Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This rule provides for further consideration of the bill and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 2 of the resolution.

The amendments printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, except as specified in section 3 of the resolution, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, unless otherwise specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

This is a fair rule. It is a traditional, structured rule for defense authorization, and it provides for debate on 30 additional amendments that deal with pertinent issues, including personnel issues, maritime security, quality-of-life issues for our servicemen and women, and a number of noncontroversial concerns.

The most controversial of these measures is certain to be the modernization of the personnel system. Modernizing the management system is imperative to national security and the retention and recruitment of civilian personnel.

The Committee on Armed Services believes that the important lessons learned from various demonstration projects within DOD should be applied across the Department. These projects have shown to improve the expeditious hiring of qualified personnel, have been valuable in providing flexible personnel compensation and assignment systems, and have improved organizational efficiency. These demonstration projects have also been highly successful in attracting and maintaining high- quality work forces.

The reforms included in this legislation would be similar to the flexibility provided to the Department of Homeland Security.

Finally, I believe that the Secretary of Defense should have more flexible management authority.

H.R. 1588 is more than just a signal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that this Nation recognizes their sacrifices. It is the means by which we meet our commitment to providing them a decent quality of life by providing an across-the-board 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of America's all-voluntary

Armed Forces and the families that support them.

While our men and women in uniform have swiftly dispatched our enemies abroad, they face increasingly complex personal and professional challenges at home. We must do more to take care of those who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom, and for the families that support them.

Currently, the Survivor Benefit Program for the survivor of an injured or ill service member who lives long enough to be disability retired is better than the benefit for the survivor of a service member who dies instantaneously. I am deeply concerned about this inequity and am pleased that this legislation recommends that the Secretary of Defense review SPB procedures and propose legislation to ensure equitable treatment for the survivors of all members of our military, regardless of their circumstances.

With Memorial Day on Monday, it is only fitting to remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our country. Let us take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to those who are currently defending our homeland and abroad by passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), another member of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make the comment that we do have a committee system in this House because not everybody can be on every committee. They make recommendations to the full House, and usually we value their opinions and accept their recommendations. That is part of what is going on today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's time has been expired for about 2 minutes.

The gentleman's time has expired, and he should be removed from the floor.

Nobody is begging anybody. Use your time.

Mr. Speaker, regular order.

Regular order.

Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) yield back his time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, two hundred and twenty-eight years ago on this date, May 20, 1775, the Scotch-Irish residents of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina declared themselves no longer subject to British rule. The day after the battle of Lexington, the Committee of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, which was led by the Polk and Alexander families, drafted a document we refer to today as The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. In short, this document declared that the citizens of Mecklenburg County had dissolved all ties with Great Britain, and declared itself free and its people independent. One of my staff members, Andy Polk, is a direct descendant of the Polk and Alexander families.

As a member of Congress who represents much of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, I must say that I am very proud to represent an area that is so rich in history and so dedicated to freedom. Ever since May 20, 1775, the citizens of Mecklenburg County have been a freedom loving people who have laid down their lives so that others might experience the greatness of being a free people, who have the right to govern themselves as they see fit. Many of these men who signed the Mecklenburg Declaration went on to fight and die in the American Revolution to secure the liberties and freedoms we have today.

I am happy to note that in honor of this date the great state of North Carolina has placed May 20, 1775 on its flag and on its seal to honor the men who signed the Mecklenburg Declaration. And to further honor them I ask that their names be placed in the Congressional Record. Such men should not ever be forgotten, lest we forget the freedom we hold so dear.

Signers of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence: General Thomas Polk, Robert Irwin, William Graham, Hezekiah Alexander, John Flennegin, John Queary, Matthew McClure, David Reese, Ephraim Brevard, Adam Alexander, Abraham Alexander, John Phifer, John Foard, Ezra Alexander, Waightstill Avery, John Davidson, Hezekiah J. Balch, James Harris, Richard Barry, Charles Alexander, Benjamin Patton, Richard Harris, Neil Morrison, William Kennon, Henry Downs, Zaccheus Wilson, and John McKnitt Alexander.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

Finally, it allows that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.

This is a fair rule, it is the traditional structured rule for defense authorization, and it provides for a debate on a number of pertinent issues, including nuclear policy, border security, and an assessment of NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

H.R. 1588 is a good bill. It firmly shows our commitment to restoring the strength of our Nation's military. The Committee on Armed Services has recommended $400.5 billion be authorized for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2004.

I commend President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and our military leaders for taking the fight to those who would do us harm. We stand committed to provide the resources to ensure our continued success.

The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have brought a renewed and proper focus on national defense. We owe much to our men and women in uniform. Their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a testament to their bravery, training and equipment, and their commitment to defend our freedom.

With U.S. military personnel risking their lives on the front lines of the war on terrorism, H.R. 1588 is more than just a signal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that this Nation recognizes their sacrifices. It is the means by which we make our commitment to providing them a decent quality of life by providing an across-the- board 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of America's all-volunteer Armed Forces, and the families that support them.

Even before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism and the commitment to homeland security, the Armed Forces had insufficient manpower for existing wartime and peacetime requirements. A lesson learned is that with the likelihood of the open-ended, long-term manpower requirements of stabilizing Iraq and the continuing war on terrorism, it is now crucial to begin addressing existing shortfalls.

I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for crafting this legislation that will strengthen America's military.

Today, our forces must be able to respond quickly to rapidly changing threats. As such, nothing could be more important to our military than its current state of readiness. The pace of current operations has placed huge demands on personnel and equipment already suffering from a decade of underfunding. This legislation reduces non-warfighting spending and puts the money where it is of best use, training for our service members, maintenance of equipment, and support for the cost of operations.

I am pleased that H.R. 1588 authorizes $35.2 million for 39 Knight family systems to the Army National Guard. The Knight system is a high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle-mounted system which incorporates a Bradley fire support vehicle mission equipment package of a laser rangefinder, thermal sight, hand-held computer and global positioning systems. It is used to locate targets for laser-guided munitions.

As the Department of Defense increases the use of precision-guided munitions in combat, this money will help North Carolina's 30th Heavy Separate Brigade Armor use the Knight system to locate targets in support of these munitions.

H.R. 1588 makes the preparation and modernization of our National Guard a top priority.

I also want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), for his work on strengthening the ``Buy American'' provisions included in this bill. His language will ensure that all of the components of DOD uniforms come from American companies. The language specifically works to more adequately cover domestic textile and leather industries.

However, there is one amendment the Committee on Rules made in order that I strongly oppose personally, the Sanchez amendment. It would allow abortions on our military bases overseas. Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to nurturing and healing, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the child in the womb.

For the past 6 years, the House has voted to keep abortion-on-demand out of military facilities, and I urge my colleagues to stay on this course and vote against this amendment.

That said, this is a fair rule. So let us pass the rule and pass the underlying defense authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will be making our homeland safer, supporting our sons and daughters serving in the military, and preparing for war, thereby ensuring victory. At this crucial time in our history, this bill is most important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), my neighbor and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for the purpose of a colloquy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, rather than bring clarity and direction to the troubled telecom sector, the Federal Communication Commission's recent, local competition ruling promises continued uncertainty and, worse yet, litigation.

At a time when the American economy is in desperate need of a jolt of innovation and investment, some of this country's most technologically strong, capital-rich companies are being kept on the sidelines. We need to reframe these issues in terms of the larger goals of getting more technology in the hands of customers and more capital pumped into the economy where it can create jobs, growth and entrepreneurial activity.

To get our economy growing again, we need policies that encourage investment and job creation, especially in high-technology industries like telecommunications.

Mr. Speaker, companies in this sector are poised to spend in excess $100 billion over the next ten years on orders for fiber, routers and switches to build the network of the future. Orders that will create jobs and incomes all across this nation.

Telecommunications is very important to my own state of North Carolina. More than 30,000 North Carolinians work in telecommunications. Thousands more depend on the industry to maintain their pensions and their retirement savings.

Congress needs to send the message to the FCC majority that we need policies to foster investment, innovation and jobs. Three months have passed and we are still waiting on the FCC to render the right policy decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to oncology nurses. May is the ninth annual Oncology Nursing Day and Month. The celebration kicks off on Thursday, May 1, 2003, on Oncology Nursing Day, during the opening ceremonies of the Oncology Nursing Society's 28th Annual Congress in Denver, CO, and continues until May 31, 2003. Oncology Nursing Month recognizes oncology nurses, educates the public about oncology nursing, provides an opportunity for special educational events for oncology nurses, and celebrates the accomplishments of oncology nurses.

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), the largest professional oncology group in the United States composed of more than 30,000 nurses and other health professionals, exists to promote excellence in oncology nursing and the provision of quality care to those individuals affected by cancer. As part of its mission, the Society honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocacy for the public good. ONS was founded in 1975, and held its first Annual Congress in 1976. Since the Society was established, 218 local chapters have been formed to provide a network for education and peer support at the community level.

In my state of North Carolina there are more than 939 oncology nurses and health professionals that care for individuals with cancer and their families. In addition, North Carolina has 6 local Oncology Nursing Society chapters located in the areas of Charlotte--my district--Wilmington, Canton, Greenville, Durham, and Trinity.

Over the last ten years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all Americans receive cancer care in community settings including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses are on the front-lines of the provision of quality cancer care for individuals with cancer. Nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment. Oncology nurses are the front-line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side-effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, provide counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients.

With an increasing number of people with cancer needing high quality health care coupled with an inadequate nursing workforce, our nation could quickly face a cancer care crisis of serious proportion, with limited access to quality cancer care, particularly in traditionally underserved areas. Without an adequate supply of nurses there will not be enough qualified oncology nurses to provide the quality cancer care to a growing population of people in need. I was proud to support the passage of the ``Nurse Reinvestment Act'' in the 107th Congress. This important piece of legislation expanded and implemented programs at HRSA to address the multiple problems contributing to the nationwide nursing shortage, including the decline in nursing student enrollments, shortage of faculty, and dissatisfaction with nurse workplace environments. Mr. Speaker, I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that the Nurse Reinvestment Act receives funding during the FY 2004 appropriations process.

I commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from cancer and to improve the lives of those 1.3 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer in 2003. I wish the Oncology Nursing Society the best of luck in its endeavors and urge all Americans to support its important efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and, in deference to my chairman, for whom I have great respect, I am still speaking.

I think that this would ensure that we stay within the President's plan originally and within the budget. He did say on the 29th of April that, with the approval of Congress, this plan will direct $15 billion to fight AIDS abroad over the next 5 years, but beginning with $2 billion in 2004.

The reason I think it is important to stay within our budget is because due to the war and the economic downturn we, unfortunately, are running the largest budget deficits in American history this year and next. We cannot continue to just overspend every year, piling debt on our children and grandchildren. It does not mean this program is not important. I support it. But there are many important programs, and there is a limited amount of money.

So passing the President's proposal, with this amendment, is still a huge increase in our commitment to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a ``normal'' conference report rule for S. 151, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, or the PROTECT Act.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule that we grant for every conference report that we consider in the House.

The PROTECT Act sends a clear message to those who prey upon children that if they commit these crimes, they will be punished. This legislation provides stronger penalties against kidnapping, ensures lifetime supervision of sexual offenders and kidnappers of children, gives law enforcement the tools it needs to effectively prosecute these crimes, and provides assistance to the community when a child is abducted.

To accomplish this, S. 151 establishes an AMBER Alert coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States with their AMBER Alert plans. This coordination will eliminate gaps in the network, including gaps in interstate travel, work with States to encourage development of additional AMBER plans, and serve as a nationwide point of contact.

The AMBER program is a voluntary partnership between law enforcement agencies and broadcasters to activate an urgent alert bulletin in serious child abduction cases. The goal of the AMBER Alert is to instantly galvanize the entire community to assist in the search for, and the safe return of, that child.

I am pleased that this legislation also authorizes $20 million for fiscal year 2004 for the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to States for the development or enhancement of notification or communication systems along the highways. I am sure Members have seen those reader board signs. These signs are for alerts and other information for the recovery of abducted children. Doing this will enable all 50 States to implement this life-saving program, and we have seen several examples of it working lately to literally save children's lives.

For those individuals who would harm a child, we must ensure that punishment is severe and that sexual predators are not allowed to slip through the cracks of the system to harm other children. To this end, this legislation provides a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for stranger abductions of a child under the age of 18, lifetime supervision for sex offenders and mandatory life imprisonment for second-time offenders; and we all know that is a very common occurrence.

This responds to the long-standing concerns of Federal judges and prosecutors regarding the inadequacy of the existing supervision period for sex offenders, particularly for the perpetrators of child sexual abuse crimes, whose criminal conduct may reflect deep-seated deviant sexual disorders, and they are not likely to disappear within a few years of release from prison.

Furthermore, S. 151 removes any statute of limitation and opportunity for pretrial release for crimes of child abduction and sex offenses. Oftentimes it is years later that sex offenses come to light because a child is afraid to speak out. That is why this conference report is so important. Not only does it come to the aid of the children after the abduction with the AMBER Alert, it aims to prevent the abduction with the provisions I just mentioned.

I also want to applaud the conferees for including legislation authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) that would punish those who use misleading domain names to attract children to sexually explicit Internet sites. It accomplishes this goal by increasing the penalties and provides prosecutors with enhanced tools to prosecute those seeking to lure children to porn Web sites. As a mother and grandmother, it is hard for me to understand how anyone can prey on a defenseless child.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill. It is imperative for our Nation to protect our most valuable resource, our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record two letters, one from the National Mentoring Partnership and the other from the National Council of Youth Sports, in support of this bill.

The letters referred to are as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 172 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule to H.R. 1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a very important bill. It cannot get any better than that.

The rule allows any Member to offer any amendment to the bill as long as their amendment complies with the normal Rules of the House.

I am very pleased the House is trying to move H.R. 1559 quickly, because I know the importance of this bill to the men and women in our military. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for resisting most efforts to add extraneous provisions.

This bill is too important for our troops for it to get bogged down with nonappropriations issues.

I agree with the President that the United States has been at war since September 11, 2001. After our Nation was attacked, America made a decision: We will not wait for our enemies to strike before we act against them. We are not going to permit terrorists and terrorist states to plot and plan and grow in strength while we do nothing.

This emergency wartime supplemental appropriations provides the tools and the resources for our military to wage an aggressive war against Saddam Hussein while at the same time preparing our homeland.

Over the past 15 days we have seen the brutal and cruel nature of a dying regime. In areas still under its control, the regime continues its rule by terror. Prisoners of war have been brutalized and executed. Iraqis who refuse to fight for the regime are being murdered. Some in the Iraqi military have pretended to surrender and then opened fire on coalition forces that were willing to show them mercy.

We owe a great deal of gratitude and respect to our servicemen and women who are currently in harm's way. My thoughts and prayers are with them and their families during this time of war, and I want to thank them for their courage and bravery on the battlefield.

This war budget will meet America's needs directly arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and our ongoing war

against terror, including $63 billion for military operations. This funding will provide fuel for our ships, for our aircraft and tanks, supplies for our troops in the theater of operations, new high-tech munitions to replace the ones that we have used so far in this war. The supplemental will also provide funds to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, Mr. Speaker; $5 billion to help our brave coalition partners.

In order to protect the American homeland in this time of high alert, it also includes $4 billion for the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to address the immediate and emerging threats on American soil.

This legislation accomplishes this goal by providing $2.2 billion for grants to first responders. Within that amount, $1.5 billion is provided for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, their basic grant program to the States, and $700 million is provided to address the security requirements in high-threat, high-density urban areas with critical infrastructure like my city of Charlotte.

H.R. 1559 also allocates these funds for several other high priority activities: $498 million for border and port security, and $85 million for reimbursements to State and local law enforcement officers and National Guardsmen for increasing security measures at airports and other critical transportation sites.

Our Nation must give our military and our law enforcement officers the weapons that they need to meet future threats. If the war against terror means that we must find terror wherever it exists and pull it out by its roots and bring people to justice, then our military and our law enforcement officers must have the means to achieve it.

To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying bill. We need to rapidly approve the core funding for the Pentagon so supplies continue to flow to our troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill was reported out of the committee 59 to zero. I also wanted to make the point that between 1999 and 2002, States and localities have been awarded over $492 million in domestic preparedness funding.

And only a third of those funds have been used. And the gentleman mentioned Maryland and New York, and I would just like to say that Maryland was awarded $9.2 million and they still have $9.2 million that has not been spent. New York was awarded $25.7 million and there is still $25.7 million in the pipeline that has not been spent, so there is money there currently.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that allows anybody to offer an amendment that is within the rules of the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any speakers at this time. I have somebody coming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 160 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. This fair rule also facilitates resolving the differences between the two bodies by making in order the motion requesting a conference with the Senate after the passage of H.R. 1104.

The Child Abduction Prevention Act sends a clear message to those that prey upon children that, should they commit these crimes, they will be punished. This legislation provides stronger penalties against kidnapping, ensures lifetime supervision of sexual offenders and kidnappers of children, gives law enforcement the tools it needs to effectively prosecute these crimes, and provides assistance to the community when a child is abducted.

It is hard for me to understand how someone could prey on a defenseless child. It is the worst nightmare a parent has to hear, that his or her child has been taken by a stranger and that they do not know what has happened. The agony that they must go through every day is something that no parent should have to endure.

Unfortunately, a family in my area has been living with this agony since Valentine's Day of 2000. Asha Degree has been missing since she left her Fallston, North Carolina, home in the early hours of the morning with a book bag and other items. She was only 9 years old at the time.

It has been quite a while; and, after time, there are torn and damaged billboards seeking information about Asha, and faded yellow ribbons still around town. If this legislation had been enacted earlier, her story may have been very different.

This is a bill that will make a difference. We know that if we can find a missing child within 24 hours after they are abducted, we have the best chance for a safe recovery. To accomplish this, H.R. 1104 authorizes increased funding for a National AMBER Alert Program.

AMBER is an acronym for America's Missing Broadcast Emergency Response. The AMBER program was created in 1996 as a legacy to 9-year- old Amber Hagerman, who was kidnapped and murdered in Arlington, Texas.

States can apply for grants so that information can be broadcast on radio and television. Outdoor boards can be posted; and, in some States, the electronic highway message boards are used so that license plates or vehicles or a description of the child can actually be displayed along the highway. The purpose is to provide a rapid response to the most serious child abduction cases.

Doing this bill will enable all 50 States to implement this life- saving program, and we have seen several examples of it very recently working and saving children's lives.

For the individuals who would harm a child we can ensure that the punishment is severe and that sexual predators are not allowed to slip through the cracks of the system to harm other children. We all know that the recidivism rate of sexual offense is about 70 percent. No excuse for that.

To this end, this legislation provides a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for stranger abductions of a child under the age of 18, lifetime supervision of sex offenders and mandatory life imprisonment for second-time offenders. We know that, as I said before, that most of them are repeat offenders.

Furthermore, this bill removes any statute of limitations and opportunity for pretrial release for crimes of child abduction and sex offenses. Often times it is years later that the sex offense comes to light out of fear. The child is very afraid to tell.

That is why this bill is so important. Not only does it come to the aid of children after the abduction with the AMBER alert, but it aims to prevent the abduction with the provisions that I just mentioned.

I would also like to note that these provisions have overwhelmingly passed the House in the previous Congress. So there is no reason not to support this overall bill. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is aware, there are technical problems with the stand-alone Senate bill that need to be corrected and that is being done so it can come to the House floor.

My second point is some have suggested that this stand-alone AMBER bill would implement the system. That is erroneous information. It is very misleading because this legislation provides for grants to the States, and the States can apply for that money and then implement the program if they wish to do so. Currently, 38 States have done it, but there is nothing in this bill that says that the other 12 States will be required to implement it

if they chose not to. That is their choice.

I find it difficult to understand how these following things are controversial. We are talking about a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for abduction of a child under the age of 18, for lifetime supervision of child abductors and sex offenders, for mandatory life imprisonment for second-time offenders. It also removes any statute of limitations for child abduction and sex offenders. It denies pretrial release for those who rape or kidnap children, and it allows local law enforcement agencies to receive funding to establish sex offender apprehension programs, and it doubles the authorization for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to $20 million a year.

I would think that any parent who has a child abducted not only wants to find that child, but wants to be sure when that happens the maximum punishment is given to the person who did that horrible thing. That is what this omnibus bill does. Again, I recommend that Members support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), another member of the Committee on Rules.

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

I would like to note that there currently is $12.5 million in the system already for States who wish to implement AMBER Alert systems.

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

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

I would just make the comment, Mr. Speaker, that there is also an additional $2.5 million in the 2004 budget that just passed the House for AMBER Alert.

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

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

I would just like to remind people that on these bills that are so controversial, they have been vetted, because on the lifetime supervision for sex offenders, the vote was 409-3; on the two strikes and you're out, the vote was 382-34; on the Child Sex Crime Wiretapping Act, it was 396-11; on the sex tourism bill, it was 418-8; and the Child Abduction Prevention Act was 390-24. Hardly controversial.

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

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

I also agree AMBER Alert needs to be passed, but I think it is just as important that there be punishment for the abductors of these children. Because any parent is thankful to get their child back, but they do not want that person out on the street so they can do it again, and 70 percent of these people do it again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Audrey Yvette Wall Augustus was born on November 3, 1956, at Saint Agnes Hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina. She departed this life and entered into eternal rest on Saturday, March 1, 2003, with her loving, devoted husband holding her hand. Audrey was the eldest child born to Richmond Wall, Jr. and Lydia Thomas Wall.

``Little Audrey'', as she was affectionately known, was named after her father's sister. When she was two years old, the family moved to Washington, DC. Audrey was educated in the District of Columbia and Prince Georges County Public School Systems. She graduated from Largo High School in 1975. Following in the footsteps of her mother, Lydia and her Godmother, Nurry, Audrey became a ``Bennett Belle'' when she enrolled at Bennett College in Greensboro, North Carolina. In the Spring of 1977, she pledged Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. She established a legacy of love, strength, endurance, patience, courage and enthusiasm and became a beacon of light for all to follow. In 1979, Audrey graduated from Bennett College with a degree in Early Childhood Education and a minor in Library Science. Her love for children was evident in her everyday life, and her home was always a popular gathering place for them.

Audrey joined the United States Capitol Police Department on October 5, 1981, and achieved the rank of Private First Class (PFC). As an educator, she sought and became an instructor in the Capitol Police Training Academy in August 1991, thru June 2001. She taught over 1,000 of the men and women that currently protect and serve the United States Congress today. She shared her enthusiasm and gave of herself until her untimely death.

Audrey leaves to cherish her memory: her husband Kevin A. Augustus; also a Capitol Police Officer since, February 21, 1978. Daughters, Ashli Kai-Leen Jordan, Aysha Monaye Jordan; son Kevin A. Augustus, Jr.; parents, Richmond Wall Jr. and Lydia T. Wall; sister, Adrienne M. Wall; brother, Richmond Wall, Jr.; aunts, June Swindell (Richard), Norma Haywood (David L), Audrey Wall, Nurry Johnson (John), Mary Jeffries and Bessie Morgan (Ed); cousins, Denise Brown (Freddie) and Marielle Posey (Derrick); sister-in-law, Bonnie Claggett; father-in-law, Alfred A. Augustus; nephews, Derek Augustus and Michael ``Mikey'' Claggett; niece Joy Peterson; devoted friends and guardian angles; Liz Harris, LaMont Lewis, Anita Stoddard, Sherri Morgan, Beverly Davis, JoAnne Morgan; and Godsisters, Kimberley Scott and Mischelle Corbin.

To all who were blessed to know her, Audrey will be remembered as the kindest, most gentle soul.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my strong support to the Republican Study Committee budget. As chairman of the RSC, I am very proud of this budget that we have produced, and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for all his hard work on this. It reins in the astronomical spending increases we have had over the past few years and brings us back to balance in just 4 years. No other budget achieves balance as quickly as this one does.

When I came to Washington as part of the revolutionary class of 1995, we were determined and extremely serious to balance the budget and get us back on track, which we did. We were successful in doing that for the first few years, but lately we have presided over

some of the biggest increases in spending in U.S. history. In the last 7 years, nondefense discretionary spending has grown 66 percent. The fiscal year 2003 budget alone was a 9 percent increase in discretionary spending from the year before. I do not know of any family's budget in this country that has had the good fortune to increase 9 percent in 2003. So why should the Federal Government continue spending increases in this amount?

This RSC budget holds the government to responsible increases that will not grow faster than inflation or the family budget. Our budget proposal achieves a 1 percent savings by looking for waste, fraud and abuse and eliminating it from the Federal Government. That is only 1 penny out of every dollar. We hear folks continue to say it is impossible to find that amount of money, that amount of waste, in the government.

I would like Members to take a look at this chart. Thirty-five food safety laws administered by 12 different agencies; 541 clean air, water, waste programs; 50 programs for the homeless in 8 different Federal agencies; 163 different job training employment programs; 64 welfare programs; 500 urban aid. It goes on. You can see for yourself there is a lot there that could be simplified. Most estimates indicate there are tens of billions of dollars wasted every year. Last year alone, there were estimated to be $13.3 billion in improper payments under Medicare.

It is time Congress gets serious about reining in wasteful spending and getting our budget under control. That is what we were sent here to do. That is what the American people expect us to do. They want us to stop the business as usual and stop the excuses.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hastert was allowed to speak out of order.)

Notice of Iraq War Briefings

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 105 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see it is one of the first top priorities of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule which will permit a thorough discussion of all of the relevant issues. The first of these issues is the Greenwood substitute which allows human cloning for medical purposes.

I personally oppose the Greenwood amendment because it is wrong to create human embryo farms, even for scientific research.

Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another. Anything other than a total ban on human cloning would be virtually impossible to enforce.

I understand there is no way to control actual implementation of these fetuses into a woman's uterus, so cloning of children could still happen.

The Justice Department submitted testimony explaining that once countless human embryos are created by

cloning, there would be no practical way to enforce the prohibition on transferring such embryos into wombs.

The Committee on Rules, though, recognizes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania's proposal is the leading alternative to the ban on cloning. And because we are aiming for a fair and thorough debate, we should make it in order on the House floor.

Human cloning is a deeply troubling issue to me and to most Americans. Life is a creation, not a commodity.

I also agreed with President Bush when he said that science has set before us decisions of immense consequence. We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose, or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret.

Science now presses forward with this issue of human cloning. How we answer the issue of human cloning will place us on one path or the other.

I spent a lot of time considering this issue because it is so complex, and I have decided to once again vote to ban human cloning. It is simply wrong to clone human beings.

It is wrong to create fully-grown, tailor-made cloned babies, and it is wrong to clone human embryos to experiment on and destroy them. Anything other than a ban on human cloning would license the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in human history. Some of us can still remember how the world was repulsed during and after World War II by the experiments conducted by the Nazis during the war. How is this different?

Congress must act now. We can no longer wait for another biotech company to claim that they have produced cloned children, despite the fact that laboratory cloning of animals has led to spontaneous abortions and terrible, terrible abnormalities.

Congress will not face a weightier issue than the ethics of human cloning, and Congress should not run away from this problem. It is our job to address such pressing moral dilemmas, and it is our job to do so in a deliberative way. That is what we will do today.

To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

At this point, I only have two that are here. I have some others signed up, but they are not here yet. I only have two more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, Susan B. Anthony is best remembered as a great women's rights campaigner. On February 15th, her 183rd birthday, we recognize that she was indeed instrumental in helping women achieve the right to vote.

Another piece of her legacy that is often brushed over but equally important is her commitment to the rights of unborn children. Susan B. Anthony believed that all people should be treated equally, and she made no exception for unborn children. She did not see a difference in fighting for women's rights and protecting the right to life for all children.

This is why I am taking this opportunity to honor her birthday today. As we think back on Susan B. Anthony's tireless work to promote the dignity of all life, let us renew our own commitment to fight for equal rights, especially for unborn children who have no voice to fight for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 3 p.m. in memory of the valiant crew members of the space shuttle Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 5, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted ``yea.''