late in addressing priorities like homeland security and the economy. America is struggling through dangerous, uncertain times; but the Republican Congress may as well still be on vacation.

Republican leaders are hoping this shameful failure will be obscured by today's second important event: the President's State of the Union address. The Republican majority is expecting to hide behind the glib rhetoric we have all come to expect from President Bush.

But political slogans only go so far, especially in the face of the wide and growing credibility gap facing a Republican Party that has spent the past 2 years saying one thing and doing another. And no matter how eloquent President Bush may be tonight, words alone cannot fix the primary problem this Republican government has created for the Nation at this difficult time.

Simply put, there are two states of the Union in America today. For the vast majority of Americans, these are difficult and anxious times; but for the Republican politicians and the privileged few they represent, like the corporate lobbyists invited to the White House today for a special sneak preview of the State of the Union, the good times just keep on coming.

It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker; but it is the truth. Just take a look around the country. We will see hard-working

Americans struggling to make it through the weakest economy in a generation. Since President Bush took office, 2.3 million private sector jobs have been lost, the worst jobs record for any President since the end of World War II. The unemployment rate is stuck at a 6- year high. We will see millions of Americans whose retirement plans have been crushed by the fall of the stock market. The Dow dropped below 8,000 again yesterday; and overall, the market has lost trillions of dollars in value since President Bush took office. We will see firefighters and police officers who still sit exposed on the front lines of homeland defense, desperate for help from this Congress. It has been nearly a year and a half since September 11, but Republicans have done shockingly little to increase America's defenses here at home.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have fought for these priorities. We have proposed economic stimulus plans to create at least 1 million new jobs this year, put money and purchasing power in the hands of consumers, and provide relief to struggling small businesses; and we have tried time and again to make Americans safer at home by meeting critical homeland security needs.

Unfortunately for the American people, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have the power in Washington, and just take a look at the government they control. We will see an out-of-touch Republican Congress that arrogantly refuses to do the job they have been elected to do: address critical needs like homeland security and education. Republicans will not help firefighters or increase port security, but they have relaxed their own ethics rules in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, we will see a Republican Party that has but one answer for every problem: budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires that will do nothing to stimulate the economy this year. Soldiers and firefighters are putting their lives on the line to keep Americans safe at home, and President Bush is pushing $90,000 tax breaks for everyone making $1 million or more a year. Middle-class Americans are struggling through the worst economy in a generation, but the Bush plan would provide half of all taxpayers with less than $100.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it appears that Republicans just do not understand the real state of the Union for the vast majority of America, because if they did, they would not insist on sacrificing the security interests of all Americans to pay for tax breaks for the most privileged few. That is just wrong. It is time that Republicans stopped stiffing homeland security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires, and it is time they stopped using their political power to divide this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, last week I attended a mobilization ceremony for a reservist in Grand Prairie Texas who had been called to active duty. These brave men and women are making a great sacrifice for their country, leaving their families and jobs to support our troops overseas. I was struck by their courage and by their willingness to put aside their own personal concerns to serve their country. That spirit of unity and sacrifice has made America great for the past 2 centuries. I hope it is the spirit President Bush remembers tonight during his State of the Union and that the Republican Congress puts into practice so that we can finally address our economic and homeland security challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the President will give his State of the Union address and next week the President will release his fiscal year 2004 budget, and we in the Congress have yet to pass 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003 funding. We are now on our seventh continuing resolution. I am concerned that Congress is abdicating its Constitutional responsibilities. Before the adjournment of the 107th Congress, we had ample time to pass the physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, home health services and other health care providers. Our nation's seniors deserve better.

A cornerstone of a stable and dependable Medicare program is a system of adequate and appropriate reimbursements for health care providers. If payments are too high, or too low, the system will collapse and access to critical care for our seniors will be denied. Health care providers are being penalized for past federal accounting and legislative mistakes. Short-term fixes are necessary to ensure continuing access to quality care, while a comprehensive and thoughtful system of determining clinician reimbursements is developed. Medicare payments to physicians have already been cut by $139.4 million. Under the current law, payments will be cut an additional $695 million over the next three years.

I have been in close contact with physicians and other health care providers in the Houston area, many of whom appropriations bills. Again, we are faced with uncertainty in the budget process, which we cannot afford with the condition of the economy.

The latest unemployment figures indicate that nearly 6 percent of Americans are unemployed; 17 percent of African Americans are unemployed. Our nation is in an economic crisis that calls for leadership and a bold economic plan.

The nation's health care system is in need of reform. Millions of seniors rely on Medicare for their health care needs. Any Omnibus Appropriations Bill and the President's fiscal year 2004 budget must stabilize the Medicare program. Many Medicare beneficiaries, including seniors in my 18th Congressional District, are losing access to critical health care services because of the inadequacy of the current Medicare payment rates.

As a result of physician reductions in reimbursements, many Medicare beneficiaries risk losing access to their work in small- and medium- sized businesses. They have made good faith efforts to ensure the continuity of comprehensive care for their Medicare patients, but they tell me that they cannot afford to do this forever. I am a cosponsor of the Medicare Physicians Protection Act, which would impose a one-year freeze on the physician's fee schedule to protect our health care providers, and the patients who depend upon them.

Last week, the Senate passed a $390 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill. The bill was passed with little debate and loaded with last- minute amendments. The large number of spending bills included in the Omnibus Appropriations package--11 in all--makes this year's budget debacle especially appalling. For instance, a provision in the bill may have major implications for how immigration applications are processed and how much they will cost. In the Senate Omnibus Appropriations bill, a provision to re-establish old requirements that immigrants applying for visas, citizenship or adjustment of family status pay a surcharge to subsidize the processing of applications by asylum seekers and refugees was included. However, the Homeland Security Department bill passed in November removed the surcharge on applicants, which can add as much as $80.00 to a citizenship application. This is one issue that must be worked out in the conference committee on the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. This would adversely affect many of my constituents applying for visas, citizenship or adjusting their status in my 18th Congressional District.

In addition to immigration concerns, the Omnibus Appropriations bill must contain adequate funding levels to implement the Leave No Child Behind Act. We have become a government run by continuing resolution. I do not believe our Founding Fathers in their wisdom with grantings Congress the authority to raise revenue would have conceived a Congress not disciplined to follow our Constitutional mandate. This process is bad for the country and a poor reflection on the House and Senate.

On the issue of the economy, the President has the wrong plan. It will not stimulate the economy and create jobs. The cornerstone of the plan is the elimination of tax dividends, a proposal, which only helps the wealthy in this country and does not provide a stimulus to the economy.

Continuing resolutions, because they historically have been viewed as ``must-pass'' measures in view of the constitutional and statutory imperatives, became a major battleground for the resolution of budgetary and other conflicts. Consequently, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions began to change. I recognize the urgency in passing continuing resolutions; however, Congress must pass a serious comprehensive appropriations bill that adequately funds domestic programs for our nation citizens from education to health care.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this very important motion to the floor.

I stand here beside this photograph of the first responder with the President of the United States with great pride. We can all associate ourselves with that moment. As the President embraces the firefighter, so did the entire Nation.

On September 11, the whole world watched in horror when we saw the tragedy unfolding in New York and elsewhere and resolved that we must do everything in our power to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again. We also watched in awe to see the courageous action of the first responder, the police and firemen. That is why it is so hard to understand why we even have to go through this today.

Does not the entire country agree that these firefighters and policemen, the first responders, are owed a debt of gratitude by our Nation? Do we want people to take risks to save the lives of others when we will not even fund a study to take a measure of what impact their courage may have had on their personal physical health?

In the President's State of the Union Address last year, he promised to help local communities train and equip their first responders and provide for other homeland security needs. I listened with interest as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said that this is not just a national responsibility, it is also a State and local.

It is indeed that. But as elected officials at the national level, our first responsibility is to protect the American people, to make this country safe. Certainly we do that jointly with the local and State governments, but they have incurred tremendous costs, $2.6 billion as far as the municipalities are concerned; practically $75 billion in terms of the States in order to help take up some of our national responsibility that we have not funded.

And why have we not funded it? Because the administration and the Republicans have said that, for example, the $5 billion that was proposed in the other body as an amendment for first responders was well-intentioned but unaffordable. Well-intentioned but unaffordable. And the $1.5 billion that Congress passed and the President refuses to spend cannot be spent because we are on a war-time budget.

How do we explain this to the American people? How do we explain it to this brave firefighter and his family, that we can afford a $674 billion tax

cut, largely benefiting the wealthiest people in our country, but we cannot afford $1.5 billion already passed by Congress for our law enforcement, for homeland security, and we cannot afford the well- intentioned, but unaffordable, $5 billion for homeland security? And this amendment includes a $90 million study.

Nothing could be clearer in terms of the need. Nothing could be more specific in terms of the remedy. Nothing challenges our conscience more that we would turn away from the first responders when they are suffering effects from the courage that we all identified with, worshipped at the shrine of, embraced, yet now we cannot do it. We are too busy giving $674 billion largely to the wealthiest people in our country. Where are our priorities?

So tonight when the President comes to the floor to give the State of the Union address, I, like every other person in America, will welcome him with great anticipation and great respect. We all want our President to succeed. We all want to be in as much agreement with him as possible. But we cannot listen to rhetoric about first responders. We cannot look at photo ops and see the sincerity that we know is there, because our President is a sincere person, if this Congress refuses to match the compassion with the $90 million that is necessary for this study.

I commend our colleagues from New York for bringing this to our attention and just say that this all takes place in the context of rejecting the $5 billion; rejecting the $90 million, rejecting the $1.5 million, the pocket veto of the $150 million in emergency responder grants in August of last year, and the Justice Department temporarily suspending award grants to the first responders that I already referenced, and, according to calculations, the slashing in the budget is roughly $200 million out of the $3.5 billion for first responders.

It just goes on and on and on. There is a consistent pattern of saying we cannot afford this. Well, if we cannot afford to come to their rescue, how can we expect them to come to ours? If we cannot afford to come to their rescue, how on Earth can we afford a $674 billion tax cut for the wealthiest people in America?

I know that is not the sentiment of this body. I know that is not the sentiment of our distinguished chairman. So let us all follow the lead of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and get this over with quickly before more people find out what is going on on this floor today; that this House may reject this $90 million study.

Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to support the Obey motion.