Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 159 (Wednesday, November 5, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10393-H10396]
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 430,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 76) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of H.J. Res. 76 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 76

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 21, 2003''.
Sec. 2. 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 ``November
7, 2003'' and inserting ``November 21, 2003''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 430, 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, this continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 76, just extends
the date of the previous CR until November 21. There are no additional
changes. It just continues the anomalies that were included in the
previous continuing resolutions. So there is really not much to debate
here except the date.
I would take just a minute and say that the House passed all of our
bills in the summer, but the other body has not concluded all of its
bills yet. But we are making some progress. This morning we concluded
the conference meeting and the conference report on the energy and
water appropriations bill. In addition, we appointed conferees this
morning in the House on the foreign operations appropriations bill. So
there are three other bills presently in conference, labor-HHS,
transportation-treasury; and as I said, foreign operations for which we
appointed conferees this morning. There are still four bills that the
Senate has not passed; but, Mr. Speaker, we are hoping that we can
conclude those and get to the conferences and get the appropriations
business for this year completed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a good time to try to analyze
exactly why we are in the situation of having to again ask the House to
pass yet another resolution keeping the government open until we finish
our appropriations work. I note in the CongressDaily A.M. edition of
this morning that there is a headline on page 12 which says: ``Senate
Nearing Halfway Point on fiscal 04 Appropriation Bills.'' I thought
that when a race was run that it would be over when it was over. But
the fiscal year ended on October 1 and what this headline indicates is
that the other body had not yet even run half the race. So I concur
with the gentleman that a lot of these bills are dragging because the
Senate has not yet been able to take them up.
But I think we need a little bit more detailed description of what
has happened. As I see it, there is one bill which is hung up, the
Labor, Health and Human Services bill, which is hung up because there
are deep divisions between the two parties in this Congress about how
adequately education is funded in that bill, how adequately research is
funded under NIH; and there is also, I think, a deep division between
us on how workers ought to be treated with respect to their overtime
rights. And because our party believes that the bill is woefully
inadequate on all three of those counts, we have not supplied votes for
it on this side of the Capitol and are still hoping that the majority
will come to its senses in terms of recognizing the need to at least
provide the money which was provided in the Republican Party budget
resolution for education and for special education.
But once we get beyond the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, I
find the story even more interesting. The other bill that was passed
with deep divisions between the two parties in this House was the
District of Columbia appropriation bill. That bill passed almost
exclusively with Republican votes because the Republican majority saw
fit to include the controversial issue of vouchers. So they went beyond
where they could go and still maintain a bipartisan consensus for that
bill and in the process lost the votes of most of the people on this
side of the aisle.
In the other body, the other body has not yet even taken up that bill
because not only Democrats, but I think moderate Republicans in that
body, recognize that that bill was passed by the House in a shape too
partisan or at least too ideological in order to be able to pass
muster. So that is being held up for that reason.
Then we have the Energy and Water appropriations bill which passed
both Houses with over 90 percent of the vote. In fact, the Senate vote
was unanimous; and yet because of majority party scheduling decisions
in the Senate, that bill was not considered until September 16 even
though it passed the House on July 18. And I want to say that I am
happy that finally today we have come to an agreement in conference. I
think the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) did a good job on that.
But, nonetheless, it was the majority party scheduling problems in the
Senate which delayed consideration of this conference until this week.
Then we take a look at the Military Construction bill, the bill that
was just disposed of. That bill passed unanimously in this House, and
it passed by a vote of 91 to 0 in the Senate. It passed the Senate on
July 11, and yet the bill was held up until today because of
differences within the majority party about how the funds ought to be
allocated. Then if we take a look at the Transportation bill, that bill
passed the House very late in the cycle, September 9. It took that long
to pass it because the subcommittee produced a product which not even
the majority party Members in this House could support without
substantial repair. Finally, after it was somewhat repaired, the bill
passed the House with 85 percent of the votes of both parties; and yet
it did not pass the other body until October 23, some 3 weeks after the
deadline for the fiscal year.

{time} 1500

So, again, majority problem scheduling problems determined the delay
for that bill.
Then if you take a look the budget for the Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing, that bill passed with over 75 percent support in
both parties when it passed the House. The other body has not yet taken
up the bill. So, again, we have scheduling decisions by the majority
party which have determined that this bill will be late to the gate.
I think there is an understandable reason for that, because the
substance of the bill is unacceptable in large part to the veterans
community in this country because it shortchanges needed veterans
funding by more than $1.3 billion. So I do not blame the majority party
for being discombobulated because it is having a debate with itself
about how it can correct that problem.
Then we have the Foreign Operations bill, which passed the House on
July 24. It did not pass the Senate until October 30, 1 month after the
expiration of

[[Page H10394]]

the fiscal year. Again, even though that passed the House with huge
bipartisan agreement, it was hung up because of scheduling decisions
and scheduling problems in the other body by the majority party because
their party was split around the edges on issues such as Mexico City
and concern about the fact that HIV funding was not adequately handled
in that legislation.
Then we have the Agriculture bill, which passed the House on July 14
with support of more than 75 percent of Members of both parties. It
passed this House on July 14, well before the end of the fiscal year.
But, again, because of majority party scheduling decisions in the
Senate, the Senate has yet to take up that bill. That is being hung up,
as I understand it, over questions that relate to changing the
authorization for the farm bill.
Then, lastly, we have Commerce-Justice-State, which passed this House
with over 90 percent of both parties voting for it, and yet the Senate
has yet to take up this bill. So, again, a majority party scheduling
problem has led to a long delay in consideration of this bill.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long it is going
to take before the majority party is able to overcome their differences
with themselves, but I do hope that they recognize that we are ready
and anxious to help if they will produce bills which meet at least
minimal standards for meeting the needs of the country in areas such as
veterans' health care, education, special education and aid to our
local law enforcement officials, who will see a large squeeze on
traditional law enforcement programs such as the Byrne Grants, unless
some substantive decisions are made that produce a different bill than
we are facing today.
Mr. Speaker, that is my analysis of why we are sitting here with so
much of the appropriations work still not done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me time.
Let me start, as we start almost every one of these discussions, with
the expression of respect and affection for the gentleman who chairs
our committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), one of the best
Members of this House. We disagree, obviously, from time to time on
issues, but he is a gentleman who runs his committee and leads, to the
extent that he can, this institution in a fair manner.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, because perhaps above his pay grade
we have not seen the same kind of fairness extended and the same kind
of adherence to good order that ought to happen. My distinguished
friend says sometimes below his pay grade perhaps we do not find that
either.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress seems destined to end the first session of
the 108th Congress in the same hapless and undemocratic way in which we
began it. One of our first acts this year was to pass an omnibus
appropriations bill on February 13 that wrapped up 11 of the 13 annual
spending measures for fiscal year 2003 in one piece of legislation. It
was bad enough that we could not finish our work on time and had to
pass that omnibus bill 4\1/2\ months, a full third of the year, after
the start of the fiscal year. But what was even worse was the fact that
the Republican leadership dropped that 3,000 page bill on the Members
and forced them to vote on it within a few short hours, a 3,000 page-
plus bill.
As I said back in February, that was the worst appropriation process
that I had seen in 22 years in this body. That was not the desire of
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) nor the result of his
leadership.
However, we now seem determined to outdo ourselves once again. Here
it is, November 5, and only 3 of the 13 annual appropriations bills
have been signed into law; Defense, Homeland Security and the
Legislative Branch. Another spending bill, Interior, awaits the
signature of the President. This body today will consider the
conference report on the fifth, Military Construction. At least four
other spending bills, however, are likely to be included in a year-end
omnibus, Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-State, District of Columbia and
VA-HUD, and three others are theoretically, Mr. Speaker, theoretically,
in conference; Energy and Water, Transportation-Treasury and Labor-HHS-
Education.
I will say, since this was written, it is my understanding there is
actually, shockingly, a conference being held on Energy and Water. How
do I know? Because the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) told me he
was going to one. So I am very pleased to see that. I am convinced if
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) were making the decisions, we
would have full conferences on every bill that is pending.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is none, as far as I know, except a motion to
go to conference on Foreign Operations which was approved this morning,
so we cannot really hold them accountable yet.
Mr. Speaker, I am a conferee, duly appointed by Speaker Hastert, on
two of those bills allegedly in conference, Transportation-Treasury and
Labor-HHS. But let me say, if there are conference meetings going on
today or in the past or in the future, I have not been notified of
those hearings. I have not attended any. I do not know where they are
occurring. I have not had an opportunity to have any input, nor have
the 662,000 people that I represent had a voice in those conferences.
Either no meetings are being held, or duly appointed conferees on our
side of the aisle are being purposely, deliberately, undemocratically
excluded.
This House passed the Labor-Health bill on July 10. The Senate passed
its version nearly a month ago, on September 10. When and where are the
meetings, Mr. Speaker? Why are the conferees being deliberately
excluded? I have asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that, and
he assures me that we are having ``conferences of the willing.'' I
presume that means conferences of those who agree. But the voices of
dissent or difference are stifled, ignored and shut out.

This House passed the Transportation-Treasury bill on September 9.
The Senate passed its version 2 weeks ago tomorrow, October 23. Are we
meeting on that bill? I have no notice of it. If we are, why are
conferees on our side of the aisle, appointed by the Speaker, being
deliberately excluded from those meetings?
Mr. Speaker, let us face the facts: This leadership is rendering
conference committees absolutely meaningless. That is a corruption of
the processes of this House. It is a corruption of democracy and the
people we represent in this, what we call proudly, the People's House.
I do not believe that it is the policy that the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) would pursue if he were making the decisions.
I have served, Mr. Speaker, on the Treasury and Labor-Health-
Education subcommittees for more than 21 years. I am not a new kid on
the block. I am used to being included in conferences. I can never
remember a time when Democrats controlled the majority, Mr. Speaker,
that we failed to hold real conferences on appropriations bills.
The distinguished gentleman from Florida, my friend for whom I have
unlimited respect and affection, he and I have participated in numerous
conferences on the Labor-Health bill that went for days, sometimes
weeks. I can remember an extraordinary, historic debate between Senator
Byrd and Bill Natcher on a very important provision of our bill that
went on literally for days. They had a disagreement. They talked about
it in conference. Reporters could see it, the public could see it,
Members could see it.
There are no conferences that the public can see. There are no
conferences the press can report on. Whatever is being done, is being
done in secret, undemocratically, unfairly, and it demeans this
institution, Mr. Speaker.
There are other conferences other than the Committee on
Appropriations. There have been no real conference committees on two of
the most important pieces of legislation still facing this Congress, on
adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and on comprehensive
energy reform.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of
Representatives, serving on this floor longer than any other Member,
has been excluded from the conference to which the Speaker appointed
him.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), third or fourth in
seniority in

[[Page H10395]]

this House of Representatives, excluded from the conference on
prescription drugs. He, however, heard there was a meeting. He went to
the meeting. He went through the door, and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) said, ``You are not welcome, Mr. Rangel. This
is only a meeting of the willing. No dissent is allowed in this room,''
except if you happen to be a Republican on the other side of the
Capitol, in which case maybe we have to talk to you. But, then again,
as we know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Grassley apparently feels in effect he is
shut out.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is absolutely outrageous that
Congressional Republicans are considering across-the-board cuts to
cover a $3 billion gap, we hear, between House and Senate spending
bills. We have not been asked, however, to participate in a conference
in which you may make the decisions on what to cut.
In the last 7 months, this Congress has passed two emergency
supplemental appropriations bills totaling $166 billion. There was
zero, none, no debate on how we would pay for those.
There was a bill pending in which the Committee on Ways and Means
wants to add $60 billion to the debt confronting this country. No
question about how it is going to be paid for, it will just be passed.
And yet we worry about how to pay for some $3 billion for election
reform, for veterans health care and for money to combat global HIV-
AIDS, and how to provide $400 million to the Forest Service so they can
fight devastating wildfires in the Interior bill.
Mr. Speaker, if this process were being run by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), you would find the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) and I standing here and saying we may disagree on this item, that
item or the other item, but we have had a fair opportunity, as he gives
us in every committee meeting, to state our points, to offer our
amendments, to vote. That is not happening. It is not the gentleman
from Florida's fault. The leadership of this House demeans the House by
not providing for those procedures.

{time} 1515

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from Wisconsin has
10 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what the distinguished minority whip has
just told the House is right on the button; and I want to emphasize, I
do not believe these decisions, I do not believe that these practices,
are being imposed upon the House and the Congress because of the
desires of the people who run this committee. This committee has had an
honorable tradition of dealing fairly with the majority and minority
Members alike ever since I have been here. In my early years, I think
junior Democrats were as unhappy with some of the decisions that were
made by senior Democrats as some of the Republicans were. The
unhappiness was bipartisan. And I think in that sense things have
changed because today, many of the decisions that affect the way this
committee works are being made, as the gentleman from Maryland said, at
a higher pay grade. But I think the result is, unfortunately, that we
have many closed-door decisions being reached in a closed-minded
atmosphere, and that does the House no good in the long term.
What has happened, I think, is that we have seen almost an
unparalleled institutional arrogance on the part of the leadership of
the majority party in the way they conduct this House's business.
First of all, they have assured that when each of the appropriation
bills has come to the floor, they have come to the floor under
conditions which guarantee that no meaningful, comprehensive
alternatives can be offered which differ in any significant way with
the priorities mandated by the majority party leadership. They bring
bills to the floor which have been exempted from the normal rules,
processes, and procedures of the House so that the committee product
produced by the Republican majority can have the luxury of not having
to compete with any other significant approaches. But then, they say
that proposals that the minority party seeks to offer will not be
granted those same exceptions from the rules and procedures of the
House. That creates a very uneven playing field, and it is intended to
do that.
And then, when that happens, and when bills pass because we have no
way of reaching them and changing them in a significant way, then we
run into a situation where, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
says, in many instances conferences are simply conferences between a
few well-connected people on the majority side of the aisle, with no
real consultation with the minority. That can occur anytime that the
leadership wants to exercise their ability to find 218 votes for their
product.
But it is not democracy. It is not the kind of collegial vetting of
differences that we have had in this House through the years. It is
simply an arrogant assertion of will. It is a power play on the part of
the majority party. And the purpose is not just to hold the minority
party in check; the purpose is to, by their actions, hold Members of
the majority party under control, so that no one does too much thinking
for himself, so that no one will dare to say, ``Well, I think there
ought to be a different path that is pursued.''
So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to emphasize again, I
recognize the effort of the gentleman from Florida to be fair; but I
also recognize that sometimes he has to be a loyal soldier, and I think
if he were to run these conferences in a way that suited his desires,
some of them would be run quite differently.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the matter before us, as the gentleman
from Florida has indicated, is simply whether or not we should keep the
government open for another short period while these differences are
resolved. We have no choice but to do so. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on
the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
I rise in support of this continuing resolution. I wish we did not
have to have a CR on the floor today. I wish it would have been
possible for the Congress to have concluded all of its appropriations
bills. The House did, but the entire Congress did not.
Mr. Speaker, we have a two-House, bicameral legislature. And I think
that is a great idea, to have a bicameral legislature, where we have
the checks and the balances, not only within the three branches of
government, but checks and balances within the Congress itself. I will
have to admit that there are times when I am tempted to believe that a
different approach would be better, such as a one-House legislature. A
one-House Congress would be easier to work with, because some of our
conferences that we have had this year and in previous years have been
very, very difficult and very trying.
But nevertheless, that is our system. We make the system work. We do
a pretty good job at it. I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues
that in most of the conferences for this year, the House has prevailed,
I think, far more than the other body. So I do not feel too bad about
this. But I know it is very time consuming. It gets very frustrating.
But on the issue that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) raised,
and the gentleman from Maryland is one of my very best friends and has
been for years. He and I work very closely together. We serve on one of
the same subcommittees, and the two subcommittees that the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) serves on have not been called to conference
yet. So obviously, he has not been called to a conference.
But I think, generally, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would
agree, that he and I work very closely in keeping each other informed.
He will tell me when he has a proposition or a proposal; and if I can
agree with him, I agree with him, and I do not have any problem with
that just because he is the minority leadership. But if I disagree with
him, then I also tell him that; and he understands that. When I go to
him with a proposition and tell him what my plan is, sometimes he will
agree and sometimes he will not, and the committee settles that. There

[[Page H10396]]

are no hard feelings; it is just the idea that the two parties have
different general philosophies.
But it works okay. It works well. As my colleagues know, we concluded
all of our House bills in the summer when we were supposed to conclude
them, and that was partially because of the strong relationship that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have and that our
subcommittee chairmen and their ranking members have.
Now, on the issue of excluding any member from conference committee
or their staff, we do not do that. The Committee on Appropriations does
not do that. A lot of staff work goes into preparing the bills and a
lot of staff work goes into preparing for the conferences. When that
staff work is being done, we keep the minority staff just as involved
as the majority staff, and I think that they would admit to that and
agree to that.
I would not stand for any member of my committee being excluded from
the considerations of the committee. The majority is going to prevail,
but the minority has every right in the world to be part of that
process. In fact, I remember a couple of years ago that the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) came to me with a problem that some of the
minority staff were not being involved in one of the subcommittee
considerations, and I solved that almost more than overnight. I solved
that problem in a matter of hours, and I think to the satisfaction of
the minority. While the majority is going to prevail, the minority has
every right to be a part of the process.
Except for those single-Member States, all of us are elected by about
the same number of people. All of us have the same rights as Members of
the House of Representatives. I will tell my colleagues as one who
believes in this institution, I am going to do whatever I have to do to
guarantee that those rights are protected and preserved for all of the
Members; again, pointing out that the majority is going to prevail. I
recall being in the minority here for a long time, and I did not like
it a lot of times when the majority prevailed, but that is the way it
is. But I think on the Committee on Appropriations, there are not very
many complaints about the issue of the minority being excluded.
Now, I do know that there was an issue last week when, as the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out, that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) was uninvited to attend a fairly important
conference meeting. I did not know about that until I heard the
comments on the floor. But I would say this: my leadership believes
very strongly in the rights of each individual Member. I will tell my
colleagues that all of the committee chairmen were called to a meeting
last night actually, and were told, do not ever let that happen again,
that every member of that committee or that subcommittee has the right
to be involved, and our leadership made it very clear that any
committee chairman who allowed that to happen would not be standing in
good favor with the leadership.
So we try. Now, nobody is perfect, and I am sure that there are times
when there will be complaints, even from majority members, that maybe
they were not told in advance or were not told enough. But sometimes,
members have an obligation to either do the proper staff work or
prepare themselves when things are happening. This is not a babysitting
institution. But for the most part, our members are very good about
things that they are interested in, inquiring of the committee,
inquiring of the staff, making their contribution to what they think
should be the outcome. We do the best we can with 435 Members to reach
a consensus. But I would just say again, on that issue of excluding
minority members or staff from what is happening on the Committee on
Appropriations, as long as I am chairman, that will not happen. And if
any of my subcommittee chairmen were to permit that to happen, we would
have a serious conversation. But I know that all of my subcommittee
chairmen believe the same as I do, that the majority and the minority
members all have equal rights as Members of this House; but the
majority will make the final decision.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, it did not have too much to do with
the CR, but I thought I would just make that response.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate having been yielded, the
joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant to
House Resolution 430, 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________