Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we have by the previous vote unfortunately short- circuited the democratic process in this House, and we have prevented us from having any really meaningful debate on this resolution today. Under the rule, we are going to be free to talk about providing additional money for homeland security. We just are not going to be able to put any amendments before the House that in any substantial way enhance homeland security, and I find that unfortunate.

I think that there is much in this bill that is good, and I wanted to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, because he has done his constitutional duty and he has seen to it that the 200-year-long responsibility of the Congress to keep a tight leash on the public purse has been maintained, and I congratulate him for it. I know that there are a lot of people in this town who do not like that, but that was his responsibility. That was his committee's responsibility, and we lived up to it; and I think the House can be proud of that.

I also think, frankly, that there are a couple of other occasions when Members of Congress wanted to unfairly intervene in executive prerogatives in this bill, and the committee correctly resisted those as well. So on that score I have no problem whatsoever with this bill.

My problem is that I think it is a missed opportunity to provide additional protection for people at home. We are engaged in a war in Iraq. The idea of that war is to make the world safer for the United States and other democracies. And it would seem to me that if we are going to engage in a war against Iraq, we ought to be battening down the hatches to the fullest extent possible here at home to protect against terrorist attacks; but we have been denied the opportunity to offer our amendment to do so. And I want to walk through with the House what it is that they have rejected because I am going to try to offer it again anyway at a later point in the process.

Perhaps the greatest challenge we face in dealing with terrorism is to monitor the more than 20,000 shipping containers that enter the United States each day. In our amendment, which we will seek to offer even though the rules sought to deny us, we tried to put $135 million in this bill so that we can institute at nine major ports around the world a system which we have now in the port of Rotterdam, which would enable us to install equipment so that we know that none of the containers in the 10 major ports in the world contain radioactive material which could be used to set off a dirty bomb within the United States. We think the House ought to support that.

We also want to put $87 million in this bill to strengthen our ability to deal with nuclear material which is stored right here in the United States. We want to provide $150 million to strengthen the capacity of State laboratories and EPA laboratories to deal with the aftermath of a chemical attack. We are better equipped to deal with a biological attack in the country at this point than we are to deal with a chemical attack.

We wanted to put sufficient funds into this bill so that we can take the vulnerability assessment that was done on Federal dams and waterways throughout the country and in fact act on that assessment and actually provide for the security upgrades that we need for those facilities. We need $108 million to do that.

Only weeks ago, the General Accounting Office completed a report indicating that there is a serious threat posed by the possibility of terrorists targeting U.S. chemical plants. We wanted to provide $75 million to initiate an assessment of that threat as recommended by the GAO. We have been denied the opportunity to do that. We also want to see to it that there is better coordination between the FDA and the USDA in determining what kinds of inspections have taken place and what inspections have not taken place with respect to a number of shipments of agricultural products and medical products that come into this country.

The Hart-Rudman report recommended the Federal Government provide funding to first responders to immediately clear the backlog of requests for protective gear for our local first responders. This legislation does not begin to lay a glove on the size of that problem.

We also have a problem in that the equipment used by our firemen and our policemen and our rescue workers at the local level are not interoperable, and so those groups cannot talk to each other.

Twenty years ago in this town when we had the Air Florida accident, we had rescue workers from Virginia, from Maryland, from the District of Columbia. They could not talk to each other on their emergency equipment because they were all on different wavelengths. That was 20 years ago. When we had that same problem at the Pentagon just about a year ago, we still had not improved the situation. No real progress in 20 years. It is about time we fix it. We want to in our amendment. We have been denied the opportunity.

We also wanted to provide $300 million in additional funding to the Office of Domestic Preparedness, which has been denied. We also wanted to provide sufficient funds to guarantee that every State in the Union has at least one National Guard Civil Support Team to back up first responders in case of terrorist attack emergencies. We have been denied the opportunity to do that. We wanted to provide $90 million to expand port and waterway safety systems. Right now the port of Norfolk has a sophisticated system and the port of San Diego is going to get that system later in the year; but we still have ports like Boston, Charleston, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Corpus Christie, San Juan, and Washington, D.C. where we need that equipment, but do not have it.

The Coast Guard indicates that in addition to all of that we have at least $900 million in needs that we ought to be helping local port authorities with and over the next 10 years those needs are estimated to be about $4.4 billion. We wanted to add $250 million to the 440 already in this bill to deal with that problem, and we have been denied that opportunity.

And we also take note of the fact that the Pentagon has identified more than $1 billion of unfunded security needs at military bases here at home, such as providing additional protection for family housing by building perimeter fencing. Our amendment wanted to put at least $200 million in here for that purpose. We have been denied the right to do so.

We wanted to increase the intelligence budget for the Department of Energy so that they can have a better surveillance operation with respect to countries like Iran and North Korea. We have been denied that opportunity. And we wanted to do a number of other things which I do not have time to discuss.

Let me simply say, despite the fact that the rule has denied us the opportunity to offer the amendment, I am going to attempt to offer that amendment anyway when we get to the 5-minute rule because I believe that this is so important for the security of this country. There is no reason for us to have a dispute on this issue. There is no reason to have a difference between Republicans and Democrats on a national security issue of this magnitude. I cannot believe that we do not have bipartisan support for this added money.

We found enough room to give $3 billion and more to the airlines, but not enough to provide $2.5 billion for homeland security. We find enough room in this bill to provide $7 billion in foreign aid to other countries including some bribe money to countries that voted with us in the United Nations who are adding virtually nothing to our security effort; and yet we are being denied the opportunity to provide $1 billion on the homeland security front. For that matter we know that our government policy is, and this is in writing, to provide health care, basic universal health care was the term, for 25 million people in Iraq.

We know that our government intends to repair 6,000 schools and 100 hospitals in Iraq. It would be nice if we could do the same thing here at home. We are not, obviously, being allowed to do that because of the majority party's lust for passing every tax cut known to man, but that is a debate for another day.

Today, as far as I am concerned, the critical hole in this bill is lack of sufficient funds for homeland security. We are going to try to do everything we can to fix that problem despite the lack of cooperation from the majority leadership. But I do want to, at the same time, thank the chairman of the committee for his personal cooperation in trying to make sure that this House at least met its constitutional responsibilities with respect to the power of the purse, and I congratulate him for that action.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct the impression left by the previous speaker. The previous speaker said in committee earlier this week, and he has touched on it again today, he said that we had almost $19 billion in so-called ``unspent'' homeland security funds. The fact is, that is a fictional number. I want to show the Members why.

First, 34 percent of that number is found in a bill which we have not yet even enacted. We cannot expect localities to spend money we have not yet provided them.

Second, 10 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money represents money in this supplemental which we have not yet passed. We cannot count money that we have not yet passed as part of the money localities have not yet spent.

Then, in the omnibus appropriation bill which we just passed in February, and we were supposed to pass it before October 1 but we did not get around to it until February, 30 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money is in that omnibus bill.

It was only 2 weeks ago that the agency invited localities to apply for that money. The application time is not even closed yet. When we get down to the real, hard facts, only 26 percent of that $19 billion represents previously enacted money before February of this year. Of that 26 percent, only 4 percent is unobligated, and 22 percent of that is obligated.

Mr. Chairman, so much for the idea that there is ``enough in the pipeline.'' There is not nearly enough in the pipeline. Ask the mayors, ask the firemen, ask the police chiefs, ask the Coast Guard, ask the Department of Defense. They know there is not enough money in the pipeline.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, there are several Members who wanted to speak, but let me yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, every Member of this House supports whatever is necessary to give our troops every dollar and every piece of equipment they need to come through this war successfully and unscathed, we hope; but there are other duties which this Congress has as well, and I believe that we are missing a huge opportunity to strengthen our defenses here at home.

I really believe that the people who died in the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania and the Twin Towers in New York were the last casualties from the 1991 war against Iraq. It was that war to which bin Laden responded, and it was because of his anger at the West for stationing troops on Saudi territory that he lashed out in his vicious attack on this country.

I think we have to recognize that there will be future bin Ladens, and if we are going to have an ultimately successful result from our attack on Iraq, we need to make certain that we do a much better job the next 10 years in battening down the hatches against terrorism than we did the past 10 years. That is why we wanted to offer this amendment today; and in my view, we will pay a price for not being able to provide these additional protections.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I could not say it better myself.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to add $2.5 billion in funding for homeland security. It seems to me that if we can undertake an effort that will provide basic health

care for Iraqis, 25 million Iraqis, if we can provide for the reconstruction of 6,000 schools in Iraq and 100 hospitals in Iraq, it seems to me that we can at least do the minimum necessary to batten down the hatches here at home and protect our communities, our ports, our first responders, our schools and our other citizens from potential terrorist attacks.

This amendment seeks to add $135 million to increase the sophistication of our anti-nuclear detection equipment in the 10 main ports around the world that ship over 50 percent of the shipping containers into the United States. We are incredibly vulnerable to the use of a dirty nuclear device in our ports, and this would be a major step forward in correcting that vulnerability.

We also want to spend $87 million to provide additional oversight of nuclear materials stored here in the United States so it is not reachable by terrorists.

We want to provide $150 million to upgrade the State public health departments and environmental laboratories in order to strengthen our ability to respond to chemical weapons attacks.

We want to provide additional funding to follow up on the site-by- site analyses of our vulnerability or of the vulnerability of our Federal dams and waterways across the country.

We want to provide $75 million to initiate assessments of the vulnerability of the U.S. chemical plants in the country.

We want to provide an additional $300 million for first responders and $150 million of that specifically for firefighter grants to raise that program up to its authorized level of $900 million.

We want to provide additional funding to our National Guard civil support team so that every State in the Union can have a qualified National Guard backup operation to supplement the actions of our first responders in case of terrorist attacks in our localities.

We want to see to it that the Coast Guard is expanded by at least 2,000 personnel beginning in October, rather than waiting until next April. The Coast Guard is stretched to the breaking point at this point.

We want to see to it that many of the other ports in the United States have the same detection equipment that is now available in Norfolk and will soon be available in San Diego.

We want to respond to the fact that the Coast Guard has estimated that we need $4.5 billion in additional funding for our local port authorities over the next 10 years. We want to provide an additional response to that.

We want to deal with the fact that today, if there were an attack on our tunnels, our Amtrak tunnels, in a number of cities across the country, that, in fact, the ability to evacuate people from those tunnels right now is extremely and dangerously limited. And I would point out that the size of this amendment is smaller than the amendment that is contained in the bill to provide aid to airlines. It is very much smaller, about a third the size of the foreign assistance that is contained in this bill for other countries.

This is the minimum that we ought to be doing. I originally submitted a list that would come up to almost $8 billion in what we regard as essential security, home front security operations that need to be undertaken. None of these ideas originate with us. They all originate with the agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of the United States at home.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the Members of this House not lodge an objection to this amendment so that we can, in fact, at least have a debate on this issue. We are in the minority. We understand that we cannot expect to win on many votes around here, but at least in the people's House, we ought to be able to debate these issues. You already have 13 votes more than we have on this side of the aisle. You will most assuredly win; but at least take the gag off, and let us have the opportunity to have an up or down vote on something that ought to be a totally bipartisan effort.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Kentucky, let me simply say that the Coast Guard has told us very clearly that if we provide this money now, they can get

these additional 2,000 people on board by October. They have also told us if we wait until the 2004 budget year that they cannot bring them on until April. That is a fact.

Fact number two. The gentleman talks of $1 billion in ODP money that is not spent. The fact is it is not spent because the application period is open until April 22. It cannot be spent until that application period is finished.

Thirdly, the fire grants for 2002. They are virtually all out. And for the fiscal 2003, the applications are still open, so again that money cannot be expected to be out of here. The agency assures us it will be out of here by June once the application period is finished.

So I think the gentleman is using a lot of interesting numbers to make a point that does not exist.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we have answered those statements twice, and I also answered them earlier in the debate.

The fact is if Members think there is enough money being provided to protect the homeland, vote against the amendment. If they think there is not enough money, vote for it. But at least let us have a vote.

Against a defined need of $9 billion.

It is your administration running the show, not ours.

I most certainly do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, let me state what I understand the parliamentary situation to be. My understanding is that the rule under which we are operating waives section 302(c), 302(f) and section 311 of the Budget Act against the bill as reported, and clause 2 of rule XXI.

My understanding is that the rule provides, with respect to section 302(c), my understanding is that if the gentleman's interpretation of the rule is correct, that would mean that while the majority would get a waiver for its bill, even though the committee has not filed its 302(b) suballocations, the minority would not get a corresponding waiver.

My understanding with respect to section 302(f) is that if the gentleman's interpretation is correct, that would mean that despite the fact that the bill exceeds 302(a) or (b) allocations, that the majority's bill will still be allowed to come to the House floor but our amendment would not be able to, even though we are in precisely the same situation with respect to those allocations.

With respect to section 311, which prohibits consideration of a bill or amendments that exceed total spending in the deemed fiscal year 2003 budget resolution, if the gentleman's interpretation is to prevail, that would mean that the majority would be waiving requirements on this point for their bill but not for the minority's.

I cannot believe that the majority would intentionally produce such an unfair result, and so I therefore would urge the Chair to rule that the amendment is in order.

Mr. Chairman, I am most reluctant to do this, but in my view when the rights of the minority to offer a meaningful amendment on a bill of this nature, which goes to the very heart of our national security preparation, when the minority is denied an opportunity to even have such a proposal debated, I have no choice but to move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I have been around this institution long enough to know what an amendment looks like when it does cut off and end the war because we voted that way to end the Vietnam War. I voted for that resolution, or for that amendment.

I also voted to require the President to come back to the Congress for a second vote before he went to war if the Security Council did not agree with his decision to go to war, so I think my position is clear. I think there are going to be very bad, long-term results from this war.

But having said that, I think it is incorrect for the gentleman to say that this amendment will, in effect, bring the troops home. It does no such thing. All it does is to say that we will not reimburse the Pentagon for money which has already largely been spent. It simply does not replenish those accounts. I do not think that that is a rational thing to do.

Secondly, I would point out one of my problems with this bill is that this bill already, in my view, substantially understates, and therefore substantially hides from public view, the full cost of this war. It is going to cost a lot more than the $70 billion in this bill today.

The effect of offering this amendment, in my view, would be to further mask the real cost of that war. I do not think that is a healthy thing to do. I think we are getting into some long-term costs associated with this war far in excess of what the Pentagon, the State Department, or the White House are admitting. I think this amendment simply further would play into that game.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not going to pass because, frankly, it does not do what it purports to do. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do; he is trying to find some way to express his views on the war, so in a sense this is a symbolic act. I respect him for that.

The fact is, Members need to be assured they understand exactly what it does and what it does not do. One thing it does not do, it does not bring the troops home.

Mr. Chairman, because she has laryngitis, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) may be permitted to insert a statement in the Record at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a debate on this amendment, but I do want to object to something I just saw here on the House floor. We have been trying to work out cooperatively, between both sides of the aisle, arrangements on time. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) was willing to limit his amendment, for instance, to 15 minutes. We now have a Republican amendment on which we have not yet been able to obtain time limits. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been trying to manage the bill in a very fair way, and I have been trying to do what I can on this side as well.

I, frankly, find it offensive when an individual Member of the House objects to another Member of the House simply asking for an extension of time for a minute or so to ask a question. I want to put the House on notice that if that happens once more, I will guarantee that we will not finish this bill tonight.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, that arrangement as stated would provide that all of the time would be managed on that side of the aisle. Can we work it out so that some of it is assured to folks on this side of the aisle, regardless of which side of the question they are on?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, that is agreeable. I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's request.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, in the interchange that we were having, I was momentarily distracted. The agreement that we had worked out earlier I understood was 15 minutes. I thought it was 15 minutes a side, instead of 7\1/2\ minutes a side.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if that would be acceptable to him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

We all stand here today hoping that no more American soldiers will be killed in Iraq. My amendment will do the most to prevent more American fatalities.

This amendment would bring the troops home immediately and safely. It will end this unjust and illegal war now.

The administration has spent $30.3 billion already on current military operations. This amendment will give the Pentagon another $10 billion to ensure the troops can be safely brought back home to their families. Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my amendment will leave $40.3 billion to pay for the war to date and to get the troops back home now. This amendment will save taxpayers $19.3 billion. The savings from the adventure in Iraq can be used for increased homeland security, education, health care, or veterans funds.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this war is not about defending the United States from the threat of Iraq, this war is not about the U.S. trying to save or liberate the Iraqi people, this war is not about an Iraqi nuclear threat. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction that have been able to be detected by the U.N., and it would be most unfortunate if it was for our troops to find those weapons in combat when, by stepping back and letting the U.N. inspectors return, we could avoid that kind of confrontation and cataclysm.

None of us in this Chamber holds any brief for Saddam Hussein. He is a dictator, yet it is not the responsibility of the United States to oust the leaders of sovereign nations. There are many who want to see this Nation become more safe, but I think a good case can be made that the action against Iraq will not make this country more safe, it will make this country less safe. It will foster terrorism and it will increase anti-American feelings. We will continue to see more orange alerts as the threats against our Nation increase, and we will continue to see the hatred of America grow from people around the world.

This war is killing our troops. It is killing innocent Iraqi civilians. This war must end now. It was unjust when it started 2 weeks ago and it is still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try to save the lives of our troops and of innocent Iraqi citizens.

This is the ultimate support-the-troops amendment. There is no better way to ensure their safety than to bring them home now. I support the troops, but I oppose the war.

I am not the only Member of Congress to have taken such a position. On another war at another time with another President, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was quoted in The New York Times on May 7, 1999 as saying, ``While we may not support the President's ill-advised war, we do support our troops.''

My colleague from Texas, for whom I have the greatest respect, was referring to a different war, but he demonstrates the precedent for opposing the mission and supporting the troops. I believe he is a patriot and I believe he is a good American. In fact, I voted with him that year on a vote seeking to get the troops out of Kosovo.

On December 13, 1995, the House, under the control of Speaker Gingrich, considered H.R. 2770. The bill, a prohibition of funds for the deployment of forces in Bosnia, was introduced by Representative Dornan. Many leading Republicans, such as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), voted to cut off funds for the military action while the troops were deployed in Bosnia. In fact, 82 percent of the gentlemen and gentlewomen from the other side of the aisle voted to cut off funds while troops were deployed in Bosnia.

I urge my colleagues to read the Congressional Record of that day. I would quote:

``Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that Members would get up in the well of this House and talk about cutting the knees out from under the troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. We want to get the troops there out, and we do not want to send any more troops.''

That was our good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

Again, another quote:

``Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a troubled heart. I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to support our troops. Support them by bringing the 150 home. Bring them home now before we get into a mess like I personally had to live through 30 years ago.''

That was my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

I believe that a ``no'' vote on this supplemental is patriotic, because this war is not about defending the United

States from a threat of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. There has never been a link demonstrated of any credibility connecting Iraq to al Qaeda's work on 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with the anthrax attack upon this country.

Iraq did not attack this country. Iraq does not have the military capability to attack this country. The United Nations had not been able to establish before their inspectors were withdrawn that Iraq in fact had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not acquiring nuclear material from Niger, as had been advanced by some in the administration.

This war is not about the U.S. trying to liberate the people of Iraq. It is not about an Iraqi nuclear threat. Ending this war now and resuming weapons inspections could salvage world opinion of the United States, which has been deteriorating since even the talk of war began. After all, the greatest threat to the United States at this time is terrorism. This war will breed terrorism.

I agree with those in this Congress who today have taken this floor to express concern about meeting the challenge of terrorism. But this war against Iraq and our occupation of Iraq will make America less safe, not more safe. This war will make America a target.

We all desire safety and security in this country. The only way that we can truly achieve that is to work cooperatively with the world community. We had the sympathies of the world after 9-11. Nation upon nation looked forward to cooperating with the United States after 9-11. This approach towards aggressive war has squandered the support of the world, the very support that we need to successfully meet the challenge of terrorism here at home.

Every dime that we spend to advance aggressive war in Iraq, or anywhere else in that region, for that matter, will require later on spending two dimes or $2 to secure our own Nation. I believe that now is the time for America to take a new direction, to turn away from aggressive war.

Mr. Chairman, we have been told that it is Iraq's possible possession of weapons of mass destruction which brings us into their borders and causes our troops to go throughout their cities. This country needs to confront the reality that there are many countries which possess or are pursuing or are capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or missile delivery systems.

As of 2000, there were 17 such nations with respect to nuclear weapons, 26 such nations with respect to chemical weapons, 20 with biological weapons, 17 with missile systems. The administration's nuclear posture review and their national security strategy taken together would put us towards confrontation with many nations of the world. Now is the time for us to reassess that.

This downpayment on this war, which is represented by this supplemental, is not simply a way of supporting the war; it is a way of supporting a policy which can only lead this Nation to disaster around the world. Now is the time to step back.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment points out that the administration has spent $30 billion already on current military operations. This amendment will give the Pentagon another $10 billion to ensure that the troops can be brought safely home to their families.

Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my amendment will leave $40 billion to pay for the war to date and to get the troops home now. I want to restate that $10 billion is there to ensure that the troops get home safely.

This amendment is a statement that we should end the war now and that we should bring our troops back home safely; that we can pay the bills that have already been incurred, but that we should not incur any more bills.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), for his remarks. I respect his service to our country, both in the military and in this Congress.

To my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey): If I could have offered an amendment that would have required the President to bring the troops home now, I would have.

As my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows, the majority would not have permitted such an amendment, and that leaves me with two options. One, which is to do nothing. And considering the statements that I have made over the past year challenging this war, that is not going to happen. And the other is to offer the amendment before us now, which my colleague from Wisconsin understands does have a powerful symbolic impact, and, as I understand it, is limited by the limitations of the amendments process. But my amendment was crafted to ensure that the troops would have safe passage home, $10 billion to assure that they come home safely.

I yield to no one in my love for this country, in my commitment to the men and women who serve, and I honor similarly the patriotism which brings every Member of this House to this floor, their honest differences of opinion about the policies of this United States which have brought this country into Baghdad today.

This is an appropriate moment for us to stop and think whether or not aggressive warfare is consistent with the aspirations of this country, whether or not policies of preemption and unilateralism, as articulated in the National Security Strategy, will serve this country well in a complex world where so many nations possess biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons as well as the missile capability to deliver them.

This amendment seeks to create this discussion in this House at this moment as to whether or not this is the time in world history to seek to reengage the world community, which certainly understands America's concern, but to get that same world community which has shown sympathy for America in the past to join with us in once again going back to Iraq with U.N. inspectors instead of our troops, who we would never want to have to find weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield in combat used against them. It is much more appropriate to have inspectors determine whether or not such weapons exist, and if they do, to move to destroy them.

We need to find a way to reintegrate nations like Iraq and the others, which are hostile to this country at this point, back into the world community. We need to find a way to catch what I believe is an advancing tide of human unity which we see expressed all around the world with friends of ours who have stated their concern about the American position of aggressive war against Iraq.

This is a turning point in this country's history, and it is an important moment for us to ask questions about the direction we are going in. Because we are not only talking about Iraq here. We are not just talking about a down payment on a war. We are not just talking about the safety of our troops today. We are talking about the safety and security of the world, America's role in the world, our ability to keep America safe and secure in a climate with an administration that is determining that aggressive war is the way to achieve that.

I maintain that is always open to debate, and I want to thank the gentleman for providing me with this opportunity to raise this question on this floor.

We are all patriots. We all love our country. But one of the glories of this country is its first amendment, which provides not only for freedom of speech, but which provides for a national discussion on issues that are of urgent importance.

And I want to thank both the ranking member and the chair for ensuring that this happens on this issue, and I acknowledge that. And when it is appropriate, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment out of respect for the heartfelt concerns expressed by my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the troops and the concern that all of our Members have for them, whatever their position is on this war, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, today H.R. 1559 is before the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to pay for the war in Iraq, the liberation of the people of Iraq, the destruction of a regime that threatens its own people, that persecutes its own people, that threatens its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, that is a vicious, violent regime. We are at war today, and I want to say that American people can be, and I am sure they are, tremendously proud of the members of our Armed Forces.

I was paying tribute to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces for their tremendous dedication and their courage and their commitment and their valor and the tremendous way in which they are carrying out their mission. All Americans are proud of what these young Americans are doing.

The Committee on Appropriations reported the bill with a recorded vote and every Member in the Committee voted yes: number one, to bring the bill to the floor; number two, to show our complete support of our American Armed Forces. And I am very proud of that. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I wanted to thank the members of both parties, on both sides of the political aisle on the Committee on Appropriations who worked together to produce this product that is very similar, Mr. Chairman, to what the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, asked us to do. The major part of the appropriations provided in this bill are for the Department of Defense, and the military services, to pay for much of the activities that have already taken place and to provide additional funding to complete this effort to rid the world of a regime as the one we have seen for the last 20 years headed by Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my time at this point because I want the subcommittee chairmen who worked so hard to bring this package together to use a considerable amount of the time to explain the part of the bill on which they worked.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following tabular and extraneous material:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.005

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do so to again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the cooperation that we enjoyed as we prepared this bill. And this is a clean bill, by the way. And I compliment the members of the House. A lot of Members came to us and asked for consideration to do something that they felt was important to do in this supplemental, and we explained that it was a war supplemental and explained why we were not going to be able to accept Member projects. There are no Member projects in this bill. This is a clean bill. It tracks what the President asked for, and I think the House can be very proud of that.

There are several major parts of the bill: the national defense part dealing with the war, the very important part of the bill dealing with homeland security, and another part of the bill that deals with support for our coalition partners. So we are going to explain those sections of the bill separately.

The largest part of the bill goes to the war, of course, and for national defense and for our troops to provide what they need to carry out their important mission.

Mr. Chairman, to present that part of the bill, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Defense, who does a tremendous job in presenting and providing information that we need to put these bills together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do so to say that on September 11, 2001, America's world changed. As we entered the 21st century, everything changed. Our citizens came under attack from cowardly terrorists who killed thousands of innocent, and I repeat, innocent civilians. That war against terrorism has been ongoing very effectively.

Early this year, I recommended to the Committee on Appropriations a reorganizational structure that would create a subcommittee which would have the responsibility of dealing specifically with the security of our homeland. I asked the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) if he would chair that subcommittee. He is one of the outstanding leaders of our Committee on Appropriations, and he agreed to do that. They are well under way with their work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of that very important Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I just want to point out that under the strong leadership of President Bush, we have developed a good coalition to fight this war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. We actually have 49 active members of the coalition, which is a larger group of countries supporting this effort than we had in Desert Storm in 1991.

So with the leadership of President Bush and the strong support that he has had from Prime Minister Blair, the Prime Minister of Spain, the Prime Minister of Australia, providing the strongest leadership, we have a good, strong coalition.

The next part of this bill has to do with financial support for some members of that coalition. But as I talk about the coalition, there is one group that has not had much recognition, and they really deserve it. That is Poland. Poland, a new member to NATO, an emergent country after the Soviet Union went away, actually was involved in one of the very first combat

missions in this action of the Iraqi freedom. That mission was the oil platforms in the gulf. Actually, their combat team took control of and are managing and defending those platforms that were sabotaged, that were wired for explosives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, to discuss that part of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would like to respond that he is correct in his assessment of the situation, and I guarantee him that I would work as closely with him as I possibly can to accomplish what he wishes to accomplish.

The National Animal Disease Center modernization project is an important initiative, both for updating these facilities and particularly in light of the threats of agro- and bioterrorism. And I thank the gentleman for calling this to our attention today.

Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief closing statement. I reserve my time until the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yields back his time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I want to say, to the Members of the House, today my colleagues are exercising one of the most basic requirements of the Constitution, and that is to provide for the defense of our Nation. We will appropriate the funds today to do just that.

The situation is serious. Our young Americans are at risk on the battlefield. It is important that we provide everything that they need to conclude their mission and to replace whatever munitions have been used.

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask all Americans to join in a prayer asking God's blessing on all of those men and women who are performing that mission today, wherever they might be in this world, and also to ask God's blessings on the President of the United States, President Bush, the Commander in Chief, as he leads our Nation through these very difficult times.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I only do so to engage the gentleman just very briefly, the gentleman and I have an understanding that I will not object to his request; I have no problem with that, but that we have an agreement that I would then ask unanimous consent to limit debate on this amendment, these amendments, to 15 minutes, 7\1/2\ minutes on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thought we had amended that. But that is okay with me; if the gentleman wants to do it 15 and 15, I have no problem with that either.

Mr. Chairman, I would restate my unanimous consent request that it be 15 minutes on each side rather than 7\1/2\ minutes on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tenor of the gentleman's debate. I think this debate has been great all day long, and at a very high level.

For a closing statement in opposition to the amendment, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I reserve the right to object merely to inquire of the gentleman if he would be interested in reaching some agreement on a time limit, because this amendment has the potential to be very time consuming. And it is a very important amendment, but I would like to say to the gentleman that I do not want to limit any debate for those who desire to speak, but we need to finish this bill tonight. We have to have the weekend to prepare for the conference with the other body. So, would the gentleman be interested in discussing the possibility of a time limit?

I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and myself as the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as an opponent would share the 20 minutes. So the gentleman from Wisconsin would have 10 minutes and I would have 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the work they have done to get this supplemental bill to the floor as expeditiously as possible, in as good shape as it is, and with as little controversy as we have seen. There is certainly some disagreement.

Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the foreign operations chapter of this supplemental total $7.4 billion. That is 2 percent, $184 million, less than was requested by the President. We have fulfilled the administration's funding request for Iraq and for the countries supporting the war on terrorism. Let me start by outlining where we do concur with the President's request.

The most urgent requirement in the foreign operations chapter is assistance for Iraq's people. One-third of the foreign operations chapter is for relief and reconstruction in Iraq. We have provided every penny the President requested, plus an additional $40 million. Therefore, we are asking the House to approve $2.5 billion for a new Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.

The Department of State, USAID, and the Treasury and Health and Human Resources Department could receive direct apportionments from the fund; but it does not go to the Department of Defense, which already, I think most of us would agree, has its hands full with winning the war and providing security in Iraq.

The immediate focus of the new fund would be provision of clean water, food, and care for displaced and vulnerable people. Soon thereafter, repairs of the degraded electricity and communications, health, and education systems would get under way. We anticipate that other donors and international organizations would eventually take over much of that work.

The remaining funding in this chapter is to be provided for countries supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, or the broader war against terrorism. The committee has provided all of the funding that was requested for Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, and the rest of the 22 countries that are included in this supplemental.

While I understand there are many amendments that today will be aimed at cutting funds to one or more of these countries, I would like to emphasize that the President requested these funds to help the United States fight this war in Iraq. He is our Commander in Chief, and I ask my colleagues not to remove the tools he needs to win this war. That includes funding for our diplomatic efforts as well as our military operations.

The foreign operations chapter includes $9 million for loan guarantees to Israel, which are to be issued over the next 3 years. This is very similar to the multiyear loan guarantee package that we provided to Israel in 1992. These guarantees will bolster the nation's credit rating and help Israel implement the critical budget and economic reforms. They may also support the renewed peace process after the end of the conflict in Iraq.

Additionally, the foreign operations chapter includes $2.3 billion for the economic support fund. This total provides $700 million for Jordan. Jordan is particularly dependent on Iraqi oil. There is $300 million for Egypt which may be used for loan guarantees, not to exceed $2 billion, and $127 million is provided for Afghanistan to continue efforts to support security and economic development in that Nation. Also, $100 million is provided for a new Islamic partnership and outreach program.

Additionally, there is permissive language that allows the President to use up to $1 billion for Turkey that could subsidize some $8.5 billion of loan guarantees. The language of this bill requires the Secretary of State to assure Congress that Turkey is cooperating with the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including facilitation of humanitarian assistance to Iraq, before authorizing the loan guarantees.

There is going to be a lot of discussion about this issue today, so let me just say now that Turkey is a longtime ally of the United States. It is a key front-line state in the war on terrorism. It is a democratic Muslim nation that is part of most of the Middle East and southern Europe. Obviously, it is a nation that has been significantly impacted by the conflict in Iraq, and it had significant economic problems before the conflict.

As Deputy Secretary Armitage said in testimony before our subcommittee, ``It would be the greatest of ironies if we spend all this energy, blood, and treasure and were successful in Iraq, only to turn around and see a longtime ally, Turkey, go bottom up because of economic weakness.''

The last part of the foreign operations chapter includes $2.1 billion for foreign military financing as requested, which improves defense capabilities of America's friends and allies. There is $406 million that is provided to Jordan to meet border security requirements to upgrade air bases, and $170 million is for training and equipping the new Afghan army.

Finally, within this section the FMF account includes $1 billion to help Israel strengthen its military and civil defenses.

There are programs for which we did not provide the full President's request. Chief among these is the U.S. Emergency Fund for Complex Emergencies. The President asked for $150 million for this new emergency fund, but we believe that this request should be considered within the context of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations and authorization processes.

As I said in our hearing last week with Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, in my view it is not appropriate to use the Iraq supplemental as a cover to assert agency jurisdiction or to implement untried concepts. The amount not provided for this new emergency fund was distributed among the international disaster assistance and emergency refugee accounts and the new Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.

Mr. Chairman, this is a brief summary of the recommendations contained within the foreign operations chapter of this supplemental. I believe the committee has developed a responsible product, and I ask for the support of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As the preceding speaker said, the gentleman who offers this amendment is somebody that I have the highest respect for. He is a true patriot, and no way would I impugn his motives. I just think the basis of this amendment is fundamentally wrong.

As I said the other day in the committee, this is one of those tough votes where I think we as Members have an obligation to not let our emotions run away with us but to do what is the right thing in order to prosecute the war and to carry out our national security and diplomatic objectives.

If I may I would like to provide a little bit of background. The bill language, as it is presented on the floor today, permits us to provide to Turkey, through permissive legislative language, $1 billion in economic support funds to Turkey which could be used by Turkey in turn to buy down the cost of private sector loans, that is, the credit subsidy that would sustain about $8.5 billion of loan guarantees.

The committee recommends this bill language but requires that the Secretary of State determine and notify Congress that Turkey is cooperating with the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the facilitation of humanitarian assistance. So this money does not get spent until that certification is made by the President.

The President, the administration, and the committee support the assistance in this bill because a strong and economically viable and a democratic Turkey is a model in the Middle East, and it is essential to U.S. strategic interests.

Turkey has been an ally of ours for the last half century. During the Korean War, the Turks were with us and suffered the highest per capita casualties of any partner in the Korean War coalition. They were with us in Vietnam. They were with us in 1991 in the Gulf War. They have been with us in Afghanistan. They helped us in Bosnia. They have been very helpful in the war against terrorism.

They have hosted Operation Northern Watch. That is the enforcement of the no-fly zone in the northern part of Iraq for the last 12 years. They are a member in good standing of the NATO alliance.

Turkey is also a democratic nation. It is one of the few Muslim nations that has built economic and military ties with Israel. Ankara has viewed this relation as important, as does Israel. After the conflict with Iraq ends, we will clearly need Turkey to play an important role in the Middle East peace process.

Obviously, the Turks have not done everything that we would have wished and may have been expected in Operation Iraqi Freedom; but we need to remember that they are a democracy,

and sometimes democracies can be messy, as we certainly know in our own body here.

The Turkish parliament did not support the executive by some three votes. They fell short of the absolute majority they needed to have; but in fairness, 90 percent of the population has been opposed to this war, and so it was an act of some courage for this new parliament, 80 percent of whom were new at the time they voted, to cast the votes they did; and as The Washington Post pointed out recently, the United States contributed to part of the problem with its own diplomatic errors leading up to the vote that took place.

Foreign affairs is, in part I think, understanding about being sensitive to other nations' views. We need to remember that Turkey does border Iraq, as well as Syria and Iran. We need to understand that the Iraq conflict and Kurdish issues are extraordinarily important domestic issues in this multiethnic nation. The refugee flows from Iraq in 1991 tragically led to a wave of terrorism that resulted in 30,000 Turkish deaths, and we can be sure that was very much on the minds of these people at the time they cast the votes that they did.

While they did not allow U.S. combat troops to cross into Iraq from Turkish territory, they are now supporting us in a number of important ways with intelligence support, with overflights by combat aircraft and missiles, the basing of helicopters in southeastern Turkey for medical evacuations, by allowing resupply of our troops by opening a northern front, and emergency landings of U.S. combat aircraft, and with humanitarian assistance that is now flowing regularly across the border into Iraq.

We have been firmly opposed to having Turkish military intervention in Iraq. The assistance in the supplemental provides an incentive for Turkish restraint. Should Turkey move into Iraq, the President would be able to withhold the funds in this bill.

Just yesterday, Secretary of State Powell completed talks in Turkey. He obtained formal Turkish agreement to allow overland supply of fuel, water and food to our forces in northern Iraq. The Secretary worked on repairing relations. He secured Turkish agreement on the flow of humanitarian supplies.

Mr. Chairman, for us to cast a positive vote on this amendment right now undercuts not only the President's diplomatic efforts but, yes, sadly undercuts our military forces in northern Iraq; and, Mr. Chairman, we should not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and she said oh, well, this is a great open rule.

Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This is not an open rule in the true sense. The Republicans waived all the Rules of the House that they could possibly waive: the Budget Act, every rule that they could waive for their own bill, for the committee bill, and then they refused to waive those same rules for the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to bring up an amendment to the committee bill. So this is not an open process, and let us be serious about what is going on here today.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, the brave men and women of the U.S. military are, once again, proving themselves to be the finest fighting force in history. On the ground, in the seas, and in the skies over Iraq, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are risking their lives to protect America and the world from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's murderous regime.

Mr. Speaker, our troops have the strong bipartisan support of this Congress and of the American people. We are all deeply proud of the courage, skill, and professionalism they are displaying under very difficult conditions, and we are committed, Republicans as well as Democrats, to ensuring that our troops have all the resources they need to complete their mission as quickly and as safely as possible.

So I am pleased that this emergency spending bill is on the House floor today. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each deserve credit for a bill that is generally quite strong.

This bill supports our troops in the field, it protects the foreign policy prerogatives of the President, and it respects the Congress's constitutional duty to maintain responsibility for the tax dollars of the American people. Additionally, this emergency supplemental includes desperately needed assistance for the struggling airline industry.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. airlines are critical to the American economy, but they were hurt severely by the September 11 attacks and by subsequent security expenses. I know this firsthand because American Airlines, which employs thousands of hardworking people in my north Texas district, has been struggling mightily, and I want to congratulate the employee unions at American for voluntarily agreeing to benefit reductions to help keep the company out of bankruptcy. But they, like the rest of the airline industry, need additional relief from the government. So I am glad that this bill provides it, and I urge the President to support it.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I expect to support this bill.

But make no mistake: This bill as it is currently written still leaves America unnecessarily vulnerable to another terrorist attack. That is because Republicans continue to block critical homeland security resources for key targets like ports and nuclear facilities. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand why Republicans refuse to address so many vital homeland defense needs. After all, there is no disputing the importance of these unmet homeland security requirements.

The Coast Guard reports that it needs $1 billion this year alone to secure America's ports. The U.S. Fire Service found that between one- third and one-half of firefighters lack critical pieces of basic emergency equipment. And each of the armed services has submitted detailed lists of military construction projects required to ensure the security of American troops at bases here in the United States.

But while Republicans ignore these vital homeland security needs, they have proven time and again that they are willing to spend money on their priorities. Unfortunately, those priorities too often turn out to be tax breaks for those who need them the least.

Just last month, House Republicans voted to spend nearly $800 billion on tax breaks, but they refused to spend less than one-half of 1 percent of that amount, $250 million, for a critical program to protect our ports against terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have repeatedly tried to force Republicans to address America's homeland defense. In the Committee on Rules last night, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to provide $2.5 billion for homeland security requirements that Republicans have refused to address.

But Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

The Republican leadership is tempted, as we have already heard, to tell us that they did not block the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They may be tempted to say again that this is an open rule, and the problem is that the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin violates the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Republican leadership does not make that argument again, because that argument is dangerously disingenuous. After all, Republican leaders routinely waive the House rules for their priorities. Just last month, they were willing to waive the Budget Act to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to special interests. In this very rule, the same one that refuses to provide the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) with waivers, Republicans have waived the rules for the underlying bill.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leaders have waived the House rules on 14 of 15 rules this year. In other words, Republicans are happy to waive the House rules for special interest tax breaks and other Republican priorities, but Republican priorities do not seem to include additional money for homeland defense.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just unfair and undemocratic, it is an arrogant abuse of power. Most importantly, it is an abuse of power that leaves Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks here at home.

For that reason, Members of the House have only one way to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) today: by defeating the previous question on this rule. Let me be clear: by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will simply be voting to allow the House to

provide critical homeland security resources. They will not delay or defeat the underlying bill.

We will support the troops, and I am sure that this wartime spending bill will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But by voting ``yes'' on the previous question, Members will be voting to block critical homeland security resources. There is no way around that fact, so I urge Members not to do it.

Mr. Speaker, protecting America's homeland should not be a bipartisan issue. I hope my Republican friends will join Democrats in opposing the previous question so we can strengthen our defenses here at home while we provide for our troops in the field.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any speakers at this time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Every once in a while you have to connect the dots around here or it gets a little confusing. Let us connect the dots right now.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants an amendment to add $2.5 billion for homeland security. The other side does not want to let the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) add $2.5 billion for homeland security.

Why is that? That is because the deficit goes up by another $2.5 billion, and it becomes harder and harder to justify their tax cut for the rich. This is not very complicated. The dots are connected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will allow Members an opportunity to vote on the Obey homeland security amendment. Yesterday, Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides desperately needed funding for the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our national security. The amendment would add $2.5 billion, an increase of about 3 percent to the bill. The money would be used for port security, for Coast Guard activities, for infrastructure security, for water and chemical plant security, and for rail tunnel security. It provides funding for State and local response activities, including civil defense, first responders, firefighters and military Guard and Reserves. It also addresses one of our gravest security risks, nuclear security.

My colleagues may remember that the President not only requested no funds for nuclear security but rejected legislation in August of 2002 that would have provided $260 million for that purpose. It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to protect this Nation from the risk of terrorism. This should not be a partisan issue, but they have made it that way.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from voting on the wartime supplemental, but it will allow us to vote to protect our Nation and our citizens here and abroad. A ``yes'' vote on the previous question will block critical homeland security resources.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

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.