C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 3289.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order on this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I was going to do was just announce the time remaining. In addition, I would announce that once we have completed this time of general debate under the unanimous consent agreement of yesterday, we would then rise and reconvene under the rule for an additional 1 hour of general debate as provided by the rule on the bill. At this point then, I will begin the debate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). (Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, striking the last word will be in order, but I would urge our colleagues, we had 6 hours of debate under a special ruling of the House. We had another hour of debate on the rule. We had another hour of debate under general debate on the bill itself. We have had a lot of debate. However, if Members feel inclined to prolong the debate even further beyond those many hours already concluded, that would be in order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this unanimous consent that we have propounded at this point, like the one earlier today, would have no prejudice on any other amendment that may be offered following these 11 amendments. So this does not affect anyone's right to offer their amendment that they intend to offer. It is just a matter of trying to get some cohesive organization of how we are going to proceed to conclude this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before we get started, let me announce for the membership that we expect to begin the 5 hours of debate agreed to under the unanimous consent agreement on the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations Act at this time, and we will continue through roughly 6:30 or 6:45 this evening. At that time, the committee will rise and the previous votes that were postponed will be called. After the votes, we will continue with the general debate through ten o'clock this evening. At that time, the committee will rise. Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate with any remaining time allocated under the unanimous consent agreement. Tomorrow there will also be one hour of debate on the rule and one additional hour of general debate on the supplemental before beginning the amendment process. I am hopeful that with the assistance of our colleagues that we will be able to enter into a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate and amendments so that the House will have a full opportunity to dispose of the supplemental before adjourning on Friday. Mr. Chairman, last week, the Committee on Appropriations ordered this legislation reported by a vote of 47 to 14. The bill recommended by the committee provides total discretionary supplemental appropriations of $86.9 billion for reconstruction activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funding for our military presence in both countries. We have had hearings and briefings to better understand the President's request. We have scrubbed the request, and we have made some improvements. I would say that a report of our subcommittees, who visited Iraq, were thoroughly vetted and we received really good information. We believe that the bill that we have written and provided to the House is a good bill. The bill prioritizes funding for urgent needs for security, for power, drinking water, health care, and infrastructure. Included is $64.8 billion for our national defense, for our troops in the field, for those who are at risk in the battle. That is $64.8 billion for their needs, $18.6 billion for Iraq relief and reconstruction, and $1.2 billion for Afghanistan relief and reconstruction. I want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that when I say reconstruction, I am not talking about building something back that the United States destroyed. We are talking about helping the people of Iraq build an infrastructure that Saddam Hussein for several decades allowed to deteriorate to the point that many, many Iraqis did not have sanitary conditions, did not have electrical power, did not have things that normal people would expect to have for quality of life. We have made a few changes to the President's request in our bill that we present today. I think we should highlight what those differences are, because I think most everyone has had an opportunity to read about the President's request. With regard to Iraq relief and reconstruction, there have been a number of questions about the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, which is run by Ambassador Bremer. The CPA is in charge of the largest foreign assistance program since the Marshall Plan after World War II. Whether health care, electric power, water treatment, or democracy building, all of these activities are under the supervision of the Coalition Provisional Authority. These are not military items; they are civil issues and foreign assistance issues relating to the reconstruction of Iraq. The bill provides a direct appropriation of $858 million to the CPA for their operating expenses; and that is instead of providing these funds in the U.S. Army Operation and Maintenance accounts, as had been requested. The amount of money does not change; it is just the location in the bill. And we believe that by doing it this way, that we have far better accountability for how this money will be spent. This gives us considerable transparency. Our bill provides transfer authority of up to 1 percent of the funds, roughly $186 million, provided in the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund, for unanticipated expenses of the CPA. Again, this does not add anything to the bill; it just gives the CPA some flexibility in how they use some of the funds that are appropriated. We have not changed at all the reporting relationships of Ambassador Bremer to the President of the United States through the Secretary of Defense. We have prohibited funding to be administered by any official who is not answerable to Congress, and we believe that that strengthens our responsibilities under the Constitution to have accountability for appropriated funds. The bill includes a prohibition on the use of any funds in this act to be used to pay Iraq's foreign debts. I know that was a concern of a lot of Members, and rightfully so. Let me repeat that. The bill includes a prohibition on the use of any U.S. funds in this act to be used to pay Iraq's foreign debts. All of the funds provided here are in direct grants. There is no loan authority provided. A provision is also included to limit the use of noncompetitive contracts in the reconstruction and relief funds for Iraq. The provision preserves the prerogative of the President to waive the requirement for full and open competition in certain circumstances, but these circumstances are as presently outlined in applicable Federal procurement regulations. So the committee has made a strong statement that these contracts should be competitively bid. The provision requires the executive branch to provide notice and justification to Congress if and when the waiver authority is exercised. Let me take a couple of minutes to say a few things that we did not fund. We did not fund $50 million requested for buildings, equipment, and vehicles in support of Iraq's traffic police. We did not include $300 million for the construction of two additional prisons at $50,000 per bed. We did provide $100 million for one prison. We did not approve $153 million for improving solid waste management programs, including the procurement of 40 trash trucks at $50,000 each. We did not include $4 million for a nation-wide numbering scheme, or $9 million for postal information architecture and ZIP codes, or $10 million to modernize the business practices of the Iraqi television and radio industry. We did not agree to the $100 million to build seven new housing communities. We did not agree to the $150 million to initiate a new $500 million to $700 million children's hospital in Basra. However, we channeled those funds to modernize current medical facilities in Iraq. We have funded $793 million for local and regional health clinics and hospital equipment throughout Iraq. And our rationale was that it would be far better to have the medical care facilities closer at hand for all Iraqi citizens rather than building one hospital that Iraqis from all over the country would have to find a way to get to if they needed the medical care of that hospital. So we think this is a wiser way to fund this. We did not include the $200 million requested to create an American- Iraqi enterprise fund. Now, with regard to Afghanistan relief and reconstruction, we included $375 million above the President's request with the intent of showing tangible improvement in the security and quality of life of most Afghans by summer of 2004. Included are funds above the request for schools and education, private sector development, and electrical power generation to assist the central government of Afghanistan, including elections and improved governance. The mark also includes $245 million for peacekeeping in Liberia. This was not requested by the President. The Liberia deployment came later; but it was a necessary expense. We have included the bulk of the President's request for national defense. There are some differences from the request, and they would include the following: Our bill increases funds to purchase body armor, special armor plate inserts, for those who are on the battlefield. And we are tremendously disturbed that there are soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq today without adequate body armor. That is just not acceptable. We have provided funding in the past in an earlier supplemental to buy this body armor. We are disturbed that it has not been distributed yet to the soldiers in the field and we make a strong statement in this bill on that issue. We also increase funds for the clearing of unexploded ordnance, which is causing damage to a lot of our troops, and improved communications and replacement equipment. This equipment is being worn out as the deployment proceeds. The mark also provides funding for the contracting of civilian security guards to replace Reservists and Guardsmen currently performing these duties at Army installations. The Army has indicated this provision would permit the demobilization of 7,000 to 10,000 Reserve component soldiers. Some of our National Guard and Reserves have actually spent more time in Iraq than some of the active duty forces. In addition, the mark includes $563 million not requested by the administration for recovery and repairs to military facilities damaged by Hurricane Isabel. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before in this Chamber, and I think this debate has pointed out, there are political and philosophical differences in this institution and in our country. That is why we have two parties. But there is a practical reality to the bill that is before the House today. This is not a partisan bill. No one on either side of the political spectrum has attempted to make it a partisan bill here in the House of Representatives. The reality is simple: we have 140,000 men and women of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Whether you agree with that or not, we have to make sure they have the tools, equipment, and resources necessary to carry out their mission in as safe and secure a manner as possible. The bill provides funds for that purpose. I want our troops home at the earliest possible time. We all want our troops home at the earliest possible time. That is not going to happen until some stability has been established in these countries. If we simply pull out now, all of their efforts and their losses would have been in vain, for naught. The bill provides money for that purpose. That is the reality of the situation we are in now. There is no turning back. We can debate at length the decisions that were made, but we must do the right thing and support the men and women who are carrying out our mission. Some have questioned whether there was an imminent threat in Iraq. As I see it, there was a cumulative threat that was building for years with a tyrant who we know turned poison gas on his own people on at least two occasions. We know that a significant foreign policy goal of the United States, peace in the Middle East, will never be achieved with this cumulative threat looming over the region. It was past time for Saddam to go. As for Afghanistan, unfortunately the imminent threat of al Qaeda training camps and terrorist activities became a reality readily apparent after the attacks of September 11. These terrorist threats, left undisrupted, became cumulative actions against our country. We witnessed this on February 26, 1993, when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center; and on June 25, 1996, when Khobar Towers, the home of American airmen, was bombed, killing 19 American airmen; then on August 7, 1998, when our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed; and then on October 12, 2000, when the USS Cole, the United States destroyer, was bombed, with the loss of 17 sailors and injuries to many others. I would say the threat was imminent when these attacks occurred; but we responded with harsh words and a few cruise missiles, but not much more. Our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan not only address and respond to the threats and actions we have witnessed to date, but they will move us one step closer to achieving the goal of stability in this region. The funding in this bill supports that goal, supports our military, and will bring us one step closer to bringing our troops home. Mr. Chairman, we will hear, I am sure today, that we are spending money that we do not have and that the bill should be paid for. And that would be really nice. I am one of those who believes that you pay as you go and you do not go into deficit. But we are dealing with an unusual situation; and what I say, Mr. Chairman, is that we are investing in the future of our children and our grandchildren. We are investing in future generations: investing to provide security for those future generations free from the fear of threat, free from the threat of terrorist attacks, and free from having airlines hijacked and flown into buildings housing Americans. We are making an investment, Mr. Chairman, in the security of our future, in the security of future generations, to do everything possible that we can to rid the world of the terrorist threat that has taken so many innocent lives in these items that I have just referred to. And so all in all, while I think that there will be some controversy, I believe the debate will be a very good, high-level debate. I am hopeful we can finish it within a couple of days. I am satisfied that when the roll is called that there will be a very substantial vote for this bill for the protection of our troops and for the ability to bring them home once they have stabilized the region and can do so safely. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC03.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC03.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC03.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC03.004 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight tonight, October 14, 2003 to file a privileged report making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it should be in order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for a period of debate on the subject of a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; that such period of debate shall not exceed 6 hours equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees; and after such period of debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this very important bill to the floor, especially under suspension of the rules. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) is a very dedicated supporter of our military and is an important member of the Committee on Armed Services. And as chairman of the subcommittee, he does an important job. I know of no one who is more committed to the members of our military than the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter). What we are talking about today has to do with soldiers wounded on the battlefield in a military hospital recovering from those wounds who are charged $8.10 a day for the food they consume while they are in the hospital recovering from wounds received on the battlefield. When I learned about that, I have to tell Members, I could not believe it. So I did a little research, and my research told me this is true. This is the case; this is in the law. I spoke to the administrators and commanders of the military hospitals at Walter Reed Army Hospital, at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, at the Hospital at Landstuhl, Germany, and they all said, yes, we have to do this, it is in the law, but it is more trouble than it is worth. They said they are actually embarrassed when they have to hand a soldier, when he left their hospital a bill for the food that he or she consumed while in that hospital recovering from wounds received on the battlefield. That is not right. That is outrageous. So I introduced H.R. 2998 to repeal that law. Actually, while we were moving the defense appropriations bill, I was able to include that bill in the defense appropriations bill which was signed into law on September 30. So immediately the problem was fixed but was only fixed for a year because appropriations bills only last for a year. So I asked the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh) if they would report this bill to the floor so that we could have a vote on it. I asked for a vote because so many of our colleagues, when they learned of this, were just as outraged as I was, and they asked that we have a vote. So we will ask for a vote on this bill because so many of our Members want to vote for this bill. Nearly 300 of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have co-sponsored this legislation. This is something that really needs to be fixed. It was fixed for 1 year, but this fix makes it permanent. This repealed the law permanently, and we will not be embarrassed again by handing a soldier who is leaving in a wheelchair with both legs amputated or an arm amputated or vision totally destroyed or handicapped for life and we are not going to insult them by asking them to pay $8.10 a day for the food that they consumed while in that military hospital. I thank the gentleman very much for bringing this very important bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2998, legislation I introduced to permanently repeal an outrageous law that requires our combat wounded military to pay for their food while hospitalized recovering from their wounds. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, and the Chairman of the Total Force Subcommittee, Mr. McHugh, and all the members of the Committee for their support of my legislation and their willingness to expedite its consideration by the House. There are no greater friends to our troops in the field then Chairmen Hunter and McHugh and the members of their Committees. This is a law that has been on the books since 1958 for hospitalized officers and since 1981 for enlisted personnel. I only learned about it late this summer from my wife Beverly, who spends considerable time visiting with injured soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. A family member of a Marine reservist who had to have a part of his foot amputated brought it to her attention. This law is a serious affront to those injured in battle. Upon being discharged from the hospital, our enlisted personnel and officers are actually served with a bill to pay for their ``subsistence'' while in the hospital. The current daily rate for these charges is $8.10. For those who pass through more than one hospital on their way to recovery, they are served with multiple bills. We learned about this from our visits with Staff Sergeant William L. Murwin, who spent 26 days in the hospital recovering from injuries incurred in Iraq. Sergeant Murwin is a reservist in the Marine Corps who was injured when a 10-year-old Iraqi dropped a grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. As a result of the explosion, Sergeant Murwin is a partial amputee, having lost a large part of his foot. Upon his discharge July 18th to return home to Nevada and his job as a sheriff's deputy, Sergeant Murwin was handed a bill from the hospital for $210.60 to pay for his food and subsistence. Beverly and I paid this bill for Sergeant Murwin because we consider it an injustice to ask those who have served us so courageously in Afghanistan and Iraq to pay for their food while hospitalized. Legislation I introduced on September 4th, and which is cosponsored by 256 of my colleagues, amends current law to prohibit service members injured in combat or training from being billed for the food while hospitalized. It has been endorsed by a wide range of veterans service organizations including The Air Force Sergeants Association, AMVETS, the Association of the United States Army, The Enlisted Association of the National Guard, The Fleet Reserve Association, The Military Officers Association of America, The Military Order of the Purple Heart, The Naval Reserve Association, and The Reserve Officers Association of the United States, among others. Upon learning about these hospital charges, I researched the issue and found that Congress initiated the system of charging for subsistence costs for officers who were hospitalized in 1958 under Public Law 85-861. The 97th Congress amended this law in 1981 with Public Law 97-22 to include enlisted service members. Although I can find no one who claims responsibility for this legislation, I have found in the five weeks since introducing my legislation overwhelming support for its immediate repeal. To end this injustice to our injured troops, I included my legislation in the conference report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill, which the House and Senate approved last month and President Bush signed into law on September 30th. Being that it was included in an appropriations bill, that provision only extends through Fiscal Year 2004. The legislation we consider today will make the repeal permanent. Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue correction to our statutes. No one wants to see these men and women have to write a check for their hospital stay, least of all the staff of our Nation's military hospitals. I have personally talked with the senior staff at our major military hospitals both here and in Germany and they all support this legislation and say that not only is the collection of these checks an insult to our troops but it is more of an administrative burden than it is worth. We all agree that we should be honoring and thanking those in uniform for their service to the cause of peace and freedom, not billing them for their food. And we should be doing all we can to help them recover from their injuries, not ask them to write a check to the U.S. Government upon their discharge from the hospital to begin their period of convalescence. It is my hope that my colleagues in the House will join in supporting this legislation today as a fitting tribute to all those who serve so valiantly and unfortunately have returned home injured, missing limbs, and in many cases being permanently disabled. It is the least we can do for our Nation's keepers of peace and defenders of freedom.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Appropriations lost a dear friend and valued colleague, Staff Assistant Kurt Dodd. I rise today to honor him and pay tribute to his service for the American people and to his memory. Kurt Andrew Dodd was born on April 17, 1957. He began his Federal service in 1980 at the age of 23 as a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. After 17 years with USGS, Kurt came to work for the Appropriations Committee as a detailee to the Interior Subcommittee in January 1997. He spent the next 6\1/2\ years in the appropriations process, serving as minority clerk for the Interior Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee as well as staff assistant for the Treasury-Postal and Transportation- Treasury Subcommittees in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, the responsibilities of these positions were enormous, and Kurt carried out those responsibilities with the utmost professionalism, dedication, and intelligence. Most recently, Kurt reviewed the budget requests and oversaw financial management of the Department of the Treasury, the General Services Administration, and the National Archives and Records Administration. Congress appropriates over $18 billion annually for those programs. And we did that each year counting on Kurt's expertise and recommendations. Kurt oversaw some of our Nation's highest priority programs, including those related to the tracking of terrorist financing and money laundering. His analysis and support were critical not only in providing for timely construction of Federal buildings in general, but also for renovation of the National Archives Rotunda, which recently reopened to the public. His service to the Nation and to the Committee on Appropriations will be sorely missed. But anyone who knew Kurt would tell you that his dedication and hard work for the American people were only part of the story. His accomplishments include not one but three master's degrees--one in science, one in business, and one in history. He was a voracious reader, and a student of history. Kurt was just as comfortable discussing campaigns of the Peloponnesian War or riptides as he was going over Treasury Department balance sheets. And when his coworkers would express interest in a subject, Kurt would often give them a book from his personal collection to help spread the knowledge he had already attained. He was a true Renaissance man. But most importantly, Kurt was a man of kindness, decency, and integrity. Generous to a fault, he was loved not only by his family, but also by his colleagues on the Hill who worked with him each day. His gentle demeanor, sense of fairness, and civility to all serve as an inspiration to those of us who work in the cauldron of ideas and passions we call Congress. We need more people like Kurt Dodd in the congressional community, to remind us that fairness, courtesy, and respect can get a lot more accomplished than posturing, arguing, and gamesmanship. Sadly, Kurt's mobility, and ultimately his life, was cut short by multiple sclerosis. He suffered this terrible, degenerative disease for several years with great dignity, Mr. Speaker, continuing to perform his duties on the committee with extraordinary skill and dedication. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for the Appropriations Committee. The American people have lost a dedicated public servant; his family has lost a loved one; and his colleagues in the government have lost a dear friend. I ask all Members to join me today in celebrating the life of Kurt Dodd and the example of hard work and professionalism he left for us to follow.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time, and I appreciate his management of this bill and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). This is an important piece of legislation. We actually got this program started without an authorization bill by working it through an appropriations bill back in 1985. It has been an ongoing program and an ongoing commitment of mine for a long time. I appreciate also the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the subcommittee, for moving this bill and working with us to make sure that it meets all of the new, modern requirements of the bone marrow program. I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, and say that back in the 1980s when we determined that it was necessary to have a program of this type, those in our government who dealt with health issues said, It can't be done. They said, You'll never get maybe 20-, 30-, 40,000 people willing to be a bone marrow donor and that wouldn't work because the chances of finding a donor are about one in 20,000 of finding a donor that will actually match the patient. It is critical that the bone marrow of the patient and the donor match. And so I am happy to report that although they said it could not be done, we have 5 million people in the registry today, and we are exchanging bone marrow and patients across the oceans with 14 other countries that have patterned bone marrow programs like ours to join with us. It is a very successful program. We are learning more about it every day. We are saving lives every day. As the gentleman from Michigan said, this is the last resort. You do not go to a bone marrow transplant unless your disease is terminal. This procedure can be used in 60 or more types of blood diseases. There are thousands and thousands of heroes out there who have actually made donations of their bone marrow to help save a life. It is a life-changing experience to become a bone marrow donor and know that you personally have saved the life of a young child or even an adult, and you have at least given them a second chance for life. I would like to include in my remarks some of the early heroes like Admiral Zumwalt, who was one of the real soldiers in this battle to make this happen. Again, I just thank the Congress for the tremendous support that we have had all the way through as we create this program, as we appropriate the money to keep it funded. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3034, legislation I have introduced to reauthorize the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry. At the outset, let me thank the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my colleague from Louisiana Mr. Tauzin, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, my colleague and neighbor from Florida Mr. Bilirakis, for helping expedite the consideration of this legislation. I have worked closely with them and with their staffs throughout the drafting of H.R. 3034 to ensure its timely and smooth passage through both the House and Senate. Mr. Speaker, the National Marrow Donor Program is a true modern medical miracle that save lives here and throughout the world every single day of the year. Since its establishment more than 16 years ago, the registry has grown to more than 5,000,000 volunteers. These are true volunteers in every sense of the word. They have given of their time to take a simple blood test to be listed in the national registry. For more than 16,000 who have been called upon to donate bone marrow, they have undergone a relatively simple surgical procedure to donate their bone marrow to save the life of a man, woman or child with leukemia or one of 60 otherwise fatal blood disorders. Having had the great pleasure to meet with hundreds of donors and patients, I can tell you that donating bone marrow is a true life- changing experience. The experience of giving life to another human being is beyond mere words. Through the National Marrow Donor Program, we have also made marrow donation a world-changing experience. On any given day, bone marrow from our registry is being flown around the world at the same time bone marrow is being flown to a U.S. hospital through our formal relationship with 14 other international registries. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our Nation seeks to bring the nations and the people of the world closer together, to live in peace, and better understand each other, we can look to the National Marrow Donor Program as one important way to achieve these goals. There is no greater cause then to save a life, and with the ongoing support of every member of this House we can adopt this legislation today to continue to work of this program for the next 5 years. There are many heroes who have contributed to the work and vision of this program. From the early days when we sought a home for the program, and had a few doors slammed in our faces, there was Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, Jr. and Dr. Bob Graves. There was Captain Bob Hartzman of the United States Navy who connected us with the Navy Medical Command where we appropriated the first small amount of funding to give birth to the program. There were the early medical pioneers such as Dr. Robert Good, Dr. John Hansen, Dr. Donnell Thomas, and Dr. Jerry Barbosa, all of whom helped perfect the science of marrow transplantation and who assisted us in our legislative quest to establish a federal registry. There were Members of Congress, past and present, who stood by me as I sought funding to start up the program, to recruit marrow donors, and to perfect the marrow transplant procedures. There were my colleagues on the Appropriations and Energy and Commerce Committees who helped expedite these funding requests and the consideration of several authorization bills. There were the members of the board of the National Marrow Donor Program and the Marrow Foundation, who have volunteered their time to establish a finely tuned international registry that quickly and efficiently matches marrow donors and patients to give them the best chance of a successful transplant. There is the staff of the NMDP, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota but with operations throughout our nation, who manage the flow of information and marrow around the world. And there is the staff and medical teams at the transplant and donor centers who use their medical expertise to complete the transplantation procedure. Finally, there are the true heroes of the program, the patients and donors. Every patient that has sought a marrow transplant has helped the doctors and researchers perfect the marrow transplant procedure to improve the outcome for every future patient. And every donor who has rolled up his or her sleeve to sign up for the national registry and ultimately give a bit of their bone marrow has given the ultimate gift of life. They are the heroes without whom we would not have this tremendously successful national and international life-saving program. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me again thank Chairmen Tauzin and Bilirakis for their ongoing support and for the support of the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee in moving this legislation so quickly. Finally, let me thank every Member of this House for their partnership in helping us continue the work of the National Marrow Donor Program. With your support, we are giving hope to thousands of patients here and throughout the world today and into the future.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 306, which congratulates the New York Yankees on their 100th anniversary. Others who have spoken before me, and will speak after me, will have talked about the Yankees' prowess on the baseball field. Certainly their 26 World championships and 38 American League Pennants are unsurpassed in all of professional sports. With my time today, however, I want to speak about one of the legendary New York Yankees, a man who has left his mark on this organization without ever taking to the field. That is George Steinbrenner, who bought the Yankees in January 1973 and has since then made it the most valuable sports franchise in the world. Sports fans and non-sports fans alike know of George Steinbrenner's pride in the Yankees and his drive and desire to win the World Championship. Few people, however, know of his compassion and willingness to come to the aid of those most in need. George Steinbrenner and his son Hal Steinbrenner devote much of their personal time in support of the Warrior Foundation, a nonprofit organization that assists the families of U.S. Special Operations Forces who make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom. The Foundation provides scholarships for the children of these brave warriors who serve our Nation in anonymity. George Steinbrenner and the New York Yankees also show their support of our troops throughout the season, by regularly honoring them at Yankee Stadium. During New York's Fleet Week, the Yankees honor thousands of sailors, soldiers, marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen while hosting them at baseball games. The Yankees regularly pay personal visits to our troops when they are hospitalized with injuries, and they honor those who are able to travel to Yankee Stadium. Few people will ever forget the special bond that developed between the Yankees and the fire and police departments of New York City following the tragic events of 9/11. Our Nation will never forget the spiritual and emotional lift that those same Yankees gave our Nation with their never say die effort during the 2001 World Series. Back home in the Tampa Bay area that I have the honor to represent, George Steinbrenner annually sponsors of series of holiday shows with the Florida Orchestra for underprivileged youth. Having participated in many of these shows, I can tell you that he brings greater happiness to thousands of children at these events each year. He also reaches out to lend a helping hand to individuals and families with special needs throughout our community. He does not seek publicity for his efforts, he just does it because it's the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, George Steinbrenner is an American icon for his success as the owner of a professional sports team. For me, however, he is a true hero for his selfless acts to support our service members and our neighbors most in need. This is the side of George Steinbrenner few will ever see or read about but for which thousands are thankful and eternally grateful. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of this storied sports franchise, let us also say thank you to a great American with the heart of a champion. He has given our Nation much to cheer both on and off the playing field.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for pointing out that basically the Committee on Appropriations in the House has done its job. There are other reasons that are beyond our control that require us to have this CR. So I appreciate him pointing that out. As he speaks to the budget issue, I want to defend the chairman and the ranking member and every member of the Committee on the Budget, but I would join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in not having very complimentary comments about the product that eventually came to us as a budget resolution. It required considerable creativity on the part of the Committee on Appropriations in order to do what we had to do and still comply with the budget; and the fact that we were able to conclude our 13 bills early on is in no small part thanks to the cooperation that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I had with each other as we proceeded through some of these rocky paths, some of the very difficult differences that we had that we were able to finally work out. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate more than I can say, the friendship that I enjoy with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the strong spirit of cooperation, as the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations, and also with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as we work together to meet our responsibilities to the Congress and to the country. The gentleman from Maryland and I have not only a friendship, but a mutual respect. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to point out that we have political and philosophical differences. There is no doubt about that. That is basically why we have two parties, because one party believes one way and the other party believes another way on many issues. While our appropriations bills have received very large votes on the Republican side as well as the Democratic side, as we prepared those bills, we dealt with a lot of amendments in our committee. Most of those amendments were to increase spending and to increase taxes. Our committee does not have the jurisdiction to raise taxes, and we make that case when necessary in the committee. If we were to add up all of the amendments offered by the minority party alone in committee, the deficit would really be big. They believe we do not spend enough money in many areas, and we believe that sometimes we spend too much money. I want to say that I meet with my leadership, with the Speaker of the House and the majority leader, on a very regular basis. In fact, they probably get tired of seeing me, but I would say they are genuine in understanding their responsibility to the country. They are genuine and sincere in having a reasonable, responsible fiscal policy; and they are determined to allow the American workers to keep as much of their own money as they can without passing it on to the Congress. We are in an unusual time. We have a war going in Iraq and a war going in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent a war going in many other parts of the world against terrorists, against people who are determined to do harm to the American people and to our country. This did not just start on September 11. On February 26, 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in New York. Six lives were lost. The response was some harsh words, but basically nothing else. On June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia which housed our United States Air Force personnel was bombed by terrorists. Nineteen American airmen lost their lives. Again, there were words but no action, no response; and the terrorists grew bolder because they believed if America was not going to fight back, they should continue. So they did. On August 7, 1998, terrorists bombed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and 259 lives were lost. Well, we took some action then. We fired a couple of cruise missiles into abandoned terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. That was the extent of it. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole, a Navy warship, was bombed off the shore of Yemen. Seventeen sailors lost their lives, and many others were injured; again, harsh words, but no action. On September 11, 2001, under a new Administration, a new President, a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon, and 189 lives were lost. September 11, 2001, hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center Towers, and nearly 3,000 lives were lost. September 11, 2001, a hijacked plane crashes into rural Pennsylvania, and 44 lives were lost. A new Administration, a new President as of September 11, and the words were harsh, the words were threatening; but there was more action. The attack was massive against the terrorist trainers and the terrorist supporters and the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Further, we sent nearly 200,000 American troops into Iraq to rid the world of a tyrant who supported terrorist activities. There is a major difference. This President, George Bush, took action to defend America. We have spent a lot of money since September 11, and that is one of the reasons we have a larger deficit. But let me say this to those Members who believe this money is nothing more than a mortgage on the future of our children and future generations. I say it is different. I say what we are doing to fight terrorism, wherever it raises its ugly head, is to secure future generations, to guarantee that our children and our grandchildren and future generations do not have to worry about being on a hijacked airplane or having a building they are inhabiting being attacked by a bomber or a hijacked airplane, or that future generations are going to be as secure as we can make them, to be free from anthrax, to be free from sarin gases, and to be free from nuclear exchanges. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing today. We are spending considerable money to guarantee the future security and safety of Americans; and it is better to do that at the source, beyond the United States boundaries, than to do it here in the streets of Washington, D.C. or to do it in the streets of New York or Pennsylvania or any one of our districts that could be a target. I say this is the proper philosophy. This is the proper way to secure the future generations, to invest what we must today to eliminate the ability of terrorists to threaten our future generations, our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are some philosophical differences, some political differences among friends; but this is a brief statement of our position. I urge the passage of this continuing resolution.