C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, under the previous order of the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, the legislation before the House, H.J. Res. 69, is a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2004, and it would extend until the end of October. Normally we do a 3- or 4- or 5- day CR, but the wiser approach is to do this for the entire month of October because there is considerable work still to do that has not yet been completed. This legislation is needed to continue the operation of the Federal Government for the first month of the new fiscal year. I think everyone is aware that the Committee on Appropriations continues to work on the fiscal year 2004 bills. The House, as a matter of fact, has passed all of our appropriations bills, we passed three conference reports, and we have two more bills in conference with the other body as we speak today. Yesterday, we passed the conference reports for three very important appropriations bills: the Defense Appropriations bill, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, and the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill that also included supplemental appropriations for natural disasters and forest fires. We are continuing to move forward on conferences with the other body. We hope to have the conference reports for Energy and Water and Military Construction ready for House consideration very soon. As I think we all know, in addition to our regular appropriations bills, we are also in the process of considering an $87 billion budget amendment for the war against terror. Yesterday, we began oversight hearings on this request. There is still a considerable amount of work for our committee to do before we are able to adjourn. That is the reason for this continuing resolution. Let me now briefly describe the terms and conditions of the continuing resolution. It will continue all ongoing activities at current rates, including supplemental funding, under the same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2003. As in past CRs, it does not allow new starts, and it restricts obligations on high initial spend-out programs so the annualized funding levels in this bill will not impinge on our final budget deliberations. It includes provisions that allow for the continuation of programs and fee collections that would otherwise expire, for example, entitlement payments under the Food Stamp program, certain child nutrition programs, certain SBA loan programs, and payments to military personnel for imminent danger special pay and family separation allowances. The CR also allows the District of Columbia to spend local funds through the period of the CR at budget levels as passed by the House. The CR ensures that funding is available during the period of the CR to conduct administrative oversight and to pay certain Department of Transportation personnel managing surface and aviation programs in the absence of reauthorizations for such programs. A provision was also requested by the Administration that is included in the CR that provides legislative authorization to implement a new, no-subsidy $550 million Foreign Military Financing 12-year loan to the Czech Republic for the purchase of 14 of our used F-16 aircraft, weapons, training, and related logistics support from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this CR is controversial, and I urge the House to move it to the Senate so the government may continue to operate efficiently and so that we can continue our work to finish the balance of the appropriations bills and the substantial request that we have for the $87 billion war against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments, and he is exactly right. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) knows that firsthand because he spends considerable time visiting the wounded in the hospitals as well. One of the things that I learned is when a wounded soldier or troop leaves the hospital, despite the fact that person was there because of injuries or illness based on the battle, they get a bill for $8.10 a day for the food they consumed in the hospital. That is outrageous. I could not believe that was the case, and I immediately went back to research it, and found yes, that is the law. I could not find anybody that knew where that law came from or why it was or anybody that believed we should have that law. So we introduced a bill to repeal that charge for those who are wounded or become ill because of their deployment to the battlefield or peacekeeping mission. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member and all of the members of the subcommittee. They have agreed to include that bill in this conference report. So when this bill is signed by the President next week, hopefully, that terrible law that charges a wounded soldier who might have lost a leg or two legs or an eye will be repealed. He will not have to pay that $8.10 a day for the food consumed in the hospital while recuperating from those wounds. Because it is an appropriations bill, it is only a 1-year fix, so we must continue to push for the permanent bill which has over 200 cosponsors as I speak today. Again, I think that the subcommittee has done a great job. Maybe it is not a lot of money, but it is symbolic, an American soldier wounded in action should not have to pay for the food that they eat or consume while in the hospital recuperating.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I would make the usual brief congratulatory comments about the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). He has done an outstanding job as the chairman, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). They produced a really good defense bill and we are producing this defense bill at a time when the world's attention is not national defense. One of the things that I want to talk about today has to do with those who are providing for our national defense, those soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have been deployed to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Liberia, to wherever else the Nation decided to send them. Unfortunately, there have been casualties. Some have been killed in action, and some have been seriously wounded in action. Many Members know my wife and I visit the wounded at Walter Reed Hospital and at Bethesda Naval Hospital as often as we can, and she more than I.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for yielding me this time. I wanted to, number one, congratulate him on doing a tremendous job in presenting this conference report, along with his partner, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member. I know there are some differences here, but the fact of the matter is this is a good bill. This is the first real homeland security appropriations bill that the Congress has considered. Once it became evident that our homeland was no longer totally secure from terrorism, the Congress moved quickly to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and the Congress moved quickly to establish a Select Committee on Homeland Security. But when we follow the money, which is where things happen, it was the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) who brought the pieces together, who brought together all of those agencies that had control of homeland security-type responsibilities. He did just a tremendous job in identifying the needs and providing the support. He worked this bill through. It was one of the first bills that passed in the House. It is one of the first bills; in fact, it is the second bill that comes before us as a conference report. He has done a really good job. While there will be some, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) pointed out, differences here, the fact of the matter is that this subcommittee can be very proud of the job that it has done. I was able to appoint the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) as chairman of this subcommittee, and I am proud of that decision. He has made the House look good. And I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is very proud of his appointment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) as the ranking member because he has also made the House look good. They have done a good job, and I hope that we can expeditiously pass this conference report, get it to the Senate, and get it on the President's desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston) on doing a fine job, a very good job, on this legislative branch appropriations bill. This is the first conference report of the gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston) as a subcommittee chairman, and I would like for our colleagues to know that he provided valuable and effective oversight of all of the legislative branch accounts, which is what he should have done. He did a really good job at it, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member. He was very much of a partner through the process. While we do have a little difference on the part of the bill that I am going to talk about, it is not that big a difference, I do not think. But I thank the chairman for being willing to include in his conference report the supplemental, the mini-supplemental, that we dealt with early on. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations considered it back in July, and it is included as a part of this conference report. Disaster relief funds, which have been discussed, total $442 million in this bill. That is in addition to the $983.6 million that we passed back in July. So there is a substantial amount for FEMA already being appropriated here. There is $319 million for wildland fire management. As we know, we had severe fires this year, especially in the West. There is $50 million for NASA to deal with the Columbia disaster; $32 million for costs of the courts, for the judicial branch of government; and $60 million for the flood control activities of the Army Corps of Engineers. So we worked hard on this supplemental to make it something that we thought that the House would be willing to support, and that would primarily meet the needs of the United States as a supplemental, in addition to all of the regular appropriations bills that we have passed or are in the process of passing. So, again, I want to thank the chairman for allowing us to use his bill as a vehicle for this supplemental, this mini-supplemental. We can get the decks cleared, because we have a $87 billion request that we will be starting to deal with this afternoon at 2 o'clock. We have a hearing with Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid. The Subcommittee on Defense this weekend is on its way to Iraq to do the investigations they feel compelled to do, and they will follow up with hearings back home when they return. There will then be additional hearings next week with the State Department. So we are going to vet this $87 billion request as effectively as we can. We believe it is in the best interests of the President, the best interests of the effort against terrorism, and in the best interests of our colleagues in the Congress to get as many answers as we possibly can on the major questions surrounding this $87 billion request. So that is under way, and I would like to get the deck cleared on this bill so that we can be free to give our full attention to the $87 billion request.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2657, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2657) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and the Senate on H.R. 2658 be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be broached, providing that any sitting Member of Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House have until midnight, September 18, 2003, to file a conference report on the bill (H.R. 2657) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to advise the House that this vote that we will take soon on the D.C. bill is the end of the 13 regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2004. This does the job. We have had some interesting times, Mr. Chairman; but in this calendar year starting in February, the Committee on Appropriations concluded 11 of last year's bills, two major supplementals, and 13 regular bills once we have the vote on the D.C. appropriations bill. I want to say thank you to all of the Members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides. I want to say thank you to the Members of the House that gave us some spirited debate in amendments but also some very strong votes. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared then to move on to our conferences with the other body, which should prove to be very interesting.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that my colleague from Florida made this point of order, but in the event that he did, I must insist that the point of order be applied to the entire paragraph and not only to provisions within the paragraph to which the gentleman from the authorizing committee objects.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I must insist that the point of order be applied to the entire paragraph and not only to provisions within the paragraph to which the gentleman from the authorizing committee objects.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I must insist that the point of order be applied to the entire paragraph and not just to the provision within the paragraph to which the gentleman from the authorizing committee objects.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), that he is absolutely right. It is essential that the Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committees work together as we deal with issues of this type. The gentleman is exactly right.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for bringing this important matter to the committee's attention. As overseers of GSA's budget, I believe the committee acted in a responsible way and responded to this issue appropriately.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) as we move towards a final resolution of this issue, and will certainly work to clarify the report language during conference as events dictate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I did not really hear the question.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my wife Beverly and I spend considerable time visiting with injured soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coasties at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Our goal is to provide comfort and support to the service members and their families. This is a project Beverly has led for many years, long before the inception of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Throughout the years, we have helped solve many problems large and small that involved patient care, benefits, and tangled bureaucracy. Recently, though, we learned of a problem that I consider a serious affront to those injured in battle and training. Upon being discharged from the hospital, our enlisted personnel and officers are served with a bill to pay for their ``subsistence'' while in the hospital. The current daily rate for these charges is $8.10. 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 am introducing today would amend current law to prohibit service members injured in combat or training from being billed for the food while hospitalized. Congress initially 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. 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. 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. It is my hope that my colleagues in the House will join me in sponsoring this legislation and in urging the Committees with jurisdiction to expedite its enactment 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.