[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6986-H6993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES 112, MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 568, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 568
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 112)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 568 is a
closed rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 112, making
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003. The rule provides 1
hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution and provides one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 112 makes further continuing appropriations
for the fiscal year 2003 and provides funding at current levels through
October 11, 2002. This measure is necessary in order that all necessary
and vital functions of government may continue uninterrupted while
Congress continues its work on the spending measures for the next
fiscal year. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass
both the rule and the underlying resolution, H.J. Res. 112.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Well, Mr. Speaker, Republicans' shameful refusal to lead
the
[[Page H6987]]
House continues today. We are into the new fiscal year, and this House
has still only passed 5 of the 13 appropriation bills.
Now, Republicans have been turning back flips to try to shift the
blame for their own shameful failures. They like to say it is the fault
of the other body that the House has not done its work, but we all know
how an appropriations bill becomes a law. The Constitution requires the
House to pass it before the other body can.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to stop House Republicans but
themselves. And what is stopping them? Simply put, some Republicans are
afraid to vote for the cuts in education, health care, and other
priorities that most members of the Republican Conference seem to
support. So Republican leaders have quit even trying to do the work
Americans elected them to do.
While House Republicans refuse to do their work, Mr. Speaker,
millions of Americans would be happy just to find a job. After all,
America is suffering through the weakest economy in 50 years, and a
recent Gallup Poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe the
economy is getting worse. Frankly, it is hard to argue with them.
Long-term unemployment is at an 8-year high, and some 2 million
Americans have lost their jobs. The Census Bureau reports the number of
people living in poverty has increased, and the median household income
has dropped. Corporate scandals, the massive criminality at Enron,
WorldCom, and the like, have rocked the economy and devastated the
retirement plans of millions of Americans. After the worst quarter for
the S&P 500 since 1987, millions of Americans are dreading the arrival
of 401(k) statements, statements that may now look more like 201(k)
statements.
Overall, the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value since
Republicans took control in Washington a year ago January. And the Dow
has hit a 4-year low.
What has been the response of the Republican House during this
troubled time? They refuse to stop corporate expatriates who flee
overseas to avoid paying their fair share in taxes and who leave other
Americans stuck with the bill, and they refuse to extend unemployment
insurance for all Americans suffering in this economy.
Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful failure of leadership. I do not think
it is going to end as long as Republicans control the House of
Representatives.
But there is one important step we can take today. We can finally
allow the House to vote on the education funding necessary to implement
the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.
At the appropriate time, I will oppose the previous question. If it
is defeated, we will amend the rule to provide for a fair vote on the
appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education.
Since Republican leaders cannot decide how to bring up this critical
bill, we would offer Members several options. The Committee on
Appropriations chairman could bring his bill to the floor.
Conservatives and their Republican Conference who have seemed so
interested in slashing education spending so far could bring up their
version, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations, could bring up his bill.
In addition, my amendment to the rule would require the House to
immediately consider legislation extending unemployment benefits to the
millions of American workers who have exhausted those benefits and have
no immediate prospects of finding employment. And to help spur the
creation of jobs in the country, we will call on the House to consider
economic stimulus legislation before we adjourn for the elections. This
body has wasted enough valuable time. We have only a few days left to
do the people's business; and by defeating the previous question,
perhaps we can start taking care of the business we were sent here to
do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that it is
inappropriate to use cell phones on the floor of the House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time
at this point, so I reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and then I will yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 8
minutes.
Is this not extraordinary? We have no appropriation bills coming out
of the Congress; we have a continuing resolution for another week, and
the Republicans cannot even produce a single speaker to defend their
position. They want this to slip on through. They just want us to vote
on this and leave town and the American people not notice that they are
unwilling to do the people's business. Extraordinary commentary on the
lack of leadership on the Republican side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, ever since Labor Day this Congress and the
President have been focused almost exclusively on Iraq, and there is
absolutely no question that we will soon be at war. Meanwhile, the
economy is showing serious signs of stress, and this body is doing
virtually nothing about it.
Only 10 percent of our domestic appropriation bills are in place for
the coming year. We are looking down a deep economic shaft with very
little light at the end of the tunnel. We are in danger of leaving for
the election with almost nothing being done to help provide that light,
and there is a lot of talk in this institution about simply passing a
series of continuing resolutions and then finally kicking all of these
problems over until after the election, conveniently.
Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House are designed to help the House
leadership address problems. Instead, on this occasion as they have
been used on so many other occasions, they are being used to avoid
problems. And then, even though we have only passed five of the 13
appropriation bills required in this House, we have some Members of
this House who sound like the great Alibi Ike of the Cosmos, because
they look for somebody else to blame for the fact that we have not been
able to do our own job. I think that that has to stop.
I think people need to understand just how bad it would be if this
government were to function on a continuing resolution for any
significant period of time. That action would put the economy at high
risk, in my view. It will virtually guarantee that almost nothing will
be done about our economic problems. Political positions of both
parties on a variety of issues will harden, and we will come back after
the election, and we will be faced with a large supplemental request
for Iraq, and the need to pass all of next year's fiscal 2004
appropriation bills. That will create a huge incentive to simply extend
last year's spending patterns through the coming year, and that will
have very bad effects on the economy. It will also lead to a lot of
nasty and unintended consequences.
Example: it will leave a number of agencies funded at levels
significantly below where they need to be, and many of those agencies
will be at the center of our efforts to protect our people against
terrorist threats. But we will also have other programs for which
spending will be at higher levels than Congress expected or intended.
Example: the highway spending that is in the continuing resolution
right now is $4 billion higher than the level it was intended to be
under the Republican budget resolution. And also, we have an anomaly,
which means that the National Institutes of Health, which both parties
have promised to increase by 15 percent this year, we will have the
National Institutes of Health funded at $3.8 billion less than the
President's budget. That does not make any sense. But that is what is
going to happen if this House continues to avoid its responsibility to
bring up the Labor-Health bill and other appropriation bills.
The problem we have is there is an impasse within the Republican
caucus between conservatives and moderates over what spending levels
ought to be on education and on the Labor, Health and Education bill in
general. And because of that impasse, the leadership is refusing to
bring that bill up, and they are also acquiescing to the demand of a
few hard-liners in their caucus that because they do not bring up the
Labor-HHS bill, they should not bring up any other appropriation bill
either.
Well, I sent a letter to the Speaker trying to propose a way out of
this box, and I suggested that the Speaker allow the President's
education budget to
[[Page H6988]]
come to the floor; in fact, bring the whole Labor-HHS bill to the
floor, bring the President's budget to the floor, if you want, allow
the Republican caucus to offer a substitute to that, and allow the
minority to offer our substitute, and let the chips fall where they
may. It does not guarantee an outcome, but it does move the process
forward.
In the past, many times, past Speakers have allowed controversial
bills to go forward, even when they could not guarantee a result,
because they understood the gravity of continuing on a long-term
continuing resolution and all of the programmatic harm that would do to
the country and the economy. So the very least that the majority should
do, instead of just passing another CR, is to bring to the floor the
Labor, Health and Education bill so we can meet our primary domestic
responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to do something else. We have a very
shaky economy, and in the midst of that, we are going to be dislodging
Saddam Hussein. He is a bad actor, we will all welcome his departure,
and no doubt that departure would be good for the people of Iraq.
Sanctions would be lifted, they would have a renewed opportunity for a
better life. But our economic problems here at home will still remain,
and the economic problems of people who live along the Mississippi will
not be taken care of by whatever we do on the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers.
We also need to have an economic stabilization package that
recognizes that things are dangerously different here at home than they
were when the majority passed its budget resolution and its tax
provisions a year ago.
In addition to putting the Labor, Health and Education bill on the
floor so we can face up to our choices rather than avoid them on that
issue, we also ought to see an economic stabilization package on this
floor that would include, for example, extension of unemployment
insurance, a strengthening of the safety net for programs for families
hit by economic weakness, help to small business and farmers who are
losing their ability to pay for health insurance, protections for
investors, and protection for workers' pensions, additional
infrastructure funding to provide for immediate job growths and, if I
may be so bold, I know we are not supposed to say that nasty word
around here, but we also do need a restructuring of the tax cuts to
focus more of those cuts on low- and middle-income taxpayers struggling
to get by and less on the economic elite which is doing quite well in
comparison to their less well-off neighbors.
{time} 1045
That is what we ought to do if we were in the business of solving
problems, but it appears to me that, with the exception of dealing with
Iraq, this House is going to be essentially a bystander.
As a practical matter, we have a government shutdown as far as the
House of Representatives is concerned, so the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) is stuck with the responsibility under these circumstances
of bringing another CR to the floor when we all know that he would
prefer to meet his responsibilities, as we would prefer to meet ours.
But we are not being given that opportunity because of an internal
war within the Republican caucus. In my view, the Republican leadership
needs to bring that bill to the floor. Their refusal to do so is
nothing, in my view, but a confession of either incompetence or
irresponsibility, I am not sure which.
So I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that we vote down this rule, that we
vote down the previous question on the rule, so that we can bring
something back to the floor which represents a real and broad-based
attack on the economic problems facing this country.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
time to me. I appreciate his leadership, and the leadership of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, the success or failure of any nation or any endeavor is
determined by the leadership it has and the decisions they make. This
Congress was sent here by the people of this country to make decisions
and to do the people's business, and to represent the people of this
country in a responsible way and make decisions for the common good,
and not serve special interests.
It is amazing to me that we continue to not have appropriations bills
on the floor of this House to deal with the people's business and to
accomplish the tasks for which we were sent.
I am reminded of the old joke that they tell in my part of the
country: Do not worry about the mule going blind, just load the wagon.
We act like we do not know what we need to do.
This is not complicated. We know how to deal with this. Blaming
somebody else; let us just find somebody, it does not matter who, but
let us blame it on somebody else; let us blame it on the other body, on
somebody down the street. Let us just blame somebody. It is always
somebody else's fault.
We cannot stand as a Nation to continue to ignore the business of the
people. We must be responsible.
The economy, to say the economy is not doing well is a gross
understatement. We have a war at our doorstep. We have a war on
terrorism that we have been fighting for over a year, and we have not
dealt with issues pertaining to those two great concerns.
The cost of health care is skyrocketing, and taking money out of the
economy at such a rate that none of us know how we are going to deal
with it; yet, we cannot get to the floor of this House the business of
the people.
We have been up here playing games since Labor Day trying to make it
look like somebody is doing something, when the fact is we have not
accomplished a frazzling thing since we got back after Labor Day. At
the very least, bring it to the floor and let us vote on it.
We have asked, and the Blue Dog Coalition that I am a member of
repeatedly has asked, the other side of the aisle, we have asked the
leadership in the Republican Party, just work with us; just talk to us.
We can figure this out. Let us do the job. Let us do the job that we
were sent here to do.
We are not asking them to agree with us, we are just asking them to
talk with us about it. Bring it to the floor and let us vote on it.
When we work together, there is nothing we cannot do. But when
everything has to be done in accordance with the Republican leadership,
and when they are making bad decisions like they are right now, it
makes it very difficult to get the job done.
It is the American way. This is what this Congress was established
for. Let us bring it to the floor and take care of it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess the chickens have come home to
roost. A long time ago, the first thing we did practically in this
Congress was pass a big tax bill. Some of us stood down here and said,
hey, we ought to figure out what we need to spend before we decide we
are going to give a lot of stuff away; but the leadership on the other
side of the aisle said, do not worry, there is plenty of money. There
is no problem. Just trust us.
Well, there are a lot of hospitals and a lot of schools and a lot of
people out there trusting them, and what they see is that they have
given it all away, and they will not even admit it. If they would just
get up and say, we have made a mistake, we should not have done that,
we should maybe go back and rethink what we did.
But I understand their theory. Their theory is when they make a
mistake, just keep saying it and pushing it, even if it does not make
any sense. They were out here yesterday on the marriage tax penalty.
They have been out here every week with something.
What really ought to aggravate the American people in the way they
have handled this budget, when I come in here, I fly in here from
Seattle. I get here at 4 o'clock on a Tuesday for a vote on a couple of
post offices being renamed on Tuesday night. Then we have a little
something on Wednesday, and on Thursday we are out, and I am on that
plane at 5 o'clock.
I am on the ground less than 48 hours in this town. If Members call
that a good week's work for a good week's pay, I have to tell the
Members something: Most of the people in the world have to at least
work 40 hours. They
[[Page H6989]]
cannot even keep their people here to work on the problem, but they
would rather say, let us just have a continuing resolution. It is going
so well, let us let it go on.
Why do we not just pass a continuing resolution until the first of
March and give up this charade. What they are going to do is 1 week at
a time, and then they are going to take the next one, which will be up
to October 18. Then they will say, well, we ought to do it after the
election, so we will do the 17th of November; and then, of course,
well, we will do December 15; and then we will come in on January 10;
and then come in again, and we will finally get to work in February.
They ought to be ashamed of themselves that they do not bring the
bills out here. Bring them out here, and we will see. They should bring
out whatever they can agree on. Since they do not want to talk to us
about what they are bringing out, they should bring out their best shot
and put it on the floor here. But no, they want to talk about Iraq, and
they want to talk about a lot of other things, but they do not do the
business of the House.
We ought to vote this rule down and bring out the bills.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding
time to me, and I regret we are here maintaining the status quo for
another 7 days.
The status quo for 6,700 people in the First Congressional District
of Indiana is unemployment. The status quo for many of those 6,700
people who have probably permanently lost their job in the domestic
steel industry and in other industrial facilities is that they have now
also permanently lost their health care. Their status quo for the next
7 days is to pray that they, their spouses, and their children do not
have an injury and that they do not get sick.
Many of those 6,700 people in the First Congressional District of
Indiana who have lost their job have been forced into early retirement.
They were promised a pension. The status quo for a good number of those
people who were promised a pension is that they will get less than they
were promised because the companies they worked for are some of the 37
that have entered into bankruptcy over the last several years.
We have had programs over the last several years under the Clinton
administration to help reduce class sizes so that the children in the
First Congressional District could receive the best education possible,
so hopefully, if jobs ever return to the First District, they would be
eligible for them; but we are talking about the status quo and not
reducing class sizes over the next 7 days.
We are the status quo Congress, and given the market's collapse,
given the recession that we are in, given the deficit that has been
created, I think we have much better things to be doing today than
maintaining the status quo.
I hope that the rule is defeated.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such
time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
I have just heard my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, talk about
the status quo. The status quo is that we want to keep the government
going; we do not want it to shut down. That is really the alternative
we are faced with right now.
What we are dealing with is a continuing resolution that will go from
October 4 to October 11. Now, people have been talking about the fact
that we have this unprecedented situation, and we have never been in
these dire straits before when it comes to the process of
appropriations.
It is true, we may be moving into new territory, but we have done
some of our work here. It is clear that we have passed 5 of the 13
appropriations bills. As the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young)
pointed out in his testimony before the Committee on Rules yesterday,
we basically have six other bills in the bullpen ready to go that we
would like to consider.
I do not want to spend a lot of time talking about history here, but,
Mr. Speaker, Members should realize that we have, in the past, to my
knowledge, never had a time when the minority did not fail to offer a
budget. This year we know there was no alternative, so our friends can
talk and say, shame on you, and we should be embarrassed and all; but
our friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, have not come
up with a proposed budget. We know that the only entity to pass out a
budget was the House of Representatives. We did it with Republican
support, and it was the Republican budget that moved ahead.
If we look at the past, Mr. Speaker, we also have had times where we
have dealt with continuing resolutions going back to 1990, when we saw
a continuing resolution that was vetoed by the President. We saw one of
the subcommittees have a continuing resolution that lasted an entire
year.
So yes, this is a challenging time for us. We are trying to get a
continuing resolution passed for October 4 to October 11 so we can get
our work done dealing with the very challenging situation. We have been
able to deal with the very, very tough times since September 11 of last
year, providing basically about $100 billion, and we have stepped up to
the plate and done that.
So we are at a time of war. This is a war on terrorism that we are
dealing with. That has created many of the challenges that we have.
However, I hope we will be able to come together and work on this
process. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) for the fine work he is doing in trying to move this process
along.
Let us pass this rule, let us pass this continuing resolution, and
let us continue working as hard as we possibly can to get our work
done.
{time} 1100
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), who just stated that we Democrats had no
budget. If the gentleman who is the chairman would listen for a moment,
I believe he will agree that when I appeared before the Committee on
Rules asking that the Blue Dog budget be made in order, we were denied
an opportunity to bring it to the floor of the House because it did not
meet the preconceived notion of what a budget ought to look like. I
keep hearing this and we will hear it again today time and time again,
but it does not speak the truth because some of us do want to bring a
budget to the floor of the House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I am sorry
that I did not hear exactly what the gentleman said earlier, but let me
say that you recall in the past that what we have done and what we have
tried to do this year was to have a complete budget package that was
put forward and not an amendment process, and we went through this
debate earlier when we went through it. And the gentleman and I
disagree on that, but I think it is very clear to state for the record
that from our interpretation we did not have a complete budget
substitute that was put forward.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly correct in the
way he states it, but that is not the way this body should work. We
should not have preconceived notions of what the budget ought to look
like and deny the minority an opportunity to even have an amendment.
And that is what has caused us to be in the position we are in today,
in which we, the House, have not passed but five appropriations bills
and yet my friends on this side stand up and blame the other body
because we have not done our work.
And I would ask that the gentleman on the Committee on Rules in this
rule today, do we have a continuation of the pay-go rules and the
discretionary caps, or have we allowed them to expire?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H6990]]
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there is no pay-go on this.
This is just appropriations only.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, so we do not have pay-go and discretionary
pay caps in this amendment. I understand that this is a CR that
continues all programs at last year's levels; and, therefore, a pay cap
is not necessary. I understand that. But I take this to the floor today
to notice that the Blue Dog Democrats and I believe a large number of
my other colleagues on this side are going to insist that when we get
into a CR that takes us into a lame duck session or a CR that takes us
into next year or a CR that takes us into the next century, based on
the way this House is being run, we think there ought to be some
meaningful pay-go rules, and they ought not be allowed to expire.
And I would appreciate in the discussion if the finger pointing would
stop and most of us, and when I point the finger at my friends over
here, I always acknowledge three are coming back at me. But it is an
interesting dilemma where it has gotten us to the point in which we are
not doing our work on education, on any of the much-needed Medicare/
Medicaid rules; and yet all we can do here is point the finger at the
other body.
Let us do our work, and you will be surprised what kind of help you
get if you allow us to debate these issues instead of stonewalling as
you did on the budget.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the gentleman and the points that
were made by several Members that have spoken today, it does not do us
any good to point fingers; but there are some things that have happened
that we cannot ignore that we are dealing with. And one of the things
that we are dealing with is that we have not passed a budget in the
Congress. That makes it very, very difficult for both Houses to deal
with their appropriations process with the same numbers. That is the
difficulty. And, again, it does not do any good to point fingers at
that, but that is the fact.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. In the summer of 2001
the majority came to this floor with its tax cut proposal and told us
the following: for the new budget year that we are heading into, for
every $100 that we were going to spend, we would have about $115 of
income coming in without touching Social Security.
Well, they underestimated the impact of the recession. They
understandably could not foresee the impact of September 11, and they
irresponsibly went ahead with the tax cut in the face of good economic
judgment.
So where we do stand today? For every $100 we are scheduled to spend,
we do not have $115 coming in. We have $90, $90.
The reason that we do not have a budget on the floor is the majority
does not want to confront the hard consequences of that problem that it
created, because there are only three choices. The first choice is to
slash education, health care, environmental protections, veterans
benefits, lots of things that lots of people on their side support. So
they cannot bring to this floor appropriations bills that do that and
pass them.
The second option would violate a seeming religious principle of the
majority which would be to renegotiate the size and speed of the tax
cut, which is what a rational, sensible approach to this problem would
be; but it violates the creed of the Republican Party, so that is off
the table.
The third option is to do what we are going to do after the voters
have spoken on November 5, and that is to cover the hole in the budget
by spending Social Security money. The majority does not want its
Members to face the electorate in 33 days and explain they voted to run
this government by spending Social Security money. So rather than
renegotiate their sacred tax cut, rather than bring to this floor a
budget bill that would reflect the conscience of the choice they
irresponsibly made in 2001, they are playing rope-a-dope with the
American public.
So we will come back next week and pass another extension and the
week after that and pass another extension. The problem with this rule
and the problem with this continuing resolution is that it
misrepresents the choices that confront the American public. The
majority is going to run the government by spending Social Security
money. We object to that. And we forcefully object to the unanimous
consent that they will not talk about the consequences of making that
choice. We should defeat this rule. We should sit down as Republicans
and Democrats, renegotiate this country's budget, pull us back out of
the red, pull our economy back up, and stop the charade that we see on
the House floor today.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the important thing for those
of us who share the responsibilities of this Nation is, of course, to
make sure that the government works for the people. And so we are on
the floor today to deal with what we call a continuing resolution. We
do this in the shadow of war and the costliness of $100 billion that
may be spent on a preemptive unilateral strike by this White House. But
I think the important thing that should be focused on is the needs and
the hurts of the American people.
I may use the 18th Congressional District to suggest that I know that
there are good people working here on both sides of the aisle. I know
the appropriators are trying to work steadfastly. But here is what is
happening to the American people while we are stalemated, if you will,
around appropriations. Take the 18th Congressional District in Houston,
Texas. We have got agencies that deal with child care that are
literally shutting down because working parents who are trying to make
ends meet do not have the funding for child care. We do not have the
100,000 teachers promised that was made a couple of years ago, so that
there are 16,000 fewer teachers being trained. We find with the new
numbers in poverty that there are now 1.3 million families living in
poverty. In my own congressional district and State we have got 700,000
homeowners that have no insurance. We have as well those who are losing
their benefits of Medicare and Medicaid because our Labor-HHS bill that
covers education and Medicare and Medicaid has not yet been funded.
And so what we do on this floor is so vital; it absolutely impacts
the matters of life and death for our constituencies. And here we are
with a continuing resolution because Republicans refuse to recognize
that the multibillion dollars tax cut that was rendered some months ago
must be ceased and stopped so that we can focus ourselves on providing
the needs of the American people in a bipartisan manner. I hate to go
home to my seniors who are making choices between their prescription
drugs and paying their rents and their mortgages. I hate to go home to
young mothers who want to work who have moved off welfare but cannot
function because they have no child care. I hate to go home to my inner
city schools because they are overloaded in their classrooms.
Vote against this rule and get back to work on behalf of the American
people.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in support of
the continuing resolution. I have listened to some of the debate this
morning and have heard a number of my Democratic colleagues harshly
critical of this continuing resolution. I do not know whether they
intend to vote for the continuing resolution or not; but as we all
know, a vote against the continuing resolution is a vote to shut down
the
[[Page H6991]]
government. And while we are struggling to finish this appropriations
process, and it is a struggle, today the Republicans are going to make
it very clear that we do not think that we should shut down the
government while we work out the differences that we still have.
So we are going to pass this continuing resolution today. I hope we
have support from my Democratic colleagues on that. Judging from the
discussion so far this morning, I am not terribly optimistic; but I
hope we will because, as I said, we should keep the government open
while we resolve these differences.
As always for the CR itself, frankly, I would not write it. If it
were up to me, I would not write it exactly this way, but it is a short
term CR; it does not take us terribly long into the future. Hopefully,
it will take us past the time in which the defense appropriations bill
will be signed into law. That is about half of the discretionary
spending in this process, and that will give us a chance to revisit
this issue. And if we have not worked out the rest of the
appropriations bills, we can refine and improve and hopefully perfect
the continuing resolution that might be required at that point. If we
can do that, I will support that CR. If we cannot improve it and
correct the flaws, then I will vote against that continuing resolution.
But the point is as we go through this process we Republicans are
responsibly trying to struggle through a difficult process to work out
our differences and pass the spending bills necessary for this
government. And it is a difficult process for a simple reason. We think
there ought to be some budgetary restraints. We think there is a point
at which we have got to say to the American people what we have said
twice on this floor when we have passed the budget resolution, a second
time when we have passed the deeming resolution acknowledging that as
an operative budget.
What we said is we have got huge new needs for funding this war on
terrorism. We have got huge new expenses we have got to incur to
protect our homeland. And given those huge new expenses which we all
accept, we have got to tighten our belts in some of the other areas of
government where we cannot afford to keep growing all of these programs
at three, four and five times the rate of inflation, as we have in
recent years.
What we are simply saying is we need a little bit of restraint in
these other areas of government. Now, there would be an easy solution
to this and it is the solution that would draw a tremendous majority of
votes on the Democratic side of this aisle, and that would be to forget
about the budget and just spend a whole lot more. Maybe we could just
agree to whatever number is being floated at the other end of this
building or maybe a higher number still because the objection on this
side of the aisle is that we are not spending enough money.
Well, my colleagues, we have been spending too much money for too
long. We have got legitimate needs in defense and homeland security. It
is time to tighten our belts in the other areas.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the continuing
resolution and continue this struggle for a responsible budget.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
(Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate another continuing resolution, and there is
talk of recessing until after the elections, I am concerned we have not
addressed all 13 appropriations bills and extending unemployment
benefits.
Congress enacted a budget last year based on projections of a $5.6
trillion surplus. Several Members warned about the danger of making
decisions based on projected surpluses that might not materialize, but
our warnings were ignored. One year later the projections have turned
out to be wrong and we are looking at large deficits and a growing
national debt.
Circumstances have changed dramatically since we enacted the
Republican budget last year. The projections turned out to be too
optimistic, revenues are much lower than expected, we face tremendous
new expenses for homeland defense and the war on terrorism and a
possible war with Iraq. But the Republicans refuse to consider any
changes to their budget policies in response to the changed
circumstances.
We understand that circumstances have changed greatly in the past
year. We understand the economy is in turmoil and we are facing a war
on terrorism but that does not give us an excuse to not come up with a
budget. We should not ignore our responsibility to the American people.
The American people have shown a tremendous willingness to make
sacrifices to help win the war on terrorism, just as they did in World
War II. But instead of asking all Americans to make sacrifices to pay
for the war on terrorism, the administration and Republican leadership
are paying for the war with borrowed money, leaving the bill to be paid
for by someone else in the future.
In my congressional district in central and southern Illinois, there
is a high unemployment rate and the economy is suffering. Mr. Speaker,
I am concerned because the Republicans refuse to extend unemployment
benefits to the millions who have exhausted benefits and need help now.
Unemployment is at an all time high and median household income has
dropped. The stock market has lost millions and the Dow is at a low.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned we are going to leave these important
issues unaddressed until after the elections.
Oppose previous question and let us get on with doing the people's
business.
{time} 1115
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, the continuing resolution before us is an indictment of
the Republican majority. They have failed to help the unemployed,
failed to rescue the economy, failed to complete the appropriations
process and failed the American people.
If the previous question is defeated, I will introduce a package that
contains the CR we are debating today, extends unemployment insurance,
brings the Labor-HHS bill to the floor so that we can move the
appropriations process forward, and calls for an economic stimulus
package to get this country moving again.
Meaningless sense of the House resolutions will not get it done, Mr.
Speaker. Passing continuing resolutions to avoid tough choices is not
going to get it done either. There is an unfinished agenda of issues
that mean something to the middle-class Americans, Mr. Speaker, and
Democrats want to help them, even if Republicans do not.
By defeating the previous question, the House can take up this
economic package and reverse the economic decline that the Republicans
have brought us. Let us get America back to work again.
I urge a no vote on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 568
Offered by Mr. Frost
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 112) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. (a) Immediately after disposition of H.J. Res. 112,
the Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 5320) making appropriations
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as
read. All points or order against provision in the bill are
waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those specified in subsection (b). Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by
the Member specified or his designee, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent, and shall not be subject to
amendment. All points of order
[[Page H6992]]
against such amendments (except those arising under clause 7
of rule XVI) are waived. If more than one of the amendments
specified in subsection (b) is adopted, only the last to be
adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and reported
to the House. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
(b) The amendments referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows:
(1) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Shadegg of Arizona.
(2) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Obey of Wisconsin.
(3) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by
Representative Young of Florida.
Sec. 3 Immediately after disposition of H.R. 5320, the
House shall without intervention of any point of order
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5491) to provide
economic security for America's workers. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) an
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Representative Thomas of California or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
(except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI), shall be
considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 4. (a) On the legislative day of Thursday, October 10,
2002, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall without
intervention of any point of order consider in the House the
bill specified in subsection (b). The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except; (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) an
amendment specified in subsection (c), which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
(b) The bill referred to in subsection (a) is a bill that
Representative Thomas of California shall introduce on or
before the legislative day of October 7, 2002, on the subject
of economic stimulus and that Representative Thomas shall
designate as introduced pursuant to this resolution.
(c) The amendment referred to in subsection (a) is an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of a bill that Representative Rangel of New York shall
introduce on or before the legislative day of Wednesday,
October 9, 2002, on the subject of economic stimulus and that
Representative Rangel shall designate as introduced pursuant
to this resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206,
nays 198, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 438]
YEAS--206
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--27
Aderholt
Baker
Callahan
Clayton
Cooksey
Davis, Tom
Deal
Ehlers
Fattah
Green (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hilleary
Kennedy (MN)
Lampson
Mascara
McKinney
Napolitano
Platts
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Schrock
Souder
Stump
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauzin
Waxman
{time} 1141
Mr. HILL and Mr. UDALL of Colorado changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. LEACH and Mr. REGULA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
[[Page H6993]]
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was attending a
White House briefing on Iraq. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was at
the White House for a briefing on Iraq. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was attending a White
House briefing on Iraq. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was detained at a
meeting in the White House and could not return to the House floor
before the vote concluded. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________