[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10157-H10163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 417,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, and
[[Page H10158]]
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of H.J. Res. 75 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 75
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 108-84 is amended by striking the date specified in
section 107(c) and inserting ``November 7, 2003''.
Sec. 2. Public Law 108-84 is further amended as follows:
(1) In section 103, by inserting ``(a)'' after the section
designation and by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(b) For purposes of section 101, the term `rate for
operations not exceeding the current rate' has the meaning
given such term (including supplemental appropriations and
rescissions) in the attachments to Office of Management and
Budget Bulletin No. 03-05 entitled `Apportionment of the
Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2004'.''.
(2) In section 125, by inserting before the period at the
end the following:
``: Provided, That such amounts as may be necessary for
administrative expenses of the Grants-in-aid for Airports
program shall be available to the Secretary of Transportation
out of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund at a rate for
operations not exceeding the current rate and for which
authority was made available under the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2003''.
(3) By striking sections 126 through 130 and by
redesignating sections 131 through 135 as sections 126
through 130, respectively.
(4) In section 127, as so redesignated, by striking
``through 130, and section 134,'' and inserting ``and 129''.
Sec. 3. Section 8144(b) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248), as amended by
Public Law 108-84, is further amended by striking ``October
31, 2003'' and inserting ``November 7, 2003''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 417, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain the bill before us. It is a continuing
resolution to extend the original CR until the 7th of November, 2003.
This CR is basically noncontroversial. We need this CR because we have
not completed all the appropriations bills in conference, although the
House passed all of our appropriations bills in the summer. But we are
making progress.
After we do the CR today, we will be dealing with the conference
report on the interior appropriations bill. Also, I have just filed the
conference report on the Iraqi supplemental, which we expect to get a
rule on and we expect to have on the floor some time this evening, and
which we hope to conclude by tonight.
The CR does include a few technical corrections to the first CR and
adds a provision that codifies the term ``rate for operations'' under
the CR, pursuant to OMB bulletin No. 03-05.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe this CR is noncontroversial, and I urge
the House to move this legislation to the Senate so that the government
can continue to function smoothly and efficiently and so that we can
continue to finish our work on the appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1115
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we are supposed to have our
appropriation bills done by the beginning of the fiscal year on October
1. Right now, even if we pass the Interior bill today, the bill to
which the distinguished gentleman from Florida has just referred, we
will still have 9 of 13 appropriation bills that are pending, and only
God knows when we are going to finish them.
This continuing resolution keeps the government open until November
7. It is a very short CR, highly unrealistic in my view, if people have
any expectation that this is going to be the last CR that we need. That
means that the good news is we are going to get to do this all over
again next week and the following week and probably the following week.
I distinctly hope that we can be finished here by Thanksgiving. I
desperately hope that we can, but my experience and my instincts are
beginning to tell me that that is not at all likely.
I notice that the reports this morning in the National Journal's
Congress Daily, I notice the report there, and in one of the newspapers
this morning, I have forgotten if it was Roll Call or The Hill, which
indicated that the Speaker himself is contemplating the possibility of
our adjourning until January 15 because of the inability of the House
and the Senate to get together on a variety of bills, not just
appropriation bills, but also bills like the energy bill and the
Medicare bill.
If we wind up doing that, it will be in essence a repeat of last
year. And it means that we will be still dealing with last year's
business midwinter of next year, and that will put the entire system
again months behind where it ought to be, and God help us, there is an
election year coming up, Presidential election year which is going to
chew up a good piece of July and August.
So I see here confusion and chaos. And I would point out that when
this happened in the last Congress, the majority party had a convenient
target. They tried to blame it all on good old Tom, Tom Daschle, the
then-majority leader in the Senate. Well, to paraphrase what President
Nixon said once, the majority party does not have the Democratic
majority to kick around anymore because the party, the Republican Party
is in control of both Houses. And the White House. And so any delays
that we have in passing appropriation bills or other bills for that
matter, any delays we are experiencing come because the Republican
majority is having an argument with itself, between its House Members
and its Senate Members.
I think one of the reasons that this is dragging everything behind
again is because, as we all know, there has been a conscious decision,
certainly on the part of the leadership of this House, there has been a
conscious decision on the part of the Republican leadership to run this
House on the narrowest of partisan majorities, rather than putting
together bipartisan compromises on each of the 13 appropriation bills.
The most spectacular example of that is the Labor Health appropriation
bill. The choice has been made to try to govern with only Republican
votes.
Now, if you have 300 people who are in support of a bill, it makes it
a whole lot easier to get your work done because you have a much wider
margin of error. But if you are only trying to run the House with a
narrow margin of 220 or 230 votes, then every time you lose five or six
votes, it is a big problem because that slows the train down.
So I think there is a lesson in here somewhere if the Republican
Party leadership wants to hear it, and the lesson is, that if you reach
out and try to reach bipartisan conclusions, the House runs more
smoothly and you have a much better chance of not having every little
disagreement within your own party lead to delay, delay and more delay.
That is just a pragmatic observation, and I would urge that the House
leadership take it to heart. I have no expectation that they will, Mr.
Speaker, but I wish they would.
I think the problem that we have is that even within the Republican
Party, there are a substantial number of Members, if not in this House
then in the other body, who have substantial concerns about some of the
appropriation bills. Example: Veterans health care has been a huge
issue since the President presented his budget, and veterans groups all
over the country are objecting to the inadequate level provided for
veterans health care, but the VA HUD bill that left the House did not
contain sufficient funding for veterans health care even to satisfy
Republican Senators. So we had the Senate adopt, because they could not
get the VA HUD bill to the floor, we had the Senate Republicans offer a
motion which added $1.3 billion for veterans health care to, of all
bills, the Iraqi supplemental.
Last night, the conference jettisoned that $1.3 billion and promised
that they would put it on the VA HUD bill, but we have no idea
whatsoever of how that will be done, whether it will be done by busting
the caps, whether it will be done by providing emergency funding,
whether it will be done by an across-the-board cut in other items in
that bill. We just do not know.
And in that same bill, we have the problem of inadequate funding for
local
[[Page H10159]]
law enforcement because the White House budget tries to pretend that it
is funding homeland security items by reducing funding for the normal
aid to local governments, local police departments, in the form of the
Byrne Grants and other regular law enforcement programs.
We also have the problem of the Labor Health and Education bill where
the education funding falls billions of dollars behind the No Child
Left Behind Act which the President trumpeted so loudly just 2 years
ago. We have a dispute between Republicans in both Houses over adequate
funding levels for NIH, and I think there is considerable discomfort
within the Republican Party, and certainly within ours, about the
inadequate level of funding for special education for handicapped
children.
My point is simply that we are here, late in the year certainly it is
not unprecedented. It has happened before under both parties, but I do
not recall in quite some time it being this chaotic. And I also believe
that it would have been very easy to avoid had we had at least modest
efforts at reaching a bipartisan approach to the budget resolution, for
instance, which has caused the squeeze on appropriation bills.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have no choice but to pass this
continuing resolution, but I think it is simply another small bridge to
next week when we will have to pass yet another one, and I think the
best way to break through this problem is not by exhorting people to
reach agreement where there is no agreement. I think the best way to
break through this problem is by changing the parameters so that we
consider a broader-based compromise on some of these bills than has
been considered to date.
That is the only way that I see that we can get out of here before
Thanksgiving turkey time with any degree of satisfaction and self-
respect. Certainly the gentleman from Florida was able to put his bills
through the House in a timely fashion, but when such limitations have
been imposed, as is the case in this session, it becomes almost
impossible for the House and the Senate to reach agreement on time,
even when one party is in control of all the levers of government as
the majority party now is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I only have a brief closing statement. I wonder if the
gentleman from Wisconsin has any additional speakers.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think we have two additional speakers at
this time. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry)
a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have indeed on the Committee
on Appropriations had good leadership. I compliment the gentleman from
Florida on the great job he has done leading that committee. I
compliment my own ranking member the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for the wonderful work that he does, but I think, Mr. Speaker,
rather than just pass another CR and let us see how long we can stall
dealing with the problems of the American people, facing up to the
reality that we have got some massive problems in this country, it is
time to realize that we have some serious problems, and the way to fix
those problems is for us to work together like we have under the
leadership of the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from
Wisconsin. Let us face our problems, come to some realistic solutions
that do not involve enriching our friends, do not involve enriching
large corporations, do not involve further enriching the pharmaceutical
industry in this country.
One of the things that is holding up the completion of this year's
work is the Medicare reform bill. One of the things that is holding it
up is the massive debt that we are creating for our children and
grandchildren with absolutely no plan, no plan whatsoever to deal with
it. Our seniors do not have the medicine that they need, and we know
how to fix this problem. We can actually fix this problem without
spending a large amount of government money.
We should not leave this Chamber again until we solve these problems
or at least come to some mutual agreement as to how we are going to
work to try to get this done. We should stay in this Chamber day and
night for as long as it takes to get the job done for the American
people.
This is not about Republicans. It is not about Democrats. The senior
citizens in the 1st District of Arkansas do not give a hoot whether it
is Republicans or Democrats, but they do care about the fact that they
get robbed by the prescription drug manufacturers of this country to
the point where they cannot buy their own food and they are not going
to be able to heat their homes this winter. They care about that, and I
care about it for them.
It is time that we face the reality of the problems and quit trying
to take care of those that have patronized us and work in a cooperative
way between the parties, with the leadership of good men like the
gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Wisconsin, to lead us
through these efforts and get the job done for the American people.
Let us work together to do this, but let us not leave this Chamber
again until it is done.
{time} 1130
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I do not believe that either the chairman of the committee, and I
certainly know that the ranking Democrat on the committee is not
comfortable with this process, not comfortable with the allocations
that have been put forward for crucial legislation for the American
people.
At issue and still hanging out there are everything that goes to
Health and Human Services and Education that the government does,
things crucial to the health of our people, crucial to the education of
many; also the issue of veterans health care, as the gentleman from
Wisconsin said. We still have not adequately funded and taken care of
identified problems with veterans health care, and yet money to do that
in the bill coming up later today was stripped from the legislation
late in the night.
We have the issue of homeland security. I serve on the Select
Committee on Homeland Security, and we know that we are not meeting the
needs adequately of aviation security; of port security; of the other
aspects of homeland security; of first responders, those who we are
going to call on, our fire, our police, and others in our home States
who do not have the tools they need to respond day to day, let alone to
potentially catastrophic emergencies and terrorist attacks. Yet here we
find ourselves again on the floor of the House, yet again continuing
through a temporary measure the operations of the government.
I guess things would not be this way if the Republicans held the
White House and controlled both the House and the Senate. Oh, well,
actually, they do. That is right, I forgot. So it must be the Democrats
that are holding things up. Maybe it is Bill Clinton who is responsible
for this. I think maybe it is his fault, actually, because he left us
with a surplus and now we have a $500 billion deficit and we do not
have the money to adequately fund these programs, so we are hung up and
cannot get the votes together to pass anemic bills that will not meet
the needs of homeland security, will not meet the needs of America's
young people, will not meet the needs of our veterans or our seniors.
We just do not have the money to do it. We do not have any money at
all. We are just stuck here.
Except, wait a minute, later today we are going to take up a bill to
borrow $87 billion to continue the conflict in Iraq and to build Iraq;
to build an economy for Iraq, to build an infrastructure that is gold
plated, a wonderful gold-plated infrastructure; but we do not have
money here in the United States to perform some of the same functions.
We are going to put another $50 million into the Port of Umm Qasr. I
cannot get $8 million to dredge the ports in my district. The President
says we are simply out of money. But we can borrow $50 million for the
Port of Umm Qasr, and we will be voting on that later today.
Mr. Bremer, the proconsul in charge of Iraq, is appalled that many
people
[[Page H10160]]
get their water through lines from open canals. He thinks they need a
modern water system. The city of Albany in my State is doing a bond
measure to meet Federal mandates for water supply because they get
their water supply through an open unlined ditch, but they cannot get a
penny from the Federal Government to help with that project; but we can
borrow the money to do it in Iraq.
How is it we can borrow money for all these projects in Iraq and we
cannot find enough money here, under arbitrary limits, to fund
education programs for Americans, to fund veterans health care
programs, to fund homeland security? What is wrong with this picture?
Well, it turns out that the Republicans themselves cannot agree,
between the White House and the House and the Senate. So we find week
after week we do these temporary bills, temporary bill after temporary
bill; and yet they do not deliberate toward any real result.
I am certainly not on this esteemed committee, but I am on another
committee that will be the subject of debate later today; and I was
just involved in a conference committee, except the conference
committee never met. The result was dictated by the White House,
something that I believe will jeopardize public health and safety, and
it was accepted by the majority party. But then they found they could
not get the votes to do what the House was dictating they should do.
Same thing is happening here with our education programs, with our
veterans health care, with our first responders, with our homeland
security. The dictates have come down from above the level of this
committee that say this is all the money there is.
We can borrow money for Iraq, but we cannot borrow money to fund
these vital programs here in the United States of America; and we put a
higher priority on cutting taxes. Therefore, we cannot get the bills
passed. The votes are not here. This is a very sad state of affairs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the chairman a question. Why
are we only doing this for a week? We are going to have to do this
whole thing in another week? We get up here with all this debate, but
could the gentleman tell me why? He knows we are not going to get done
in a week; he knows it will take until Thanksgiving. Why are we only
doing this for a week? Can the gentleman tell me?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I agree with
the gentleman, that we will not conclude our work prior to the 7th and
we will need another CR. But that will not be due to any problems in
the House. That will be because we are having some very difficult
negotiations in the conference on the remaining bills, and also the
fact that the other body has not even passed four of the bills in their
own House.
So I would suspect that the gentleman is correct, that we will need
another CR; and maybe I can have a better explanation at that point.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just do not
understand. We know it is going to take longer. I do not understand why
we would be forced to go through this same administrative procedure
every week. We know we are going to pass the CR. I just do not
understand. Are we controlling this from the appropriation side, or is
this above our pay grade?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would say that the resolution before us today is the resolution that
the chairman of the committee has presented, and that was a decision
that was made at my level and at other levels.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the
gentleman from Pennsylvania yielding to me.
I might mention, because the chairman certainly would not say this,
that we are going through this routine, I know in large part, or maybe
in small part, because for 40 years the Democrats ran the place and
that gave us time to learn a lot by watching what they did. And from
time to time they were even smart enough to understand that there was a
need to put pressure on the other body, because that other body
operates in a way that is hard for me to imagine.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would
not mind, let me just respond that I always went for the longest
possible CR. I did not want ever to bring up a CR where we had to go
through this every week, every 7 days, every 10 days. It is always
easier to get it done in a reasonable time. But I understand what the
gentleman is saying.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Pennsylvania
would continue to yield, I know that he is one of the smartest guys in
this place, and the leadership has difficulty getting everybody to be
as smart as he is. And I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania is speaking today longer than I have seen him speak
in the entire time I have been in the Congress. That is how smart he
is. And it is a pleasure doing business with him.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I know the
chairman wanted to extend this, but I just wanted to needle him a bit
about doing this every week.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me simply say, Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from
California, that the last year the Democrats were in control, I was
chairman. We finished every appropriation bill before the end of the
fiscal year, not because there was anything special about me, but
because my party leadership allowed me to walk across the aisle to work
out a bipartisan allocation between the 13 subcommittees. Even then, we
had two-thirds of the Republicans voting against the final product much
of the time. But at least I was allowed to put together a bipartisan
allocation of dollars, and that is why we were able to finish it on
time.
That is in contrast to the instruction that the gentleman from
Florida has unfortunately been given by his leadership, which has led
to the fact that the Republicans at this point in the House and the
Republicans in the Senate are losing an argument with themselves. That
is the problem.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from
Wisconsin has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
for yielding me this time and acknowledge the fact that the work done
by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and
the ranking minority member in moving the appropriation bills through
this body has been on time. We understand that. And we understand that
there is a political process that must go forward in order to reconcile
the differences.
I agree completely with the ranking member that the parameters in
which we are operating under make it very difficult for us to work this
out, and we should acknowledge that sooner rather than later so that we
can finish the appropriation bills.
I also understand it is unlikely we will finish all our work by
November 7. But, Mr. Speaker, I would think that we would use this time
to get our work done, rather than a very short week and not dealing
with the business that needs to be done. The committee I serve on, the
Committee on Ways and Means, has two very important issues we have to
resolve before Congress adjourns, and yet we are not doing any work as
a collective body on those two issues.
One of the two issues I refer to is unemployment insurance, which is
scheduled to expire at the end of December; and yet our committee has
not even held a hearing or done any work at all on extending the
unemployment insurance bill. One would think that we would use this
time in order to make sure that we do not do what we did last Christmas
and adjourn leaving those people who cannot find employment
[[Page H10161]]
without the help they need and deserve through monies that are held in
the Federal unemployment trust account. There is $20 billion there. We
should be using this time to extend the unemployment insurance system
for people who are going to need that help. Instead, another week goes
by with no action at all.
Mr. Speaker, let me mention the second issue which my friend from
Arkansas mentioned earlier, and that is the prescription drug issue.
Since last week, I have had three or four town hall meetings in my
district in which the seniors have asked me what is going on on the
prescription drug issue, and I have to tell them I do not know because
the conference has not met in the open. The House Democrats have been
excluded from the conference. I do not know why that is true. After
all, one would think that this is an issue that we would want to get
completed this year, where we have a real benefit within the Medicare
system for our seniors to cover their prescription drug needs.
In my district, there are literally thousands of seniors who cannot
afford their prescription drugs. They are cutting their pills in half.
They are taking a pill every other day when they should be taking it
every day. We need to get that done before Congress adjourns. But the
only way, as my friend from Arkansas pointed out, that that is going to
be done is if we have a true, open conference in which Democrats and
Republicans can work together to bring out a bill that really provides
a real benefit within the Medicare system to get our work done.
So I understand we are going to extend the CR for another 7 days so
that Congress can try to work its will on the appropriation bills. I
also understand we are nearing the end of the session, whether it is
Thanksgiving or Christmas; and one of the, I would hope, must-do bills
is the prescription drug bill. But not just any bill; not a bill that
will hurt seniors, not a bill that is going to affect those who already
have prescription drugs and they are going to find out their employer
is going to terminate their prescription drug coverage because of what
we are doing here; not a prescription drug bill that has no true
benefit our seniors can rely on; not a prescription drug bill that has
gaps in coverage where seniors are wondering why they are paying high
premiums and not getting any benefits; not a prescription drug bill
that does not do something to bring down the cost of prescription drugs
in our country. That is not what they want.
The only way we are going to make sure that we carry out our
commitment on prescription drugs is we openly meet, with the public
looking at what we are doing, and resolve these differences in a way
that makes sure that we get our job done well and right.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we use these next 7 days not only to
reconcile the differences on the nine remaining appropriation bills
that should have been passed by October 1, which we should have done
well before this date, but we reconcile our differences on the other
mandatory bills before Congress adjourns to provide prescription drug
benefits for seniors who desperately need it within the Medicare
system, a real benefit, a benefit that they know will help them deal
with the ever-increasing costs of prescription medicines, and a bill
that will extend the unemployment benefits not just to those 80,000
Americans every week who are exhausting their State benefits, but also
the million and a half who already have exhausted their Federal
benefits that need extra weeks that are included in the legislation
that has been filed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and me.
{time} 1145
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for
yielding me this time so we can put this particular legislation in
context. It is not just about extending government, it is also giving
us an opportunity to get our work done before we adjourn this session
of Congress.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, since I first came to this body in 1969, we have had
divided control of government for all but 6 years. The only time we
have had Democratic control of all of the power levels of government
was the 4 year period under President Carter and the first 2 years
under President Clinton. For the rest of that time, we have had divided
government until the Republicans took the whole shebang in the last
election.
It is clear that regardless of what we want to talk about in
yesterday's chapters, the chapter being written today makes clear that
the majority party is in control of all of the power levers of
government, and they are in a very big debate with themselves. As a
consequence, we again, as was the case last year, do not have the work
done. That is not the fault of the gentleman from Florida. I do believe
it is the fault of those who have decided that every issue will be
decided within the Republican caucus rather than trying to work out
more broad-based bipartisan bills.
Nonetheless, that having been said, we have no choice but to pass
this resolution. I would hope that we would have a sense of realism
about how to get the job done between now and Thanksgiving. I doubt
that we are going to, so I am afraid the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) and I will be back on the floor next week and the following week
pursuing these week-to-week extensions. Sooner or later, we simply have
to change the mind-set which has allowed this drift to continue.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
First, I want to needle the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
and then I am going to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), and then I am going to have a few comments about the issues on
the CR.
When the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said in a friendly
way that he was going to needle me, I want the gentleman to know that I
have been needled so many times there is not much room left to put
needles in, but I am prepared, willing, and able.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for several reasons. The truth of the matter is that the House's
part of this appropriations process has worked very well. The gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a major player in making this
process work. Now, I would say we do not always agree with each other.
In fact, we disagree a lot. But occasionally we agree with the
gentleman from Wisconsin and we support what he wants to do. But when
we do not agree, we do not agree; and we are the majority so we can
outvote him.
The year when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was chairman,
we did not have any CRs. All 13 appropriations bills were passed by
October 1, which is the beginning of the fiscal year, and I compliment
the gentleman for that because that does not happen very often. In
fact, in the last 16-18 years, it has only happened twice. Once was
under the watch of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and he
deserves a lot of credit for that. But I would also remind the
gentleman that he had 82 more Democrats than Republicans, and that made
his life a lot easier.
Mr. Speaker, the House has been very successful this year. Let me
just relate quickly what we have done in the House. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said he did not want a repeat of last year, and I
say Amen to that. We do not want a repeat of last year when we could
not even get our bills brought to the floor, although we had marked
them up in committee.
So at the beginning of this year, we completed 11 of last year's 13
appropriations bills. We completed, conferenced, and passed them, and
they were signed into law. We have also completed, in the House and
conference, one major supplemental. We have passed all 13 of our
regular fiscal year 2004 bills. We have also passed a mini-supplemental
that has been conferenced and sent to the President which has now been
signed. We have filed the major Iraqi supplemental, which we will take
up in the House this afternoon. So we have had a very, very busy year
on the Committee on Appropriations front, here in the House of
Representatives.
Our work is not done yet. When we pass the Department of Interior
bill today, that will be only four of the 13
[[Page H10162]]
bills completed. There are four more in conference: military
construction, energy and water, Labor-HHS and transportation. We expect
to send to conference the foreign operations bill next week. There are
still four bills in the Senate waiting action by the full Senate,
Commerce-State-Justice, the Veterans and HUD appropriation bill, the
District of Columbia appropriation bill, and the agriculture
appropriation bill. We cannot go to conference until they pass those
bills.
But to suggest, as one Member did, that there is hardly any action at
all, this Committee on Appropriations has been pretty busy and pretty
effectively busy.
Another Member suggested that Democrats are excluded from our
conferences. I only go to conferences on appropriations bills, but
since I have had the privilege of chairing this committee, no Member of
either party has been excluded from the work we are doing or from our
conferences.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what the previous Member said was not in any
way directed at the Committee on Appropriations. The Member was
pointing out in a number of the authorizing committee conferences, that
Members of the minority were excluded; and I might point out in the
process, probably the public interest was excluded as well.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
comments, and he is exactly right. On the Committee on Appropriations
bills, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I communicate on a
regular basis. I try to make sure that the gentleman and the minority
are aware of anything that we are planning. We often consult and ask
them how they would deal with issues. On the appropriations process, we
have a good arrangement and I think we provide a good product. We do
not exclude Members.
I know there are some strong feelings about a 7-day CR or a 15-day
CR, and probably it would have been more realistic to go a little later
into the month when I think we could conclude our bills. I know Members
are anxious to adjourn, but for Members on either side who want to
complain about getting done so we can get out of here, I have to remind
them, that we get paid 12 months a year, and the people should expect
us to work 12 months a year. And if it takes 12 months, we are going to
do it. Members sign up to get their paychecks every month, and should
be prepared to work. We are still not at the end of the year. We will
conclude our business before then, but if someone is really anxious to
get out of here, maybe they should look for different employment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a yes
vote on the CR.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant
to House Resolution 417, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406,
nays 13, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 583]
YEAS--406
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--13
Capuano
Conyers
DeFazio
Filner
Ford
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
Miller, George
Paul
Stark
Waters
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Bradley (NH)
Carson (OK)
Case
DeLay
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Isakson
McCollum
McCotter
Miller (NC)
Pearce
Sanchez, Linda T.
Stupak
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
[[Page H10163]]
{time} 1216
Ms. WATERS and Ms. LEE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________