[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10061-H10064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of
the House, I call up the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 78) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 78 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 78
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 107-44 is further amended by striking the date specified
in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``December
21, 2001''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Wednesday, December 12, 2001, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will each control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House, House Joint Resolution
78, will extend the current continuing resolution until December 21, at
which time we hope to have all of the appropriations bills completed
and on the President's desk.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial CR. The terms and conditions
of the previous continuing resolution will remain in effect. All
ongoing activities will be continued at current rates, under the same
terms and conditions as fiscal year 2001, with the exception of the
agencies covered by the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills that have
already been enacted into law.
Nine of the fiscal year 2002 13 appropriations bills have already
been signed, plus two supplemental appropriations bills. One more 2002
bill is awaiting the President's signature. That is the District of
Columbia appropriations bill.
Most of the government agencies are already operating at fiscal year
2002 levels. We are prepared to present the three remaining bills, the
Foreign Operations bill, the Labor-HHS bill and the Defense bill when
the House reconvenes next week, and we expect those bills to be
completed and ready to go through the process.
I urge the House to move the CR to the Senate and so we can get on
with the rest of the business of the day.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to rise in support of this continuing
resolution. I think the gentleman is correct. We are hoping that by a
week from this coming Friday or Saturday someone will have found the
off button for this Congress and will be able to actually press it and
shut it down for the Christmas season. Things can always get in the
way, but I hope that they do not.
As the gentleman has indicated, there are about three major
impediments to our adjourning remaining. One is the Labor, Health,
Education appropriation bill. We are very close to agreement on that.
The second is the Defense appropriations bill, to which has been added
the post-September 11 anti-terrorism supplemental. And then we have the
potential for a stimulus package which could either wind up being a
true stimulus to the economy or just another tax boondoggle. This
committee has no control over what is produced on that score.
Let me simply say, I want to take a couple of minutes because of
remarks made by previous speaker about what we face next year. I think
it is useful to note that while this House has had many a fight this
year, that all but one of the appropriation bills, that this House
passed, passed with broad bipartisan support, and the Chairman of the
committee and I, I think, have developed a very good working
relationship on those bills.
I have noted with considerable frustration the fact that some people
in this institution manage with spectacular frequency to aim at the
wrong targets in blaming, or in trying to assess blame for the loss of
the surplus or for the fact that the House has not been able to shut
down.
Willie Sutton, the famous bank robber, used to say that the reason he
robbed banks was that that is where the money was. The problem is that
we have too many people in this institution and elsewhere, including
some who make their business with a pen or a computer, there are too
many people who blame the appropriations process, when, in fact, in
terms of budget problems, that is where the gnats are. And as a result,
we keep making the same mistakes and recreating deficits all over
again.
Someone said once, I do not remember if it is my favorite philosophy,
Archie the cockroach, or if it was Will Rogers, one of the two, who
said that experience is that quality that enables you to recognize a
mistake when you make it again, and that is what I think this Congress
will go down in history as being noted for.
In 1981, this Congress passed President Reagan's budgets, and those
budgets essentially quadrupled our deficits over the next few years
because they separated consideration of tax matters from budget
matters, and they wound up blowing a huge hole in the side of the
deficit by promising very large tax cuts, which had to be paid for by
borrowing a huge amount of money at the same time the defense budget
was being doubled.
It took us 20 years to dig out from those deficits. We finally
reached the point just 3 years ago where, I think, every American and
certainly most people in this institution, if not all, took great pride
in the fact that we had actually turned the corner and appeared as
though we would be facing a string of surpluses. Some of us thought the
size of those surpluses would be more modest than others, but
nonetheless, we faced a string of surpluses, and now, this Congress, in
one short year, has blown them all.
Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record at this point an analysis
prepared by the House Committee on the Budget minority staff which is
entitled ``What Happened to the Surpluses,'' and if you look at that,
you will see that we started this year with huge expectations, huge
surpluses for as far as the eye could see, but by the end of the year,
they are gone for three reasons essentially.
The Dissipation of the Budget Surplus, 2001
Executive Summary
1. On November 28, 2001, President Bush claimed that his
Administration ``brought sorely needed fiscal discipline to
Washington.'' On the same day, OMB Director Mitchell Daniels
warned the country not to expect another budget surplus until
2005--after President Bush's term of office is up. The
unified budget surplus of $304 billion projected for FY 2002,
and the cumulative surplus of $5.629 trillion projected over
ten years, which this Administration inherited, are gone.
Director Daniels blamed the economy and the fight against
terrorism, and absolved the President's tax cuts. In fact,
last June's tax cut is most responsible for wiping out the
surplus, and the Republican stimulus plan, with further
permanent tax cuts, would only dig the hole deeper.
2. The Republican tax cut contributed more than half--54.7
percent--of this worsening of the surplus, based on the
bipartisan, bicameral estimates of the Budget Committee
staffs.
3. The worsening of the economy, which began well before
September 11, has had a significant impact in the near term
(2001 to 2003). But, beyond those next few years, the effect
of the economy fades as recovery takes hold. The role of
increased spending--to counter terrorism and to address other
priorities--is not significant.
4. On net, virtually all of today's estimated cumulative
ten-year surplus of $2.604 trillion comes from the Social
Security Trust Fund surplus, and is concentrated in the
future years, where the outlook is most uncertain.
5. These events and estimates prove even more that the tax
cut was irresponsible. It
[[Page H10062]]
made the budget more vulnerable to unforeseen crises,
economic misfortune, and ultimately the burdens of the baby
boomers' retirement.
. . . we brought sorely needed fiscal discipline to
Washington, D.C. . . . we fought for and got a budget that
was realistic, that didn't grow way beyond the means of our
government.--President George Bush, November 28, 2001.
. . . it is regrettably my conclusion that we are unlikely
to return to balance in the federal accounts before possibly
fiscal '05.--OMB Director Mitchell Daniels, November 28,
2001.
OMB Director Mitchell Daniels has warned the country not to
expect another budget surplus until 2005--after President
George Bush's term of office is up. Director Daniels blamed
the economy and the fight against terrorism; he absolved the
President's tax cuts. In fact, the Administration advocates
further permanent tax cuts in its economic stimulus plan. The
Administration's June tax cut wiped out most of the surplus
and now they want to dig the hole deeper.
From May to October of this year--a period of five months--
the projected 2002 unified budget surplus of $304 billion
disappeared, and the ten-year projected surplus dropped from
$5.629 trillion to $2.604 trillion. More bad news is sure to
come with the economic and budget updates next January.
Furthermore, on net, all of today's estimated cumulative ten-
year surplus of $2.604 trillion comes from the Social
Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses. What little
surplus remains is concentrated in the future years, where
the outlook is most uncertain.
How did this happen? Economic cycles and the terrorist
attacks surely contributed. But there is no doubt that the
greatest part of this fiscal injury was self-inflicted--
through an excessive tax cut.
After the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) significantly
increased its projections of the budget surpluses over the
ten-year horizon at the beginning of this year, the
Administration and Congressional Republicans proceeded to
commit virtually every scrap of the projected surplus that
they could to the tax cut. The Congress passed, and the
President signed, a $1.346 trillion tax cut over the eleven
fiscal years 2001-2011. With an additional $0.386 trillion
due to increased debt service, the total budgetary hit from
the tax cut comes to $1.732 trillion. Over ten years, the tax
cut did leave an ostensible ``reserve'' of about $500
billion; but the vast bulk of that sum, 86 percent, arose
in the last five years--at which time budget projections
are most uncertain.
What is even more disturbing, the Congressional
Republicans, supported by the White House, pursued their tax
cut to the exclusion of all other priorities, including a
prudent and responsible budget reserve. In his budget address
to the Congress in February, the President emphasized that he
would address the programmatic needs of the government, pay
down the debt, ``[a]nd then, when money is still left over,''
provide a tax cut. But on the contrary, what the White House
and the congressional Republicans in fact did was to pass the
tax cut first--before retiring debt, before even submitting a
defense budget, before passing a farm bill, before providing
Medicare prescription drug coverage, and so on. Now, well
after the beginning of the next fiscal year, most of these
other priorities have not been addressed, much less
fulfilled, and the surplus is gone.
Subsequent developments have demonstrated clearly just how
imprudent this tax cut was. First, the Administration, which
had been talking down the economy since early December of
2000 to sell its tax cut, saw the economy deteriorate in a
self-fulfilling prophecy. And since September 11, the economy
has slumped even further, while the unavoidable costs of
terror-fighting and war have mounted.
Because of the further slowing of the economy (and
associated technical factors), economists of the House and
Senate Budget Committee staffs have estimated, on a
bipartisan basis, that the surpluses in 2002 through 2004
will be reduced by $80 billion, $56 billion, and $8 billion
(exclusive of net interest) respectively. These revisions are
in addition to the reestimates CBO already had made in
August.
The President and the Congress have provided $40 billion in
additional funding to deal with the damage and the security
threats, half of which is assumed to recur in future years.
Congress appropriated $5 billion in cash assistance for the
airline industry, backed $15 billion in loan guarantees, and
provided the airlines with relief from liability for the
disaster as well. The President's $18 billion defense budget
amendment to his original placeholder request has been built
into the appropriations process, and further additions for
defense appear inevitable. Again, on a bipartisan, bicameral
basis, the staffs of the two Budget Committees have concluded
that the total costs of these initiatives, plus debt service
(on these programs plus the economic reestimates) will reduce
the surplus by $124 billion in 2002, and by $793 billion over
2002-2011. And these estimates ignore the stimulus bill that
is making its way through the Congress, and other unaddressed
priorities such as the farm bill, education, expiring tax
provisions, and the ballooning individual alternative minimum
tax.
The President's enacted tax cut remains by far the largest
single contributor to the deterioration of the budget outlook
over the next ten years. Not including the stimulus bill or
any other pending tax initiatives, the tax cut contributed
more than half--54.7 percent--to the depletion of the surplus
over the ten years 2002-2011.
The worsening of the economy (including technical
reestimates) has had a significant impact in the near term
(2001 to 2003 or so). Economic and technical factors dominate
the figures (62.8 percent) in 2002. However, beyond those
next few years, the effect of the economy fades as recovery
is projected to take hold. for the last five years of the
budget window, the share of the tax cut in the total
worsening is over 60 percent--even assuming that all of the
tax provisions will sunset at the end of 2010.
The impact of increased spending unrelated to the terrorist
attack is small, averaging only 11.1 percent over the ten-
year budget window. (For purposes of this analysis, all of
the ten-year consequences of the President's request for $18
billion per year of additional defense spending are included
in this non-terror-related category.) Clearly, the effect of
terrorism on the spending side of the budget is far from
certain at this time. However, the bipartisan Budget
Committee estimates suggests that the cost of recent and
likely imminent action will be a small piece of the overall
puzzle. Estimated anti-terror spending averages 11.0 percent
of the worsening of the surplus over the ten years. (The
impact of spending is projected to take a small jump in 2011,
if the tax cut actually sunsets at the beginning of that
year.)
Although today's estimated cumulative ten-year surplus
remains as large as $2.604 trillion, that figure is not
comforting on closer examination. At the beginning of this
year, the bipartisan goal in the Congress was to reserve the
entire Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses,
which were estimated in August to total $2.955 trillion
($2.551 trillion for Social Security, and $9.404 trillion for
Medicare). Thus, the remaining projected unified surplus, on
net over ten years, comes totally from those Trust Fund
surpluses. The surplus that remains is still concentrated in
future years, and even that surplus is likely to be eroded by
the new economic and budget projections in January.
The deterioration of the surplus because of the weakening
of the economy and the costs of resisting terrorism does not
absolve the tax cut. Any future economic weakness, and any
added costs for fighting terrorism will reduce the percentage
of the total surplus deterioration that is directly due to
the tax cut; and the reduction of that percentage might lead
some to conclude that the tax cut is less at fault for the
worsening budget. Taken to its extreme, this argument would
say that the worse the budget gets, the less bad an idea the
tax cut was.
But in a broader sense, such an argument misses a more
important point: recent events prove even more that the tax
cut was unwise. A central element in leadership and
stewardship is to be prudent, to be prepared for adverse
contingencies. It is not good stewardship to choose policies
that make the budget more vulnerable--to tragedies, to
economic misfortune, or ultimately to the burdens of the baby
boomers' retirement.
The budget is almost certain to revert to unified deficit
in 2002, and quite possibly in 2003 and 2004 as well. The
direction for subsequent years is heavily dependent upon the
state of the economy. But the Republican tax cut played a
central role in these developments. This fact should serve as
a cautionary flag to the Administration and Congressional
Republicans who are now promoting a second tax cut which will
dig the hole even deeper--a fact which should inform future
policy choices, lest budget outcomes prove even worse.
This document demonstrates that the tax cut that passed earlier in
the year contributed to more than half of the erosion of the surplus,
54.7 percent.
It points out that another significant portion was caused by the
events in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on this country. And
it also describes the remaining factors that led to the total
disappearance of those surpluses.
Now not only are we facing the likelihood of no surpluses for the
next few years, we are facing the likelihood of substantial deficits.
This Congress after they passed the first tax cut, this House again
went on another binge, promising what it could not responsibly deliver,
and wound up offering the largest corporations in this country more
than $25 billion cumulatively in 15-year retroactive tax cuts in the
form of the repeal of the corporate minimum tax. And it has gone on to
similar spending binges on the tax side of the ledger. And the tragedy,
in addition to the loss of the surplus, has been that those tax cuts
have been primarily directed at the people who need them least; and,
therefore, they are tax cuts which are likely to have the least
stimulative effect on the economy.
If you provide additional unemployment compensation to people, if you
help them to pay for their health insurance if they have lost their
job, they will spend, they will spend that money immediately and that
will stimulate the economy. But the tax cut passed
[[Page H10063]]
earlier in the year by our majority friends in this House, when fully
effective, will provide a $52,000-a-year tax cut to the wealthiest
people in this country. They will not spend most of this money. They
will bank it. They will pocket it. That will not stimulate the economy.
And yet that is what this Congress is hell-bent on doing. They are
trying to do even more in that misguided stimulus package.
So while though the Congress is doing that and while the majority
leadership is doing all of that, they are objecting to efforts on the
part of some of us to provide additional homeland security by providing
a small $5.3 billion add-on to the budget for homeland security items
as the Senate did last week. It just seems to me that that demonstrates
that, in terms of protecting the country against future deficits, this
House leadership has a spectacular ability to eat the hole in the
doughnut, but they are not doing anything to deal with the doughnut.
So I do not know where that leaves us for next year, but it does not
leave us in a very promising position. And the problem is that it will
not only affect the country negatively next year, it will affect the
country's economy negatively for a number of years to come.
We have seen this Congress, in 1 short year, squander the opportunity
to use those surpluses, to do something with about the problems that
still remain in Medicare, in Social Security, in prescription drugs, in
quality education. So I think in the end, this Congress will go down in
history as a Congress of missed opportunities, misplaced priorities.
I think that in the last 4 months what we have seen is an
administration which has provided a very well managed war and a very
poorly managed economy. I regret that dichotomy because in the end, it
will come home to bite each and every working American; and that is
something that simply did not have to happen.
But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is correct. This
resolution needs to be passed. I hope that it will be the last one that
needs to be passed and that we can produce these two or three bills
that remain on the docket when the Congress reassembles on Wednesday
next, as I understand the plan is.
I do want to thank the gentleman. I hope this is the last time we are
going to be on the floor with one of these. I do want to thank the
gentleman for doing his duty. When you are the Chair of the Committee
on Appropriations or, for that matter, any member of the Committee on
Appropriations, it is your job to expose the entire institution to
reality. Everyone can have political philosophy. Everyone can have
their ideology. Everyone can have their political preferences. But in
the end, numbers do not lie. Members of Congress can lie about the
numbers, but the numbers themselves do not lie.
The fact is that the gentleman has tried to stick to the facts. He
has been victorious sometimes and he has been overrun sometimes. And I
know if his judgment were allowed to prevail, this Congress could have
ended a whole lot sooner with really very minor adjustments in the
overall budget, but adjustments that nonetheless would have been very
important in strengthening the security of this country. And I regret
on those matters that we will have to address them at a later day.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations because he is right. When he pointed out how well the
appropriations process has worked this year, he is exactly right; and
that is because we had a good working relationship. We had some
differences but we worked them out. And we got, except for one bill, we
got very substantial votes on the other bills and I think that is a
very good sign.
We got off to a little late start this year because the President was
late getting started since it took a while to decide who was going to
be President. So we were fairly late in getting the detailed
appropriations request from the administration. But once we got
started, it has been a while ago now, but I hope the House Members will
remember that we actually passed all of our appropriations bills,
except 3, prior to the July 4 recess. And two of those three that we
did not pass, well, actually, all 3 of them, we were very late getting
the District of Columbia budget request. So that bill is usually late
because we are late getting their request.
The other 2 were Labor HHS and Health and Education, and that was
because H.R. 1 had not passed yet. Shortly after H.R. 1 passed, which
is the Education bill, then we did pass our Labor, Health and Education
bill.
{time} 1045
The other was national defense, and we were asked to hold up on the
national defense bill until such time as the President could send us
his budget amendment. That amendment arrived about the first week of
July. Shortly after we received it, we began to do some hearings on the
budget amendment. Then the August recess came; and so we sat in this
Capitol building on September 11 to mark up that bill in the
subcommittee, and it was that morning that the terrible, tragic
terrorist attacks on the United States took place. The building was
evacuated, the subcommittee had to leave, and following that we had to
do the supplementals; so that bill got delayed. But the bulk of our
work was completed in the House prior to the July 4 recess, and Members
ought to be proud of that.
There is another reason we have had to have several continuing
resolutions. If Members remember, one of the biggest complaints in
previous years was that at the end of the process, we lumped five or
six or seven bills altogether in an omnibus bill that no one had an
opportunity to really understand what was in it, and months later we
found things in the omnibus bill that surprised many of us. The hue and
cry went up, no more omnibus bills.
Mr. Speaker, no omnibus bill this year. All 13 appropriations bills
plus two supplementals have been done as they should be done.
So we come to the end of the process and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) is correct, we both believe when the House comes back next
week, the final appropriations bills will be prepared to be voted on,
and the House will have completed its appropriations business by next
week.
I thank Members for the support and correction that they have given
us on both sides of the aisle. We have worked around our differences.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, we were victorious on
occasion. We lost a few, but the House worked its will. That is what
the House is all about, the House works its will.
We have had strong leadership from the Republican side. The Speaker
of the House has been a very strong leader and very strong supporter of
the appropriations process. He understood the difficulties that we
faced, and understood some of the decisions we had to make. But we come
to the end of the process now. I think everyone is still smiling at
each other, everyone is still shaking hands after the bills are
completed, so I think we end the appropriations season with a pretty
good feeling, and I thank all Members for that. I particularly thank
the chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees, and I
particularly thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as the
ranking member, and I thank the members of the staff.
A lot of Members do not know this, but on so many occasions, to get
an appropriations bill through the process requires many, many, many
24-hour days where the staff actually stays throughout the night. My
staff is led by Jim Dyer, our clerk, and the staff of the ranking
member is led by Scott Lilly. We have a good staff relationship. Some
of these people work 24 hours a day on many, many days during an
appropriation season. And it seems like the appropriation season goes
all year long some years.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, when people here say that the staff has worked 24 hours
around the clock, I think they think that is just figuratively. That is
not the case. There are a number of occasions when many staffers on
this committee have had to work for literally 2
[[Page H10064]]
to 3 days without ever having an hour of sleep. They have worked
straight through. That will have to happen again if we are to finish
the defense bill and the Labor-HHS bill in accordance with the
schedule.
I do want to issue one warning because we have been told with respect
to homeland security items, strengthening the FBI, giving greater
security at the border, providing greater assistance to local public
health officials in the event of an outbreak of biological or chemical
attacks on this country by terrorists, we have been told do not worry,
we can do that in March. There is plenty of time to do that in March.
Members said that again to me yesterday.
If we look at the calendar for next year, this Congress is scheduled
in January to have exactly 1 full day of session on January 24 and one-
half day on January 23. The following week we will meet only after 5
p.m., and the next day there will be no votes after 2. So that is about
2 legislative days in the entire month of January.
If we look at the calendar for February, I see there are 6 full
legislative days scheduled in February, and 3 other days where there
will be no real action until after 6:30 in the evening. Give or take,
that is about 7 working days.
In March, the same thing, about 7\1/2\ full working days. If the
Congress is to seriously consider supplemental appropriations for
defense and for homeland security, to expect this Congress with that
few number of working days to actually get something from the
President, hold hearings, produce a bill in the House, send it to the
Senate, have the Senate pass it and have those differences worked out,
it would be phenomenally rare if Congress were able to act that
quickly. For those who say ``Do not worry about any security issues
remaining, we can get this done by March,'' I suggest to those Members
to read the calendar. It is not so likely.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to urge
Members to support this continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, December 12, 2001,
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
____________________