[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 124 (Thursday, September 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6751-H6753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MAKING IN ORDER AT ANY TIME CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 111, CONTINUING 
                    APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in 
order at any time without intervention of any point of order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
purposes; the joint resolution shall be considered as read for 
amendment; the joint resolution shall be debatable for 2 hours, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations; and the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object so that I may 
enter into a colloquy with the very distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The resolution that we have before us that the very distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules is bringing up under this unanimous-
consent request is based on what might be referred to as ``a rate not 
to exceed the current rate'' for fiscal year 2002. Is it the 
gentleman's understanding that this would effectively carry forward 
appropriations from last year's supplementals that were designated as 
emergencies?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct. The bill carries 
forward all amounts that were appropriated in fiscal year 2002, 
including amounts that were designated as an emergency. However, as in 
all previous continuing resolutions, the Office of Management and 
Budget has the flexibility under this CR to not extend funding for one-
time items.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Will the very distinguished gentleman work with me on the 
next continuing resolution that we understand will be necessary to 
ensure that one-time, nonrecurring emergency designated expenditures 
are not included in the base used to calculate the current rate of 
operations?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, it is not 
my intention that any true one-time nonrecurring expenditures from last 
year's supplementals be included in the base of any continuing 
resolution. It is my understanding that under any short-term CR, the 
Office of Management and Budget can avoid funding one-time items.
  Mr. NUSSLE. This short-term CR would, if it were to last for an 
entire year, provide, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
$744.3 billion in budget authority which in fact would not exceed the 
appropriate level in the budget resolution because defense is assumed 
to continue at last year's level. However, if it were annualized and 
the defense and military construction bills were enacted at even the 
House-passed levels, it would exceed the budget level by $8.2 billion. 
Of course, that assumes that these emergencies would continue. Will the 
gentleman assure the House and work with me in assuring the House that 
any further future continuing resolutions will come in under, on an 
annualized basis, the $749 billion in new budget authority assuming the 
enactment of the defense and MILCON bills at the levels requested by 
the President?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, the 
gentleman's estimate is correct only if you assume that one-time 
spending continues. No one else has included such items in their 
estimates, including OMB. So it is my intent that any CR provide the 
most limited funding possible under a current rate. If the defense and 
military construction bills are enacted and the 11 remaining bills are 
funded at a current rate and OMB exercises its authority as it has in 
the past to not extend one-time funding, the total annualized funding 
under a CR would be below $749 billion. I would

[[Page H6752]]

also remind the House that it is imperative that we pass the remaining 
fiscal year 2003 bills.
  Mr. NUSSLE. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I compliment the 
gentleman on his work to do just that, and I thank the hard work of the 
Committee on Appropriations in trying to accomplish that goal and will 
stand by the gentleman to work with him to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to respond in kind to my friend 
from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield under his reservation, I 
would like to congratulate both the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Appropriations; and it is an honor to stand between the 
two very distinguished chairmen of these committees, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my 
reservation I simply want to confess my bafflement. We are one working 
day from the end of the fiscal year. We had expected to have this 
proposal on the floor yesterday; and we have been held up for more than 
a day, as I understand it, by the misgivings of the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget about the resolution that the 
Committee on Appropriations had intended to bring to the floor 
yesterday.
  I simply want to reiterate what the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations said, that we are very close to the end of 
the string on this fiscal year and we cannot afford any more delays. I 
would also point out, I find it somewhat ironic that the Committee on 
the Budget, as represented by the Chair, has been raising these 
concerns, legitimate concerns, I might say, about the complicated and 
sometimes uncertain nature of continuing resolutions. We all know that 
continuing resolutions are imperfect instruments for extending the 
authority of the government to function because they have many 
anomalies and they do not take into account many of the other 
legitimate anomalies that occur in funding requirements.
  Just yesterday, for instance, the Secretary of Transportation was in 
my office discussing his need for one such adjustment in order to be 
able to provide what that agency felt was necessary under some of the 
homeland security provisions. But I simply want to say that the 
Committee on Appropriations has tried to produce the regular bills 
which would have made unnecessary a continuing resolution, but it has 
been the unrealistic budget resolution produced by the Committee on the 
Budget chaired by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa that is at the 
root of the problem to begin with, because he has chosen, along with 
some of his colleagues in the majority caucus, to try to enforce 
rigidly that resolution to the point where it has been impossible to 
bring bills to the floor that would achieve enough votes in the 
majority caucus to pass, much less the minority caucus.
  We are stuck here, for instance, still unable to bring up the Labor-
Health-Education bill because people are insisting that we stick to the 
budget resolution and the allocation provided under it to the Labor-
Health-Education bill. And because that bill has been bogged down by an 
internal war in the majority party caucus, we have not been able to 
bring the other bills forward to finish the basic work that we have.
  So I find it somewhat ironic that at the last day, virtually the last 
day that we have to send this to the Senate before both bodies leave 
for the weekend, that the committee that has caused the problems in the 
first place is still producing the doubts about this instrument which 
was made necessary by their own lack of realism in the first place. I 
think that needs to be made quite clear.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I know the gentleman will most likely have the last word 
on this, so I will make my comments brief; but I have a slightly 
different take on who might be responsible here. The rules of the House 
may not permit me to be quite as specific as I might like, but there 
are two bodies that have to have a budget, have to complete a process 
in order to be successful. This body passed a budget. The gentleman may 
not agree with it. It may be difficult. These are difficult times. But 
at least the House of Representatives has completed its work on a 
budget and did so back before the deadline of April 15. If there was a 
better budget, a better proposal, a better outline and a better plan, 
we have yet to see it. It has yet to materialize in either the 
gentleman's caucus or the other body, as it is referred to. That may 
happen, but until then I would at least suggest that there may be more 
responsibility to go around than where he pointed the responsibility in 
his comments here just a moment ago.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his comments. Let me simply respond by saying I think that is a red 
herring. The fact is that it is not the fault of the other body that 
this House has only produced five of the 13 appropriation bills. The 
other body is not even supposed to consider appropriation bills until 
they are reported and handled in this body. So, I think it is quaint 
indeed to blame the body which is supposed to act after we act for the 
fact that we have not acted in the first instance.
  The fact is that this House has produced final action on only five of 
13 appropriation bills. We have the responsibility to finish all 13 of 
them. This is the worst record that the House has had in finishing its 
appropriations work of the last 15 years. The last time we had such a 
serious problem was the year after the Reagan tax cuts were passed and 
the Congress was trying to find ways, after those tax cuts resulted in 
huge additions to the deficit, to take additional money out of 
appropriations bills. So we got hung up in 1981.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a procedural 
comment, I made a request that there be 2 hours of debate once there is 
agreement in the House to this unanimous consent request that I have 
just propounded. This is a fascinating exchange that is taking place 
between the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. I would like to 
think if we could accept this unanimous consent request to have 2 hours 
of debate, we could continue it under that procedure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so would I. But let me 
simply say we have been held up by the actions of the Committee on the 
Budget and the internal war in the Republican caucus for 8 months. We 
have been held up for the last 26 hours by the gentleman from Iowa and 
his concerns. With all due respect, I make no apology for taking 5 
minutes to express my unhappiness about it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I am 
not asking anyone to apologize. I am just suggesting we start the 2 
hours of debate and continue this exchange.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, it has been my experience that not everybody 
following the debate fully understands the rules. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin knows them well, both the rules of the House and the rules of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Is there any rule, law, statute, constitutional principle that in any 
way hinders this House from taking up appropriations bills whenever it 
wants because somebody else has not done anything?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, of course not. That is the 
problem. This House has ducked its responsibility for 8 months, and is 
now looking for a way to get out of town without having voted on the 
specifics.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)?

[[Page H6753]]

  There was no objection.

                          ____________________