Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month marked the anniversary of the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin. A true man of peace, his life was tragically cut short during a rally for peace in Tel Aviv. Yitzak Rabin was a hero dedicated to the security, the stability, and the success of the State of Israel who gained trust among Israelis and among Arabs. His strength, courage, and commitment to peace in the Middle East has inspired thousands. Although his dream for peace has not been realized, his vision has not faded from our hearts. I rise today to commemorate the life and achievements of this extraordinary statesman. May his vision inspire and endure for generations to come, and may we pay tribute to his legacy by continuing his quest for peace in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record at this point Yitzak Rabin's last speech which he delivered the night of his assassination. The Last Speech--Peace Rally, Kings of Israel Square, Tel Aviv, November 4, 1995 Allow me to say, I am also moved. I want to thank each and every one of you who stood up here against violence and for peace. This government, which I have the privilege to lead, together with my friend Shimon Peres, decided to give peace a chance. A peace that will solve most of the problems of the State of Israel. I was a military man for twenty-seven years. I fought as long as there were no prospects for peace. Today I believe that there are prospects for peace, great prospects. We must take advantage of it for the sake of those standing here, and for the sake of those who do not stand here. And they are many among our people. I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace, are prepared to take risks for peace. And you here, by showing up at this rally, prove it, along with the many who did not make it here, that the people truly want peace and oppose violence. Violence is undermining the very foundations of Israeli democracy. It must be condemned, denounced, and isolated. This is not the way of the State of Israel. Controversies may arise in a democracy, but the decision must be reached through democratic elections, just as it happened in 1992, when we were given the mandate to do what we are doing, and to continue to do it. I want to thank from here the President of Egypt, the King of Jordan, and the King of Morocco, whose representatives are present here, conveying their partnership with us on the march toward peace. But above all--the people of Israel, who have proven, in the three years this government has been in office, that peace is attainable, a peace that will provide an opportunity for a progressive society and economy. Peace exists first and foremost in our prayers, but not only in prayers. Peace is what the Jewish People aspire to, a true aspiration. Peace entails difficulties, even pain. Israel knows no path devoid of pain. But the path of peace is preferable to the path of war. I say this to you as one who was a military man and minister of defense, and who saw the pain of the families of IDF soldiers. It is for their sake, and for the sake of our children and grandchildren, that I want this government to exert every effort, exhaust every opportunity, to promote and to reach a comprehensive peace. This rally must send a message to the Israeli public, to the Jewish community throughout the world, to many, many in the Arab world and in the entire world, that the people of Israel want peace, support peace, and for that, I thank you very much.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 634 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and leader for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this bill. Many have spoken against the provisions that privatize part of our Nation's air traffic control system. Others have objected to the failure to direct the certification and training of flight attendants. Others have condemned the process that seems to have shut out Democrats, particularly our leader, from participating in the drafting of this agreement. As much as we respect the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), we know that he could have added a great deal so we would not have had this contentious argument. I have one more reason to oppose it. In 1986, the Congress made an agreement with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to cede operational control and financing of our airports to our regional authority. The Metropolitan Washington Region has maintained our part of the bargain. This conference report breaks that agreement by adding 20 more flights and going beyond the 1,250 mile perimeter rule. That is not right. It increases the safety concerns at National Airport. For this and many other reasons, I oppose this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference agreement. Many here have already spoken against provisions in this bill that would allow privatilization of our nation's air traffic control system, others have objected to this agreement's failure to direct the certification and training of flight attendants and still others have condemned a process that has shut out Democrats from participating in the drafting of this agreement. Let me add one more reason to vote against this bill. I object to this bill because it continues to intrude in the operations of this region's local airports. While I appreciate the good efforts of the chairman to restore general aviation at National, to compensate businesses injured by the current shutdown, and assist hometown carrier, U.S. Airways, operate quieter, more efficient regional jets, I cannot support the heavy hand of this Congress in violating two long-standing agreements and mandating that National accommodate more flights and flights outside the current perimeter rule restrictions. The agreement before us today continues to violate a promise this institution made to this region back in 1986. In 1986, Senator Elizabeth Dole, President Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, helped broker an agreement between the federal government, the Congress, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to cede control of National and Dulles Airports to a regional authority that would have, in the words of current law, ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the airports.'' In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to accept operational control of the airports and raise the money necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports. The Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia have upheld their part of the bargain. Congress, however, has not honored its part of the deal. At least once every three years since this transfer took effect, Congress has tried to intervene and micro manage the operations of the two airports. There may be a federal interest, and I recognize that both commercial airports are still owned by the federal government, but should Congress really be trying to determine what are clearly economic and business decisions on what carriers fly where? With the bill before us today, Congress is once again telling the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to waive its existing rules and allow certain carriers more flights. Mr. Speaker, these additional flights take us further down a controversial road whose final destination will make few carriers happy and cause real economic harm. Three years ago, I spoke on the House floor opposing an FAA authorization bill that added more flights at National. At that time I warned that breaking the 1986 deal would bring us down a dangerous path in which every FAA authorization bill would become a vehicle for further tinkering and interference by Congress. Obviously not enough Members were sufficiently satisfied with the flights added in the last FAA reauthorization bill or we would not be back here again today with more changes. Who is happy with the proposed changes? Not U.S. Airways, Delta or United, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority nor the residents of this region. In fact, there is no solution that will satisfy everyone. But, continue down this path of forcing more flights and there will be some real economic consequences that will ultimately undermine both the quality and quantity of air service this region is fortunate to now receive. The point is being reached in which operational and safety constraints imposed by the type of runway and the number of gates, not slots, will limit the number of flights the airport is capable of handling. Once this threshold is crossed, both the quality and quantity of flights will be compromised. we risk: (1) Losing direct air service to many smaller cities, those that can least afford a disruption from an economic development standpoint, (2) We risk a reduction in international air service that may result in this region being bypassed in favor of other east coast airports with better transcontinental connections. (Hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested to make Dulles an international gateway will have been imprudently invested), and (3) We risk more delays and congestion as operational limitations and space cause delays throughout the system, something LaGuardia encountered when its slot rule was repealed. (4) And, adding one more slot, one more flight, is one more than Washington area residents bargained for. I know the support isn't there to rollback the 20 new slots, 8 inside the perimeter and 12 outside, in this bill. But why pile it on with an additional provision that gives Congress yet another opportunity to tinker again with the operation of these two airports? Why create the added burden and economic uncertainty that this bill invites by denying these two commercial airports the ability to receive any new Airport Improvement Program grants or new Passenger Facility Charges beginning in 2008? Why single out and suspend federal assistance to just these two airports? I thought an understanding had been worked out when Delegate Norton offered her amendment earlier this year on the House floor that this obnoxious provision would be removed in conference. Congress doesn't need this provision. There is already sufficient oversight over the airports to ensure that any federal interest is protected. We've got the FAA reauthorization bill. In addition, there's the authority's own board of directors that must include 3 presidential appointments approved by the Senate. In the past former Members of Congress have served on this board, and the GAO has unique statutory authority to audit the activities and transactions of the board. Mr. Speaker, Congress, visitors to the nation's capital, businesses and local residents have all benefited from the capital improvements that have occurred at the airport since the regional authority took over control. Let's not place $100 of millions in future development at risk. Let the two airports continue to be treated like all other commercial airports for purposes of receiving improvement grants and new passenger facility charges. Reject this agreement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this clearly is a better bill than we received from the White House. It specifies that money has to be used for Kevlar jackets, for example, for the jamming devices. There is no question but that there are improvements. What this instruction would do is to improve those improvements so that this is a bill that is far more in keeping with what our constituents would like to see. I have no question about that. I know that from the perspective of Americans who want to protect our troops overseas, and from the perspective of taxpayers, they would want this entire body to support this instruction to the conferees. Because that is what it is about, troops and taxpayers. First of all, the troops. It provides the kind of quality-of-life improvements that every single one of our constituents would want us to include in this bill. Every single one. I would challenge any Member on the Republican or the Democratic side of the aisle to show me one constituent who would not want us to have these improvements in this supplemental appropriations bill. And then from the standpoint of taxpayers, I have yet to find anyone of any political persuasion that does not think when you sit down with them privately that we should not be fronting all this money as grants when Iraq could conceivably be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, has potentially $7 trillion of oil reserves, when the money that we are talking about, which is always used as the excuse for why it has to be a grant, why it cannot be a loan because they have got $200 billion of outstanding debt. Who does Iraq owe that money to? Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Russia, France, some to Germany. How was that money spent? A whole lot of it was spent to build the palaces. Some we know was taken by Saddam and his henchmen. That is the way all of that works, that corruption is pervasive. And why those countries that were dealing with Saddam should be first in line before the American taxpayer is beyond me and beyond every single one of our constituents. That is why the Senate put this provision in the bill. We know our constituents want the provision in the bill. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wants the provision in the bill. I know I cannot speak and I should not be speaking for him, but he is doing what the White House has asked us to. I am saying we have already told the White House we can fashion a better bill. This fashions an even better bill, one much more consistent with what our constituents would want us to do. Mr. Speaker, vote in the interest of the troops and the taxpayers; approve this motion to instruct.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 546, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 547, I was unavoidably detained from voting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have said it many times, we need to restate it, though, apparently, again, there is no question between the debating sides here whether Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. The world is far better off without him. And we are glad he is gone. We certainly hope he is gone. There is no debate as to the priority that we want to place on our troops. Obviously, that is our highest priority. And we will do what we see as necessary to protect their lives and provide for their families. But, Mr. Chairman, there is something else involved here that goes beyond the issue of Iraq. This is about the integrity of this institution, the role it has to play vis-a-vis the executive branch. It is about the precedent that we establish with such important votes. We had a hearing today with the comptroller of the Department of Defense, the Committee on the Budget did. It was similar to the hearing we had last week with Secretary Rumsfeld. We were told again that there is no time frame for when we might be moving our troops out of Iraq. Remember when the time frame was imposed on President Clinton with regard to Bosnia? Pretty tight time frame, as I recall. Today, were told that there was no estimate as to how many troops might be required or what the composition might be between National Guard and Reserve versus enlisted personnel. I remember when we put pretty tight controls in Bosnia and Kosovo, even though it was a multilateral effort, led by NATO. We were told today that there was no estimate as to the ultimate cost of this conflict or of the reconstruction. Now, how many times do we have to be told that we are being taken for granted, that the power of the purse that we hold, which is really all that our constituents expect us to use as leverage, is not there if we continue to give a blank check? And that basically is what the administration is asking for in this supplemental. I support the Obey amendment because, in fact, it does provide for the troops. Even more specifically, it will not let the administration get away again with getting $60 billion and not spending it on the most basic necessities of individual and collective protection for our troops on the battlefield. And Iraq still is a battlefield. But it also requires some burden sharing, not as much as the first President Bush required, where he got most of the war paid for by other countries because we had taken the time to build a coalition. It is time we used our leverage to require that there be some burden sharing of this conflict, some considerations for the other needs of the American taxpayer. The Obey amendment makes sure that we use the World Bank. Seven billion will collateralize another 35 billion. It will quadruple the amount of money that we put in, that the taxpayers put in. Because it is not our money, as we are continually reminded, it is the taxpayers we are talking about. But, most importantly, we have to acknowledge that it is not acceptable to engage in conflict, putting our troops at risk with the use of a pattern of deception. I know we do not like to hear this, but how many times were we told there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? President Bush admitted just a short while ago, no, there was no connection. We were told by the Vice President that they had nuclear capability. Now, he admits he misspoke. That is not acceptable. This is a bad precedent. I have tremendous respect for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Their commitment to our troops, to our military superiority and to our military doing the right thing is unparalleled. No question. But, we have a responsibility. It is an institutional responsibility and a moral responsibility not just to do right by the taxpayer, but, to also do right by the troops, to do right by this institution, to demand answers to legitimate questions: How long? How many troops? What will be the cost? What is the commitment? We have not been given answers to those questions. And we should not approve this supplemental until we are given answers, straight answers.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I do not know, but I do not think that any Member of Congress has a son or a daughter actually serving in Iraq. If they do, I hope we hear about it. But if we did, I trust that our fatherly love would trump our political loyalties. But even though we may not have children, it is we who are responsible for sending the children of our constituents, the young men and women of America, to fight our wars. And we have to determine how much we spend on their protection and on their fighting capability. In a recent trip by the members of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations, they found that there was a shortfall of protective body armor for 40,000 troops in theater. That has been reduced subsequently, but there are still tens of thousands. The supplies of portable jammers used to defeat land mines and other radio-detonated bombs are woefully short. The division patrolling the most dangerous area in the Sunni Triangle had only nine where 86 were required. In the First Armored Division which is responsible for that most dangerous area, a third of the division's Bradley vehicles had been sidelined due to a lack of spare track. In that same division, 40 percent of the Humvee vehicles were out of commission due to a lack of spare parts. And overall, 46 percent, almost half of all the Army's spare parts needed in the country were not available. All this amendment does is to take the word of the Armed Services, not of the politicians, but of the people in uniform as to what they need. We are told that 80 percent of our troops are drinking dirty water. In a recent survey, 30 percent had dysentery. And we will not provide this relatively small amount of money specifically targeted to correct those deficiencies? This is our responsibility, we in the Congress, whether or not the executive branch acknowledges it. This is an opportunity to accept that responsibility, to do the right thing. It is easy to talk the talk about how much we support the troops. This is one amendment that is only designed to do what we would do for our own children fighting in Iraq. This is absolutely essential. There are no excuses to vote down this amendment. It is the right thing to do. I urge the Congress to do the right thing.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the leader of our caucus. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and leader, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I wish he had not told me that, because now that is all I can think of. But I am going to begin by quoting the dissenting views of the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because it states the reason for voting for this supplemental better than anything that I have heard stated before. It says, ``The Bush administration is still incapable or unwilling to articulate a coherent and workable underlying strategy to accomplish our mission and bring our troops home. Since the power of the purse remains the only effective means that we in the Congress have to ensure the American people that such a strategy exists, and that it has a reasonable chance for success, support for these funds prior to evidence of such a strategy would be an abdication of responsibility.'' And it will be an abdication if this supplemental passes. We had any number of hearings in the appropriation subcommittees before this bill went to the full committee. Administration witnesses time and again told us they could not comment on a time frame to transition to decision-making with Iraqi leaders, which was the original intent, to establish a democratic government. They had no idea how many troops would be required beyond next September. They could not guess as to what contributions in terms of military assistance or cash would be forthcoming from other nations. They had no idea how much additional Iraqi reconstruction money would be requested. And they had no idea how Iraqi deployment might affect long-term priorities within the defense budget. Yet we are asked to support an $87 billion request. This entire venture has been a pattern of deception. We went into this war unilaterally and prematurely based upon that pattern of deception. If anyone should challenge me, I can give three instances. We were told we had to go to war immediately, with or without our allies, because of Saddam's connection to, and I quote our President, ``because of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.'' President Bush has now admitted we had no evidence, and I am quoting again, ``no evidence of such a connection.'' Our Vice President said, and I am quoting, ``Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Now Mr. Cheney admits, ``I did misspeak.'' Secretary Rumsfeld told us that ``we know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They are around Tikrit and Baghdad.'' They were not there. I could go on and on, but the fact is that we have no reason to truly trust even that this money is going to be used for the purposes for which it is intended, to support our troops, to do the right thing, and then to get out of Iraq and protect our country from future threats. I ask the American people to look at the dissenting views of the leader of the Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, this supplemental, if it is granted, leaves 80 percent of our troops in Iraq without clean water. We provided over $60 billion for our troops, yet they could not find a few million dollars to provide all of our troops with Kevlar jackets. 46,000 of them went into battle without body armor. They could not protect the vehicles that they were driving for a few million dollars. They could not give them hand-held devices for remotely controlled explosive devices. They did not do that because they knew they would use it as leverage to get this supplemental. Vote down this supplemental. Teach them that that is not the right way to conduct business.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Schakowsky motion which would strike the House-passed provisions establishing new tax-free savings accounts for medical expenses, estimated to cost $174 billion over ten years. On June 26, 2003, I voted against the Health Savings and Affordability Act, which established these new tax-free personal savings accounts that employers could offer to their employees, along with high-deductible insurance policies. As the House and Senate conferees continue to discuss the Medicare prescription drug legislation, the facts are still coming in that this bill will be a blow to the 12 million Medicare beneficiaries who currently receive prescription drug coverage through their employer retiree plans. In most cases, their employer prescription drug coverage is significantly better than what they would receive under the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug plans. It is also troubling to note that about one-third of employers who are currently providing retiree prescription drug benefits will drop that coverage if H.R. 1 becomes law. This means more than 4 million Medicare beneficiaries will be worse off. Both H.R. 1 and S. 1 exclude employer-provided coverage as counting towards meeting the catastrophic cap on beneficiary spending in their ``true out of pocket'' definition. Retirees with employer-provided coverage will get less of a benefit than other seniors. In fact, these retirees would need closer to $10,000 in drug costs before the stop-loss protection would apply, well after the $5800 cap that applies to all other beneficiaries. This will, in effect, encourage employers to drop their retiree benefits, at a difficult time when steep drug prices are prompting employers to eliminate drug benefits or cap their contributions. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Schakowsky motion to reject the creation of the Health Savings Security and Health Savings Accounts provision and use the $174 billion dollars to help save employer retiree prescription drug plans for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to a group of dedicated individuals who helped their community before, during, and after Hurricane Isabel. Boy Scout Venture Crew 80, sponsored by the First Christian Church of Alexandria and made up of youth members and adult leaders, came together to assist in administering first aid and to operate Amateur Radio for those in the afflicted areas. Having been highly trained by their leaders in emergency communications and first aid, Venture Crew 80 exemplified the Boy Scout Motto, ``Be Prepared.'' With the knowledge that Hurricane Isabel was quickly heading toward Northern Virginia, these young people and their adult leaders responded to the call of the Alexandria Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the Fairfax Amateur Radio Emergency Service to assist them with their storm operations. On Wednesday September 17, with most of the Northern Virginia area making preparations for the oncoming wind and rain, Venture Crew 80 were being briefed on how they could assist the city of Alexandria with radio communications support, and by 8 a.m. on Thursday they were on the call assisting the EOC and Red Cross shelters across the area. Throughout Thursday, these dedicated individuals helped set up radios and other equipment needed to run a successful emergency operations center, assisted in assembling food, water, cots and blankets for shelters should they be needed during and after the storm, and helped gather emergency medical response gear for distribution. After completing the setup, they helped to handle the large amount of radio traffic between the EOC, Red Cross and the emergency shelters and monitored the amateur radio traffic. They remained at their posts, helping their fellow citizens make it through Hurricane Isabel, until 6:30 Friday morning. Venture Crew 80 continued their support throughout the weekend at the EOC, various emergency shelters, the Mt. Vernon Recreation Center and their communities. Their first aid training was especially appreciated when neighbors came seeking aid and the nursing staff was unable to help. On behalf of the residents of the City of Alexandria and Fairfax County, I would like to thank all the boys and girls, men and women who took their time and energy to help our community during Hurricane Isabel. It is obvious that the emergency efforts throughout the storm would not have been possible without the hard work of Venture Crew 80.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. What we are doing on this supplemental is to respond to the President's request. What we have in this bill that we were asked to vote on is less than the President himself asked the Congress to provide, and that was before Hurricane Isabel. So we know the money is going to be needed. The question before the Congress is: Do we provide it now, or do we leave future victims of national disasters waiting, wondering whether the Congress is going to provide sufficient funds? We know the funds are going to be necessary. What we are asking for is much more consistent with what the President himself has requested. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), one of the Democratic Caucus's leadership.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first, I yield myself 10 seconds just to tell my friend from Georgia that the minority appreciates the majority's decision to fund the Congress's Big Dig project on their watch. So that was fortuitous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my friend from Illinois that the ranking member fully intends to vote for the bill; it is just such an attractive bill, but they loaded it down with the baggage of a flawed supplemental. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to bear in mind that while we are looking at $87 billion on top of another $80 billion already provided for Iraq, what we are asking for here is well less than $1 billion for our own people. I know we are mixing apples and oranges a little bit, but not necessarily in the perspective of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes. I rise, regretfully, to say that I have a problem with this legislation. But my issue is not with title I or title II of the conference agreement, the legislative branch appropriations bill. I do not have any problem with that appropriations billing. It is actually a good bipartisan bill and a final conference agreement. In fact, the conference agreement went very quickly, as did the markup on the bill itself, done in a bipartisan manner. My problem is with the third title of the bill which provides additional supplemental funds for wildland fires, NASA's Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, and emergency natural disaster assistance. But I agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) that the legislative branch titles are worthy of bipartisan support. The third title, though, should be sent back to conference. While the discretionary caps made the legislative branch appropriation bill tight, the chairman and the subcommittee acted appropriately with the funds that we had available. We are just $87 million above last year's funding level. The legislative branch agencies and offices will be able to support and improve the operations of the legislative body. The agreement does not shortchange our security needs. It provides tight but sufficient amounts for Members' offices and legislative branch agencies. Sufficient funds have been provided to cover all mandatory expenditures, and the budget assumes a full 3.7 percent COLA increase. The architect will have the funds to complete the visitors center, but with greater oversight and accountability. The bill also supports and respects the men and women in law enforcement who serve on the Capitol Police force. I know that they have toiled under very stressful and difficult circumstances. At the same time, we all need to live within the constraints of our allocation. Since the terrible events of September 11, the Capitol Police have seen their manpower grow by 37 percent. In this bill, the police have funds to hire an additional 75 new civilian positions. Upon completion of a strategic plan and committee approval, additional sworn officers may also be hired. In this agreement the current complement of officers will receive full funding for overtime pay for the Capitol Police. The COLA increase, the longevity differential, the special training, the specialty pay, and the other recruitment and retention incentives are all preserved and fully funded in this bill. The employees and the agencies that work for us are essential if we want this great experiment in democracy to perform well. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement before us today is a sound and responsible measure. When we concluded the conference last Wednesday, September 17, we had a good agreement. Hurricane Isabel changed that. The funds the agreement provides in Title III, the emergency supplemental funds for disaster assistance, are insufficient. On this issue, I have to elaborate further. Just a few days ago, we had a very damaging hurricane, Hurricane Isabel it was called. Tragedy struck. Lives were lost, thousands of homes were damaged, businesses ruined, and daily conveniences and routines were greatly disrupted. Seven days later thousands of families and hundreds of businesses are still without power. My hat goes off to the local fire, police, and emergency response crews that have responded in every way possible. It goes to the Red Cross, the thousands of volunteers, and to all the great neighbors who lent a hand clearing debris, cooking meals, and providing shelter. I also want to express my appreciation to the people at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They and the Small Business Administration have put in long hours responding to urgent needs. I met those Federal officials firsthand. We have toured the businesses and homes. We have talked about the local residents. I know that many of my colleagues have done the same who were also very adversely affected by Hurricane Isabel. There are some real tragedies out there, but everyone is doing their part and then some; that is, with the exception of the Congress if we do not provide sufficient funds. The conference agreement that is now before us fails to provide an appropriate or adequate amount of money to replenish the disaster assistance fund. So far this year there have been 62 disaster and emergency declarations. In its supplemental request the White House stated that this has been the most costly and deadly tornado season in years. And the National Weather Service hurricane outlook suggests that disaster costs for the hurricane season we just entered could be much higher than anticipated. We now know that the disaster costs for the hurricane season are higher than the Bush administration anticipated. For fiscal year 2003, which is going to conclude in a few days, the Congress originally appropriated $776 million for disaster relief. The President released another $500 million in emergency funding that was appropriated in fiscal year 2002, and the Congress appropriated another $983 million in the August supplemental. So a total of $2\1/4\ billion has been provided for disaster relief this year. Historical obligations, though, for the disaster relief program, not including major disasters, have averaged a total of $2.9 billion per year on average for the last 5 years. If we provide the $441.7 million in funds contained in this conference report for disaster relief, we will have only provided $2.7 billion in 2003, or $200 million less than the historic averages, never mind the additional funding that is now needed for Hurricane Isabel. It is too early for FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security to tell us how much Hurricane Isabel will cost, but they can point out to us the cost of disasters in the past similar to Isabel. We have the record for Hurricanes Floyd and Fran. FEMA spent about $700 million on each hurricane. If we were to provide the $1.5 billion included in the Senate bill instead of the amount that is in the conference report, we would be providing at least some funding for Hurricane Isabel that we know is going to be needed. So, what we have here is a low-balling of estimates in this very conference report. This conference report, within days of Hurricane Isabel, low-balls the estimates we know that FEMA is going to have to spend. That has happened in too many cases. We should not, cannot tell disaster victims to wait until we take up the next supplemental. There is no reason why we should not do it today, provide adequate money. Today's backlog, we are now told, is $300 million. FEMA admits that it has restrictions on the disaster relief activity that is being funded. Any funding, for example, needed beyond the current month is not being provided. So we should not make those that have been disrupted by Hurricane Isabel and other disasters wait for that funding. The disruptions are not just limited to residents and businesses either. In a strange twist of irony, it has even affected an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Staff tells us they just got notification that the United States Coast Guard headquarters building has experienced severe electrical and infrastructure problems due to Hurricane Isabel. Coupled with flooding, fire, main system and sanitation problems, Coast Guard headquarters remains closed to all but essential personnel for the foreseeable future. We should see to it that the Coast Guard's disaster problems are quickly fixed, as well as those of our constituents. So I urge Members to support this motion to recommit. It is timely, it is necessary, it is appropriate, and it is the least we can do for families who have lost so much in the last few days.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we can finish up now and vote a little earlier than people thought. Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us recognize very few votes are influenced by floor debate; but I would like to offer a couple points to our colleagues who may be watching this on television. The first point is that this bill includes less money than President Bush requested for emergency assistance, less money, and he requested that money before we suffered the ravages of Hurricane Isabel. We know, from FEMA's own estimate, that they are going to need more money. What we are providing today is insufficient. That is point one. Point two is an argument that may be lost on the general public, but I think many of our colleagues are going to understand it. What we are asking for is money under the fiscal year 2003 supplemental. That means that it does not get counted against the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. Now, it is emergency funding. So it does not come up against the caps that we would otherwise have imposed on us. Now, if the majority wants, we will be in a position to have to get more money in fiscal year 2004, money that is going to have to compete against the money for Iraq and against any number of other domestic and foreign needs. The simplest, the most efficient, and, I think, the most responsible thing to do would be to provide sufficient money now in fiscal year 2003. There is only a few days left in this fiscal year. This is our last opportunity. There is not going to be any other train that leaves the station. The money, of course, will be held over and available in 2004. So I think that those Members of Congress, and it includes the entire Congress, who are increasingly budget-conscious as we all should be, this is the time to do it. The money is needed, desperately needed, and anyone that had constituents that were adversely affected by Hurricane Isabel, and there is a whole lot of them up the East Coast, particularly the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, I think it would be a tough argument to explain to your constituents why, when you had the opportunity, you did not provide the money, hoping that the money might become available at a later opportunity. The opportunity is now, and it should be seized by voting for this recommittal. Now, I want to thank some people who greatly deserve it. First, the chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). We have not agreed totally on everything, but we got a good bill, and we reached consensus, and I want to thank him for this good bipartisan bill. The staff is terrific. Liz Dawson knows everything going on up here on Capitol Hill, and is responsible for a whole lot of things that we take credit for. Chuck Turner. Chuck has been terrific. Kelly Wade, Jack O'Neill with the leadership staff, they all did a great job. I want to thank Tom Forhan, who is responsible for this bill on the Appropriations staff. And Tim Aiken, who has been terrific; he is on my own staff assigned to this bill. They have both been great. Beverly, David; we have wonderful staff, and that is one of the reasons why the legislative branch appropriations bill does so well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in my senior moment there, I neglected to mention Beverly Pheto and Dave Pomerantz. We have got great staff. We have a wonderful institution here. We need to adequately fund it. I support the legislative branch appropriations bill, but right now the right thing to do is to vote yes on the recommittal to provide adequate emergency assistance, and we will get that legislative branch appropriations bill funded as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?