[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H554-H558]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H554]]
   WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.J. RES. 2, 
    CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2003, AND PROVIDING FOR 
                       CORRECTIONS IN ENROLLMENT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 71 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 71

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read. Upon the adoption of the 
     conference report the House shall be considered to have 
     adopted the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 35) directing 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical 
     correction in the enrollment of H.J. Res. 2.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 purposes 
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 71 waives 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration. The resolution also provides that the conference report 
shall be considered as read and provides that upon adoption of the 
conference report the House shall be considered to have adopted H. Con. 
Res. 35.
  Mr. Speaker, this day has been a long time coming. The omnibus 
appropriations measure that we will take up in a few minutes has 
followed a long and torturous path to enactment. But rather than point 
fingers and try to assign blame for months of delay, I hope my 
colleagues will instead focus on moving this important legislation 
forward as expeditiously as possible.
  In this difficult budget climate, cuts have been made in a number of 
popular programs. However, at the same time the Committee on 
Appropriations has recommended increases in quite a few other important 
areas. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they have prioritized the spending 
in these difficult times. It is simply not possible in a bill this 
large to list all of the major provisions, but I would like to 
highlight several that may be of general interest to the Members.
  The bill includes an increase of $79 million for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration and more than $6 billion for immigration enforcement 
activities to strengthen our borders against terrorists and facilitate 
border crossings for legitimate travelers and workers. NASA funding has 
been increased by $513 million over last year and an additional $50 
million is provided to investigate the recent Space Shuttle Columbia 
tragedy.
  The National Science Foundation will receive $536 million over last 
year's level, and the largest programmatic increase in the entire 
budget will go to the National Institutes of Health, which will receive 
a $3.8 billion increase.
  I am pleased to report that the Department of Energy has received 
increases in several important areas. This bill boosts DOE science 
programs by $72 million and the Department's environmental cleanup 
programs, including the one in the Hanford reservation in my district, 
will increase by $310 million above the current level. At the Interior 
Department I am pleased that the National Park Service budget will be 
increased by $78 million, much of it for badly needed maintenance of 
existing facilities. Funding for wildlife refuges and related programs 
will be increased by $53 million, and the National Forest System will 
receive a $31 million increase. Furthermore, I am pleased that funding 
for Veterans Administration medical care has been increased by $2.5 
billion.
  Finally, in these difficult economic times, it is important to 
provide for the truly needy. In that regard this bill increases 
homeless assistance by $102 million and provides for an increase of 
$348 million in the special supplemental nutrition program for Women, 
Infants and Children or the WIC program.
  Mr. Speaker, no Member ever gets everything that they want in a 
massive appropriations bill, which inevitably includes certain items 
opposed by various Members. It is the nature of the appropriation 
process. And that is as true in this omnibus bill as in any other. It 
is not a perfect bill, as I am sure we will hear as we debate this 
bill, but I commend the chairman and the ranking minority member and 
their fellow conferees for making the best of an extraordinarily 
difficult situation. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my 
colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
  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. Mr. Speaker, normally, when I speak on legislation, I use 
a podium. This time we have a piece of legislation that is higher than 
my podium; so I am using the legislation. The podium is over here to 
the side.
  Mr. Speaker, when a bill comes before the House, the normal process 
is for members of the committee of jurisdiction to come to the floor 
and explain the details of what is in their legislation. Unfortunately, 
that is simply not possible today.
  Certainly the newspapers have reported on a few of the most egregious 
proposals in this conference report. For instance, Republicans inserted 
several sweeping anti-environmental provisions and severely 
shortchanged conservation resources. Democrats will try to fix these 
problems in the motion to recommit, which I urge Members to support. 
But an attack on the environment is just the tip of the iceberg with 
this bill, Mr. Speaker. Republican leaders did not file this conference 
report until six o'clock this morning, and they provided at that time 
only one copy for the more than 200 Democrats in the House. Even the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has worked very hard 
under the very difficult constraints imposed upon him by his own 
leadership, candidly and honestly admitted this morning before the 
Committee on Rules that he could not answer questions about all of the 
contents of this bill. So if the Committee on Appropriations chairman 
cannot tell us what is in some of this bill, it is obvious that the 
public and the members of the House have no way of knowing what is in 
this 3,000-page legislative monstrosity.
  All we really know is this: while Republicans are hurting the economy 
by driving America deeper in debt, they still shortchanged homeland 
security. The Republican failure to address homeland security right now 
is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. As we speak, the Bush 
administration is urging Americans to buy duct tape and stock up on 
bottled water to prepare for another potential terrorist attack. They 
are urging the public to be on alert for suspicious activity; but while 
the public is on alert, the Republican Congress is asleep at the wheel. 
Even in this bill today, they still refuse to adequately support the 
firefighters and police who would actually respond to a terrorist 
attack.
  Republicans will say that they are doing all that they can afford. 
That is simply ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Republicans may not be funding 
homeland security needs, but they are still driving America deeper and 
deeper into debt by their tax cuts.
  Why has Republican control of the government brought America such 
massive and dangerous deficits? I would submit that the dots are not 
too hard to connect here. Less than 2 years ago, Republicans forced 
through the Bush tax plan, a tax plan which gutted the budget to give 
tax breaks to the wealthiest. At that time Democrats and many 
economists and nonpartisan experts asked, Now that you have given away 
the store to pay for tax breaks for the few, how are you going to 
address national priorities like national defense and education? 
Unfortunately, the Republicans' response was

[[Page H555]]

as reckless as it was simple. They ignored the problem. The fiscal year 
started October 1. That was 1, 2, 3, 4, 4\1/2\ months ago. Republican 
leaders simply refused to bring up difficult appropriations bills last 
year prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.
  Let us look at the record. Five of the normal 13 appropriation bills 
passed the House. Two actually became law. Six other appropriation 
bills were reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations but 
were never brought to the House floor because Republican leaders did 
not want their Members to have to cast tough votes on painful spending 
cuts before the election, and of course two bills were never even 
reported out of the committee. The Republican leaders' timidity last 
fall directly contributed to the $300 billion fiscal year 2003 deficit 
we face today. That is why we are here today, with just 60 minutes to 
consider this rule and just 60 minutes to debate this massive 3,000-
page conference report that the vast majority of Members have never 
read.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no way that considering 11 of the 13 
appropriation bills in 1 hour, a half hour on each side, can provide 
the public with an honest assessment of the budget, 4\1/2\ months later 
of course. Normally each appropriation bill would get at least a day of 
discussion and Members would have the opportunity to offer amendments. 
But today the vast, vast majority of Members will have no opportunity 
to even read the budget for this year.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a definition of fiscal irresponsibility, and it 
is how Republicans have burdened our children with the crushing 
deficits we face today. Even the Bush administration is projecting 
deficits as far as the eye can see, over $300 billion this year, over 
$300 billion next year, and more than $1 trillion over the next 5 
years. That is why even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, was forced to sound the deficit alarm earlier this week. He 
pointed out that huge long-term deficits, the type Republicans have 
created in just the past 2 years, will hurt Americans by driving up 
interest rates and increasing families' home mortgage and credit card 
payments. Why is the American economy facing this harmful burden 
especially now when families are struggling with the weakest economy in 
a generation? Because the Republican House leadership refused to do its 
job last year. The chickens are coming home to roost today, and it is 
not a pretty sight.
  Mr. Speaker, this omnibus appropriations bill, 4\1/2\ months late, is 
an admission that the Republican Congress has failed in its most 
fundamental responsibility, addressing national priorities from 
homeland security and the economy to education and health care. That is 
why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Let us take some 
time to find out what is really in this 3,000-page bill and then let us 
sit down and honestly address the economic and homeland security needs 
that it ignores.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Democrat 
for yielding me this time.
  I want to ask any Member in the House of Representatives to please 
tell me what is in that thing. I rise today in strong opposition to the 
closed rule and underlying bill. When Democrats were in the majority, I 
cannot tell everyone the number of times Republicans complained about 
closed rules. They swore that a Republican majority would mean the end 
of closed rules. Today's rule, like so many rules of the last 8 years, 
is proof that closed rules have a permanent seat in the Republican 
Caucus, and the Republican Committee on Rules shows this 3,000-page 
monstrosity as a work in progress. It evidently is. During the normal 
appropriations process, open rules are the custom of this body. An open 
rule allows all Members the opportunity to improve the legislation on 
the floor and ensure that the dollars spent by Congress are utilized to 
their fullest potential.

                              {time}  1645

  There is no requirement for an open rule. However, when Democrats 
were in the majority, the Committee on Rules always allowed for an open 
rule during the appropriations process as a common courtesy to all 
Members.
  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said, we saw this monstrosity 
for the first time at 7 o'clock this morning in the Committee on Rules. 
However, we come down here, we cannot amend it, and we do not even know 
what is in it. An initial, cursory review has environmental rollbacks 
and inadequate agricultural disaster assistance in the conference 
report. I ask farmers to look at their future with reference to funding 
cuts.
  Across-the-board cuts in domestic spending leave this country 
inadequately prepared to deal with the problems of unemployment, 
education, public housing, job training, Social Security, prescription 
drugs and fighting a global war on terrorism and, potentially, two and 
maybe three fronts in a war.
  How could the majority bring a bill like this to the to the floor 
without some type of kickback to the wealthiest?
  I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will try to walk this 
monstrosity back.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Democrat of the Committee, my good 
friend from Texas, Mr. Frost, for the time.
  I rise today in strong opposition to the closed rule and the 
underlying bill.
  When Democrats were in the Majority, I cannot tell you the number of 
times Republicans complained about closed rules. They swore that a 
Republican majority would mean the end of closed rules. Today's rule, 
like so many rules of the last eight years, is proof that the closed 
rule has a permanent seat in the Republican Caucus.
  During the normal appropriations process, open rules are the custom 
of this body. An open rule allows all Members the opportunity to 
improve the legislation on the floor and ensure that the dollars spent 
by Congress are utilized to their fullest potential. There is no 
requirement for an open rule. However, when Democrats were in the 
majority, the Rules Committee always allowed for an open rule during 
the appropriations process as a common courtesy to all Members.
  At 7:00 this morning, the Rules Committee met to pass a rule on a 
ten-thousand page Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report that non of 
us had seen. My Republican colleagues on the Committee challenged 
Democrats to offer a specific amendment to the Conference Report. 
However, how can we amend what have not seen? How can we change what we 
don't know?
  An initial, though cursory review, has indicated that environmental 
rollbacks that this body approved more than a decade ago are buried in 
this morass available for discovery three months from now; the offsets 
for the inadequate agriculture disaster assistance in the conference 
report hold the potential to open up assistance programs for farmers to 
future funding cuts; and across the board cuts in domestic spending 
leave this country inadequately prepared to deal with the problems of 
unemployment, education, public housing, job training, Social Security, 
prescription drugs, and fighting a war on two, possibly three, fronts.
  And how could the Majority bring a bill like this to the floor 
without some type of kickback to the wealthiest of Americans? It can't.

  The report includes a $40 million down payment of a $120 million deal 
to acquire the oil drilling rights in three of Florida's national 
preserves and wildlife refuges. Yet, I can't seem to figure out if the 
down payment for the drilling rights is a proenvironmental gesture by 
the Administration or another Bush-sponsored corporate subsidy. I 
should also mention that the drilling rights are currently owned by the 
Collier Family, a family that contributed more than $100,000 to 
Republican reelection campaigns.
  The buying of the rights is necessary, and I indeed support it. But 
appropriating $120 million without prior Congressional approval? Do you 
know what $120 million can buy us? We can spend it on job training 
centers, public housing, or fully funding the Help America Vote Act. I 
should note that election reform is grossly under-funded by more than 
$600,000.
  The President has threatened to veto a bill that costs more than he 
wants to spend. However, let me share with you the lead headline from 
today's Congress Daily. ``As Omnibus Heads for Floors, fiscal year 2003 
Supplemental Starts Up.''
  Tell me, Mr. Speaker, is this omnibus report not fiscal year 2003 
spending? And if Congress passes a supplemental for fiscal year 2003, 
will that not be 2003 spending as well? So, why not take the recess, 
give Members a

[[Page H556]]

chance to review the report, and include the Supplemental spending 
priorities in the Omnibus report? Wouldn't that be a more accurate 
account of how much we're spending this year?
  What we see in the spending cuts of the Omnibus bill is the residual 
effect of the Republican tax cuts and economic plan. Cut taxes to the 
wealthy while eliminating domestic spending on the neediest. It's the 
reverse Robin Hood syndrome, Mr. Speaker. Take from the poor to give to 
the rich.
  After months of negotiations and delay, to bring the Fiscal Year 2003 
appropriations process to an end without debate or opportunity to amend 
is a disservice to the millions of Americans who will benefit from this 
conference report.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I just remind my colleagues that conference reports are 
never amendable. They always come to the floor in this fashion.
  But I also would like to remind my colleagues that in the time that 
our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has been 
chairman, he has always brought and asked for open rules on the 
appropriation bills. So I just wanted to clarify that for my 
colleagues.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, is an honorable man. Unfortunately, he has 
been strangled by his own leadership. His committee did their work and 
reported a number of appropriation bills out of committee prior to the 
beginning of the fiscal year, and his leadership prohibited him from 
bringing those appropriation bills to the floor where we could have an 
open rule and could offer amendments.
  Now, if the other side had really wanted us to have an open 
procedure, they should have permitted their own chairman to bring the 
bills to the floor after they had been reported out of his committee. 
But they prevented him from doing that. That is why we have this 
particular bill today in an unamendable form.
  I find it difficult to understand why it makes sense to run the House 
in the way that their leadership, the Republican leadership, has run 
it. They have always said they want open procedures, but in the most 
important matter facing this Congress in a way, the appropriations 
process, they have denied this House an open procedure, denied this 
House the opportunity to vote. Even though their own chairman and their 
own committee did their work, their leadership refused to permit their 
chairman and their committee to bring bills to the floor where they 
could be amended. And now we have this, 4\1/2\ months after the 
beginning of the fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Ruppersberger).
  (Mr. RUPPERSBERGER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member from Texas 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the omnibus conference report, but I 
do so with serious reservations about how this conference report was 
brought to the floor.
  It is only with the knowledge that this bill will keep afloat 
programs important to the American family that I feel my vote today 
means something. But I think the American family would be outraged to 
know that actual debate over the funding of their government lasted 
just 1 hour. The American family would be outraged to learn that 
minority points of view concerning the health, well-being and security 
of this country were given just 1 hour for debate.
  The process in which this conference has been brought to the floor 
goes against the American democratic process. The issues at stake here 
are too important, some life and death, not to be thoroughly debated. 
The fact that we did not get the chance to debate the homeland security 
needs of our first responders is almost unthinkable. Simply put, the 
issues at stake here are too important to be mired in the blatant 
partisanship of House rules.
  Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the American way of life, I urge the 
majority to give the voice of the American family a chance to be heard.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be interesting to the House and to 
people watching this proceeding to know what we are talking about, what 
bills we are mentioning. I said earlier that six appropriations bills 
were reported from the Committee on Appropriations but not brought to 
the floor, that the leadership on the other side refused to bring those 
to the floor. What were those six appropriations bills? Well, let us 
review that.
  The agriculture appropriations bill, vitally important to the farmers 
of this Nation, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations 
on July 11, 2002, never brought to the floor of the House; the District 
of Columbia appropriations bill, reported out of the Committee on 
Appropriations on September 26, 2002, never brought to the floor of the 
House; the energy and water appropriations bill, reported out of the 
House Committee on Appropriations September 5, 2002, never brought to 
this Chamber for a vote; the foreign operations appropriations bill, 
reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations September 19, 
2002, never brought to this House for a vote; the transportation 
appropriations bill, vitally important to people all over this Nation, 
reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations October 7, never 
brought to the floor for a vote; and the VA-HUD, Veterans Department, 
reported out of the committee October 9, not brought to this House for 
a vote.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this is a terrible way to run a 
railroad or to run a House of Representatives. Because those six bills 
were reported from the committee, but never brought to this Chamber, 
they now are contained in this pile before me.
  Also in this pile before me are two other bills that were never even 
reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, and three other bills, 
of course, reported and passed the House but, of course, that never 
became law. So we are at this point today.
  Now, we never did this when we were in the majority. We never brought 
an omnibus appropriations bill 4\1/2\ months after the beginning of the 
appropriations fiscal year and refused to bring individual 
appropriations bills to the floor for a vote. That was not something 
that was done by the Democrats when we were in the majority.
  The other side does not care about the rights of the American people. 
Four hundred thirty-five of us were elected from districts. This a 
representative democracy. I represent 651,000 people, as does every 
other Member from the State of Texas, Republican or Democrat. The 
651,000 people in my district and in the other, at that time, 29 
districts, now 32 districts from the State of Texas, were denied the 
right to have their representative offer and consider amendments on the 
appropriation bills that fund this government.
  Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It should never have been done. It is the 
reason that we are here today, and it is one of the major reasons why 
we have the size deficit we do. If we had been able to offer those 
bills and vote on amendments, perhaps the House, in working its will, 
would have made some cuts, and perhaps the deficit would have been 
smaller. But the other side did not care.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the rule for the omnibus 
appropriations bill to support the motion to recommit that will be 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The motion to recommit would direct the conferees to strip three 
controversial provisions added to the Interior section of the omnibus 
during conference negotiations and ask that certain critical natural 
resource programs are increased to levels requested by the President.
  The three legislative provisions include section 335, which exempts 
the Tongass National Forest plan from all administrative or judicial 
review; section 323, which significantly expands the Forest Service's 
stewardship contracting project to a permanent program with little 
agency oversight of

[[Page H557]]

private-contract timber harvest; and language that removes the House 
provision restricting funds for activities related to oil drilling in 
ANWR.
  Additionally, the motion to recommit would direct the conferees to 
add back funding to key programs in the Interior title to bring them up 
to the level requested by the President in his request for fiscal year 
2003. This motion would direct the conferees to add not less than $193 
million above the level provided in this agreement for key natural and 
cultural resources programs funding through the Interior appropriations 
bill.
  The current conference agreement provides $110 million less than the 
President requested for the National Park Service, $30 million less 
than the President requested for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and it 
completely eliminates the Urban Parks Program, which is a very good 
program.
  In short, the conference agreement fails to honor the Conservation 
Trust Fund agreement made 3 years ago that conservation spending would 
be a priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to vote for the Obey motion 
to recommit. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost).
  I have been on the committee for 26 years. Not bringing these bills 
to the floor is a failure of the Republican leadership. I do not blame 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our good and decent chairman, 
for that. It was the powers over him that made it impossible to get 
these bills to the floor.
  I hope that they will keep the word they are putting out on the 
street that that will not happen this year. I think they owe it not 
only to the Congress, to all of us, but they owe it to the American 
people to get this train back on the track and to do the regular 
procedure.
  I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wants to do that, I 
want to do it, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants to do 
it. This year really was a disgrace for the American people, and this 
should never have happened. I hope that it will not happen in the 
future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody here remembers this fellow, 
President Reagan. He once stood before this body. This is a picture of 
him doing it. He pointed to an appropriations conference report and he 
said this: ``This is the conference report, a 1,053-page report 
weighing 14 pounds.'' Then he said, ``Congress should never send me 
another one of these.''
  Do you know how much this thing weighs today? Do you know how much 
this weighs? This is over 3,000 pages, and it weighs over 32 pounds. 
Now, President Reagan was talking about how bad it was when he had a 
14-pound document. This is 2\1/2\ times as big.
  And then we have another outrage. I will get into the rest of the 
substance later, but I want to mention one thing especially. This bill, 
for first responders, this bill in terms of the aid we provide to 
firemen and policemen across the country, is $456 million below even 
President Bush's request. Does this House really want to vote to cut it 
that low?
  Now we are being told that the answer to our security problems is 
duct tape and plastic sheeting.

                              {time}  1700

  With all due respect, rather than duct tape and plastic sheeting, I 
think our firemen would rather have more aid so they can buy the 
protective equipment that they need to protect their communities. That 
is just one of the shortcomings of this bill.
  There is another provision in this bill that gives one chicken farm 
operation in Georgia the opportunity to put labels on their products 
calling them organic, even though they are not. There is another 
provision in this bill which gives 10 farmers in Texas $15 million in 
special benefits because they cannot quite qualify for a tax provision 
in the Tax Code. And then we have some other lollapalooza, which I will 
discuss a little bit later.
  Now, my colleagues cannot convince me that those provisions would 
have survived if this bill had gone through the normal debate that 
normally accompanies appropriation bills. But 90 percent of the 
dollars, 90 percent of the dollars that we are going to spend as a 
result of this package have never been debated for one moment on the 
floor of the House of Representatives. All of the money that is in here 
is the result of a back-room deal. This is what ought to happen to 
back-room deals: we ought to leave them on the floor and go back to the 
drawing board.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, my wife often watches these proceedings; and 
she always tells me to make it simple, make it so that a person out 
there in my district can understand what is going on. I will try to do 
that.
  What we have here is a situation where 2 years ago, the Republicans 
ate dessert with their tax bill, with their big tax cut; but they have 
refused to eat their vegetables. They would not consider the 
appropriation bills. They would not give the people's representatives 
the opportunity to vote on the appropriations process. So I am glad 
they enjoyed their dessert. I wish they would have given us the 
opportunity to take part in the rest of the meal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We are not here by mistake. We are not here because we could not get 
our work done. As a matter of fact, the month of September I think this 
House worked less than any September that I have been in this House in 
the last 21 years.
  We are here because the Republicans did not want to put their bills 
on the floor and have their Members vote for it. I am a member of the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. We did 
not have 1 minute of consideration on a $130 billion-plus bill, not 1 
minute of consideration in subcommittee. Not 1 minute of consideration 
in the full committee. Not 1 minute of debate and consideration on the 
floor of this House. Yet, behind me is a bill of over 3,000 pages. It 
was written last night. Not all of it; it is cumulative. But it was not 
finished until early this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to pass a CR. Why are we going to 
pass a CR? Because as President Reagan also said, we needed time for 
OMB to read the bill. So we are going to have a CR so that the 
President can read this bill. But there is no time for the 435 Members 
of this body elected by 280 million Americans, no time for us to read 
this time. No time for us to digest what is in this bill. No time to 
have amendments on this floor so that we can strike egregious 
environmental provisions put in in the dark of night. No time to bring 
to this House the considered judgment that the Founding Fathers thought 
the people's House would give to legislation.
  Luckily, Mr. Speaker, we are not all held to our comments that we 
might make. Some have made an analogy to making sausage. We defame the 
sausage industry in that analogy.
  I want to join my colleague in saying that this is not the 
responsibility of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said that. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) is one of the fairest, most open, most democratic Chairs in this 
House and, indeed, under whom I have served during my tenure. It is not 
the responsibility of the majority party in the Committee on 
Appropriations. If it were their choice, they would have brought bills 
to the floor, bills that they felt were responsible, and we would have 
considered them. I will lament the fact that there are 54 Members of 
this House, all representing over 600,000 people, 30 million people, 
who have not had 1 minute to consider this legislation, because they 
were not here last year.
  So we consider a bill. I am going to vote for this bill. I am going 
to vote for this bill because it has some very good things in it. As 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, some of this money comes 
way too late. First responders, homeland security, frontline defense, 
Customs agents, FBI technology and capability have all been 
shortchanged for the last 5 months since the beginning of this fiscal 
year. That is not, in my opinion, being on high alert, on red-orange or 
whatever color now confronts us. I am going to vote for this bill 
because this bill will,

[[Page H558]]

in fact, fund some of the critical things that America needs. NIH 
research has been on hold for the last 5 months. Extramural grants have 
not been given. But this is the worst process I have seen an 
appropriation bill put to in my 22 years in this House.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  People listening to this proceeding, watching this proceeding may be 
kind of scratching their heads and saying, well, why are the 
Republicans not saying anything about this bill? Why are they just 
sitting over there? Could it be that they are ashamed of this process? 
Could it be that they have no way of defending what has happened here?
  Normally, on a major piece of legislation, each side takes its 30 
minutes. Apparently the Republicans simply want this to slip as quietly 
through as possible, knowing that this is an indefensible process and 
that they have done things that no one has done in the past, and I hope 
that even they will not do in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the rule. I will join 
Members on our side who will be voting ``yes'' on final passage, 
because we do need to make sure the government can operate, and there 
are important things in this bill. It is just regrettable that the 
House was denied the opportunity to work its will on so many pieces of 
the appropriations legislation during this fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I find that the arguments that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle were using were interesting arguments. They 
were based on the whole process of what we are supposed to do here in 
the House, or in the Congress. They, of course, only mentioned what 
they wanted to mention that would enhance, presumably, their position; 
but they forgot one very, very important part, step in this whole 
process, and that is the adoption of a budget which, of course, is a 
blueprint that all of our appropriators have to go through on all of 
the 13 spending bills.
  Now, by law, by law, that budget has to be passed by both Houses in 
the spring, which meant that the budget should have been passed last 
spring. We did pass it in the House. The other body, with the same 
majority here as our minority, did not pass the budget. So we had no 
blueprint. And we know that we have to give and take as we go through 
this whole thing. So that was never mentioned whatsoever on the other 
side about the process. That made it very difficult; it would have made 
it very difficult had we passed appropriation bills over to the other 
body to try to reconcile when we have no blueprint as to where we are 
supposed to be spending.
  So that was left out conveniently by my colleagues when they were 
talking.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, this has been a 
long, difficult process. I said in my opening remarks that there are 
some good things in it, a lot of good things in it; and there are a lot 
of bad things, and we will hear about that. But in the end, we have to 
get on with the business of the people; we have to put '03 behind us so 
that we can start with '04. And I am certainly going to be one Member 
who is going to work as hard as I can with both sides of the aisle to 
make sure that we have a budget this year. I hope the other body has a 
budget. And I hope that we can pass the appropriation bills in a timely 
manner, because we do not know what is going to be ahead of us in this 
year with all of the challenges that face us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________