[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 93 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5341-H5347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4755, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 707
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4755) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2005, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each
such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
[[Page H5342]]
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 707 is a structured rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
of 2005. It is a fair and appropriate rule and should be approved by
the House so we can move on to consideration of the underlying
legislation.
H. Res. 707 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill. It also provides that the bill shall be
considered as read.
H. Res. 707 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, which prohibits
unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an
appropriations bill.
The rule makes in order only those amendments put in the Committee on
Rules report accompanying this resolution. H. Res. 707 provides that
the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order
against the amendments printed in the report.
Finally, H. Res. 707 provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the subcommittee. He has worked very
closely with his ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran of Virginia), in crafting this bill, and for that he
deserves our support. This appropriations bill is one of the more
challenging bills to manage, and he does so with respect to the
institution in which we all serve.
I do want to specifically note that this is a fiscally responsible
bill, and I commend the gentleman from Georgia's (Chairman Kingston)
management oversight that will certainly ensure that organizational
changes are managed better within the agencies of the legislative
branch of government.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair amendment process for
consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn that House committee was sending
mail into the committee members' districts. During yesterday's
Committee on Rules hearing on the appropriations bill for the
legislative branch, we learned that the Committee on Resources is
sending mail to committee members' districts touting the individual
Member's accomplishments on that committee. Mailed under the chairman's
frank, these laudatory mail pieces are sent out as Committee on
Resources reports.
But listen to what they say: ``Members of Arizona's congressional
delegation are making a difference for Arizonans every day through
their work on the House Committee on Resources. Arizona is fortunate to
have Congressmen Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake and Raul
Grijalva on these important issues.''
It goes on to read, ``Committee members Renzi, Hayworth and Flake
supported the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which provides resource
managers with the tools they need to combat the dangers of overstocked
forests.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have four of these committee
mailings submitted for the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The committee mailings are as follows:
Resources Committee Field Hearing
What is the impact of the Endangered Species Act on
southeast New Mexico? It's your chance to learn more.
What: Examining the Impacts of the Endangered Species Act
on Southern New Mexico.
When: Monday, June 7th, 2004 at 9 a.m.
Where: Pecos River Village, Carousel Building, 701 Muscatel
Avenue, Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Learn About the Impact of the Endangered Species Act on
Southeast New Mexico.
Congressman Steve Pearce Represents the 2nd District of New
Mexico. After a very successful hearing on the impact of the
endangered silvery minnow last year in Belen, NM, Congressman
Steve Pearce has asked the Resources Committee to learn about
the impact of endangered species legislation on jobs and
lifestyle in southeast New Mexico.
Congressman Pombo is Chairman of the House Resources
Committee. Join Congressman Pearce and Congressman Pombo in
Carlsbad on June 7th where they will hear first-hand from
family farmers, ranchers, irrigation providers, oil and gas
producers and local governments about how the Endangered
Species Act has brought pain and suffering to their
communities and families. The Resources Committee welcomes
the opportunity to travel to New Mexico to personally visit
with people who are directly affected by this outdated,
onerous and unreasonable policy.
____
Resources Committee Report on Healthy Forests Restoration Act
America's National Forests have become unnaturally dense,
diseased, and insect infested, leaving them incredibly
susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. To date, wildfires have
burned over three million acres in the United States in 2003.
These fires not only destroy forests, they kill wildlife and
pollute air and water alike.
California has had more than its fair share of wildfire
disasters. The House Resources Committee and its members are
committed to protecting our environment from the devastating
effects of catastrophic forest fires.
This report is meant to update you on what the Resources
Committee and your California Representatives are working on
to help keep our forests healthy and keep fires from
destroying forests, property, and jobs.
Richard Pombo,
House Resources Committee Chairman.
``The Resources Committee and its members are charged with
the responsibility of coordinating federal efforts to
encourage, enhance and improve programs for the protection of
the environment and the conservation of natural resources
within our Public Forest areas. I am honored to have such
dedicated and knowledgeable committee members to work with as
we work to balance resource preservation and usage. I am
particularly honored to work with California Congressmen in
efforts to prevent further forest fires from devastating
California's incredible resources and beauty. Together we
will continue to work on the issues affecting California and
the West.''--Richard Pombo
resources committee work valuable to california
Members of California's Congressional Delegation are making
a difference for Californians every day through their work on
the House Resources Committee. The Resources Committee deals
with issues such as wildfire prevention, water rights,
environmental protection, and land use. California is
fortunate to have so many able men and women on this
committee to work on these important issues.
california congressmen help pass ``healthy forests restoration act''
Committee Members Baca, Miller, Cardoza, Radanovich,
Dooley, Nunes, Gallegly and Calvert supported this bill,
which provides resource managers with the tools they need to
combat the dangers of overstocked forests.
The ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act'' establishes
streamlined procedures to increase use of scientifically-
proven management techniques of thinning and prescribed
burning to avoid catastrophes to our forests, homes and water
supply.
Additionally, the Act calls for additional open public
meetings on all projects that fall under the Healthy Forests
legislation, providing an opportunity for public input over-
and-beyond current public hearing requirements.
And this landmark legislation makes for better forest
management and helps protect communities from the dangers of
uncontrolled wildfires.
It protects the rights of private landowners.
____
Resources Committee Report on Endangered Species Act Reform
As you may know, the application of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) has caused economic hardship and to farmers,
ranchers, small businesses, and individuals--and it has done
little to actually protect endangered species of animals.
The law has become more powerful than Congress ever
intended it to be. It has been
[[Page H5343]]
applied across millions of acres and hundreds of miles of
waterways, at a cost of billions of dollars. We can improve
this law--limiting unwarranted impacts--if we define the
scientific standard federal agencies must meet when making
ESA decisions.
This report is meant to update you on what the Resources
Committee and your Arizona Representatives are working on to
ensure that improper application of the Endangered Species
Act will never threaten the economic security of Arizona and
its people.
Richard Pombo,
House Resources Committee Chairman.
``Congress' efforts to improve the ESA stems from an April
2001 decision by the Federal government to shut off
irrigation water to nearly 1,200 farmers and ranchers in the
Klamath Basin in California in order to protect several
species of endangered fish. This decision was later examined
by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which
found that the order to shut off the water had `no sound
scientific basis.' As a result of this decision--with `no
sound scientific basis'--the livelihoods of hundreds of
farmers and ranchers in the area were destroyed, and the
local economy and community was severely harmed. Your Arizona
Representatives are working in Congress to reform the ESA to
prevent this type of devastation from ever occurring in
Arizona.''--Richard Pombo
Resources Committee Work Valuable to Arizona
Members of Arizona's Congressional Delegation are making a
difference for Arizonans every day through their work on the
House Resources Committee. The Resources Committee deals with
issues such as wildfire prevention, water rights,
environmental protection, and land use. Arizona is fortunate
to have Congressmen Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake,
and Raul Grijalva working on these important issues.
Resources Committee Working to Enact ESA Reforms
Congressmen Renzi, Hayworth and Flake are co-sponsors of
H.R. 1662, ``The Sound Science for Endangered Species Act
Planning Act,'' to improve the way the law uses science and
to further involve the public.
Requires peer-reviewed science as basis for ESA
decisions.
Creates an independent process to amend the ESA to
make certain that all aspects of science in the
implementation of that act are sound and peer-reviewed.
Establishes a mandatory independent scientific
review requirement for all ESA listing and de-listing
proposals to ensure the use of sound science and provide a
mechanism for resolving scientific disputes during the
rulemaking process.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to solicit
and obtain additional data from landowners and others that
would assist in the development of recovery plans, including
the recovery goals.
Requires that an action, including an action for
injunctive relief, to enforce the prohibition against the
incidental taking of a species must be based on pertinent
evidence using scientifically valid principles.
____
Resources Committee Report on Healthy Forests Restoration Act
America's National Forests have become unnaturally dense,
diseased, and insect infested, leaving them incredibly
susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. To date, wildfires have
burned over three million acres in the United States in 2003.
These fires not only destroy forests, they kill wildlife and
pollute air and water alike.
Arizona has had its fair share of wildfire disasters. The
House Resources Committee and its members are committed to
protecting our environment from the devastating effects of
catastrophic forest fires.
This report is meant to update you on what the Resources
Committee and your Arizona Representatives are working on to
help keep our forests healthy and keep fires from destroying
forests, property, and jobs.
Richard Pombo,
House Resources Committee Chairman.
``The Resources Committee and its members are charged with
the responsibility of coordinating federal efforts to
encourage, enhance and improve programs for the protection of
the environment and the conservation of natural resources
within our Public Forest areas. I am honored to have such
dedicated and knowledgeable committee members to work with as
we work to balance resource preservation and usage. I am
particularly honored to work with Arizona Congressmen in
efforts to prevent further forest fires from devastating
Arizona's incredible resources and beauty. Together we will
continue to work on the issues affecting Arizona and the
Southwest.''--Richard Pombo
resources committee work valuable to arizona
Members of Arizona's Congressional Delegation are making a
difference for Arizonans every day through their work on the
House Resources Committee. The Resources Committee deals with
issues such as wildfire prevention, water rights,
environmental protection, and land use. Arizona is fortunate
to have Congressman Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake,
and Raul Grijalva working on these important issues.
arizona congressmen help pass ``healthy forests restoration act''
Committee Members Renzi, Hayworth and Flake supported this
bill, which provides resource managers with the tools they
need to combat the dangers of overstocked forests.
The ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act'' would establish
streamlined procedures to increase use of scientifically-
proven management techniques of thinning and prescribed
burning to avoid catastrophes to our forests, homes and water
supply.
Additionally, the Act calls for additional open public
meetings on all projects that fall under the Healthy Forests
legislation, providing an opportunity for public input over-
and-beyond current public hearing requirements.
And this landmark legislation makes for better forests
management and helps protect communities from the dangers of
uncontrolled wildfires.
It protects the rights of private landowners.
resources committee work focuses on southwest's forests
Congressman Renzi introduced the Southwest Forest Health
and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003 to promote the use of
adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of wildfires
and restore the health of fire-adapted forest and woodland
ecosystems. Resources Committee member J.D. Hayworth is a co-
sponsor of this bill, along with Arizona Representative Jim
Kolbe. The Resources Committee passed the act this summer
helping solidify the future of Northern Arizona University's
Ecological Restoration Institute.
This is an important first step toward the future
application of practical science-based forest restoration
treatments that will reduce the risk of severe wildlife and
improve the health of dry forest and woodland ecosystems
across the country.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage that I think the Members of the House
simply do not know anything about. That committee received a large
increase in funding last year in order to send out this propaganda into
Members' districts. I have heard of income protection, but this goes
way too far. There is no excuse in the world for it, and I think we
ought to take measures to stop it.
During the 107th and 108th Congress, most communities requested
franking allocations somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000, and most
spent far less than those allocations.
For example, the Committee on Government Reform franking allocation
was $35,000. They spent less than 10,000. Not counting the Committee on
Resources, the largest request in Congress was the Committee on the
Judiciary, which asked for $80,000 for franking. However, the Committee
on Resources requested a franking allocation of $500,000, half a
million. It is more than a 10,000 percent increase over the amount of
the money that the Committee on Resources actually spent on franking in
the 107th Congress. What is even more shocking is that the House rules
do not prohibit a committee from sending out this propaganda with
taxpayer dollars.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) offered an amendment to
close this loophole to stop this practice. The amendment would limit
mailing expenses for any committee to $25,000, which is more than
generous. On a party-line vote, the Committee on Rules refused to make
the sensible solution in order, and it is troubling that this problem
has slipped under the radar for a year and a half and that the
Committee on Rules refused to allow the full House to discuss the issue
and vote up or down on this straightforward amendment. Debate on this
serious problem has been quashed with a soft promise of future action.
Again and again, the Republicans silence the Democrats and the voices
of millions of Americans. There is little time left on the legislative
calendar. This problem deserves immediate attention. It is shocking in
that this body will not even have the opportunity to debate the problem
and to consider the solution of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman).
This cries out for attention from this Congress, and I demand it, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we did have this discussion in the
Committee on Rules about the printing yesterday. It just came up
yesterday for the Republicans being criticized forever for rushing
things to the floor. This seems a bit quick for the Democrats to do so.
None of us on the Committee on Rules, Republican side, have seen that
yet, but the committee of jurisdiction is actually the Committee on
House Administration, and I think
[[Page H5344]]
it would be appropriate to let the authorizing committee have a shot at
this to take a look at the problem before we move to address it on the
House floor in an appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this rule so that I can
offer an amendment to simply say that no committee in any year can
spend more than $25,000 on just postage. That would be $50,000 a
Congress. Why would such a limit be needed? Why is the $25,000 limit
needed? After all, in the year 2002, the average committee spent only
$2,104 on postage. The largest amount spent by any committee during the
107th Congress on an annualized basis was $6,807.
I know the gentlewoman from New York cited the amounts requested by
committees. They requested a bit more than these figures. But when we
look at what they actually spent, no committee needed to spend in the
average year more than $6,807 in the 107th Congress.
But a new phenomenon has arisen. The Committee on Resources has
decided it needs more resources. In the 107th Congress it spent $2,483
per year on postage. For the 108th Congress they requested a quarter
million dollars per year for postage; $500,000, half a million dollars,
for the whole 108th Congress.
Think of this from a fiscal responsibility standpoint. That is a
4,445 percent increase over what they requested before. Maybe that is
not too bad. After all, 4,445 percent increase in the cost of a
government agency, no fiscally responsible person would object to that.
But do not compare it to what they requested last Congress. Compare it
to what they actually spent. Then it is a 9,968 percent increase. Maybe
somebody with some fiscal conservatism would be concerned about that, a
committee which in the last Congress spent $2,483 on postage now wants
to spend $250,000 on postage.
We do not know what they are spending all this money for. It is hard
to get the information. But we do know that last quarter, just in 3
months, the committee spent $49,587 on postage, and when they spend
money on postage, they inevitably have to spend money on printing, and,
yes, they spent $40,732 on printing.
What did they use the money for? Not to carry on committee business
in the sense of telling the press what the committee is doing, writing
to experts to see if they can gather information. This is not
individually sent-out letters, no. These were mass mailings into
individual Members' districts, $250,000 per year. What kind of mailings
went out? Here is an example that was referred to by the gentlewoman
from New York. We will see that this mailing went out to Arizona. Our
information is that it went it to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr.
Renzi) district, who happens to be one of the most targeted Members in
the entire Congress by one political party. It praises three Members of
the Arizona delegation for cosponsoring a bill, and if we read it very
carefully, it attacks or implicitly criticizes a fourth Member of the
Arizona delegation for not cosponsoring this bill. I might add it is a
terrible bill, but the mailing praises those who cosponsor it. Our
information is that it went just to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr.
Renzi) district; so the fact that it implicitly criticizes the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is not of great significance
unless he has statewide ambitions I am unaware of.
In any case, what does this mailing do? It lauds a Member. Some of
these mailings are going out in violation or possible violation of the
blackout period. So we are used to not sending out mailings 90 days
before an election. Apparently the committee chairmen can. This mailing
seems rather benign in that it lauds a Member, and it does so only on
one issue.
Mark my words: If we do not draw the line now, the next piece will be
a hit piece, and it will not be limited to one issue. It will not even
be limited to a committee's jurisdiction. It will be an attack piece
sent out a day or a week before an election.
How is this all different from the Member communications that we are
aware of? Because many of us send mail to our constituents. First, a
Member gets a limited Members' representational allowance. We are
responsible to our districts, to the recipients of that mail. If the
mail is informative, then I can tell my constituents we sent them
informative mail that came out of our budget, which we could otherwise
have used to hire personnel. But a committee chairman is not
responsible to the people who receive the mailing, so they could look
at it and say this is wildly uninformative. It is a terrible waste of
money. It says it was paid for at taxpayer expense. I do not like it,
but it does not matter because my Member did not send it. It comes out
of the budget of some Washington committee.
Second, the MRA funds are at least distributed relatively equally by
party. Each Member gets their own account. This $500,000 went solely to
one political party. And it is not just $500,000. If we do not draw the
line now, it will be 5 million, it will be 25 million. It will not be
one committee; it will be every committee.
Members also know what information their constituents need to
receive. Committee chairmen, with all due respect to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), I do not think he is an expert at what
information people in the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district
need to hear. Then we are going to be told that these are to announce
field hearings. I might add this piece of mail has nothing to do with
any field hearing. But we could have a rule that we have these slush
funds, but only if we are announcing a field hearing.
{time} 1130
A field hearing should be a field hearing, not an excuse for
propaganda, not a district-wide town hall on behalf of an endangered
Member or a targeted Member.
Finally, I know here in Washington that our targeted watchdog groups
publish lists. They criticize those who spend money on postage and
printing. They wonder whether that is a good use of government
resources.
Well, wait a minute. None of these groups caught this. They will
attack a Member for spending $100,000 on postage. How about $250,000 on
postage?
We need to do something about it, and we need to do something about
it today. If you vote for this rule, you are voting for giant political
slush funds, not just of half a million dollars, but for as large as
they are done by whichever party controls this House. You cannot say
you are going to deal with it tomorrow if you vote against dealing with
it today. Vote against the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the gentleman came very
close to impugning the motives of the chairman and the actions of the
committee. I would just suggest that he tread a bit more lightly on
that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, all I can say in response to the last comment
is if the committees adhere more closely to the spirit of the rules of
the House, maybe we will not tread so closely in questioning their
motives.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote for this bill, and I
am not going to vote for it for two reasons.
Number one, we have the continued saga of that ridiculous hole out in
front of the Capitol, the Capitol Visitors Center. You remember back in
the good old days when we had a budget surplus, and then we were told
by the Republican majority that we could pass $6 trillion in tax cuts
and still have money left over? Now we have dug ourselves into a huge
deficit hole again, the biggest deficit in the history of the country.
That hole in front of the Capitol, created for the construction of the
so-called visitors center, really, in my view, is a symbol of what we
have done to the Nation as a whole. We have dug a huge hole for the
Nation.
In this case, in the case of the visitors center, you have an
addition to the Capitol which started out to cost
[[Page H5345]]
about a quarter of a billion dollars; it is now up to half a billion
dollars. And the completion date, I would bet you, before it is over,
will slip to sometime in 2007. I just continue to think it is a
ridiculous, overblown use of taxpayers money.
But there is something else in this bill that really bugs me. I
happen to believe that the number one national disgrace in this country
is the fact that some 44 million people are struggling every day
without health care coverage. There is a provision in this bill which
enables a study to go forward to see whether or not we will add
supplemental health and dental benefits for Members of Congress under
our health care plan.
Now, I happen to believe that congressional employees should have
dental coverage, and I think that Members of Congress should have
dental coverage. But I also think that every citizen of this country
ought to have access to health care and ought to have decent dental
coverage.
We just marked up the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill; and
in contrast to the consideration that we are going to give Members of
Congress about adding new health care benefits, what did the committee
do this morning with respect to health care benefits for the rest of
Americans?
I will tell you: the chairman's mark on the Labor-Health-Education
bill today entirely terminates the Community Access Program, which is
the glue that makes health delivery to the poor work in 70 communities
in this country.
The chairman's mark cut several other programs. It cuts Rural Health
Outreach grants, which support primary health care, dental care and
mental health and telemedicine projects. It cuts those projects by 24
percent.
The Maternal and Child Health Care block grant is only 2.9 percent
above the fiscal 2001 level, which means that we have a 10 percent loss
of purchasing power for that program for average Americans.
Then, if you go on, you see that childhood immunization, the cost to
immunize a child has gone up by 24 percent since 2001. Appropriations
have increased by only 15 percent. So we are having a growing gap in
terms of our ability to immunize children in this country.
So it just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a substantial gap
between what we are willing to consider doing for the average American
when it comes to health care and what we are willing to consider doing
for Members of Congress.
I do not want to vote to deny health care coverage of any kind to
anybody, but I want to say this to the majority in this House: if you
vote for this legislative appropriations bill today, by God, do not
dare to bring out an expansion of health care benefits for Members of
Congress until you have also brought out legislation to this floor that
covers health care for every American. And make sure that those
Americans have the same kind of coverage, including dental care, that
you would like to see for the average Member of Congress. Unless you do
that, you will be giving hypocrisy a bad name.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that the gentleman was not referring
specifically to me, because I do not have Federal health insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New
York for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I plan to vote for this bill, but
there is no way I can support this rule.
There were a total of eight amendments submitted. There were seven by
Democrats, one by a Republican. The one by the Republican was allowed.
Only one out of the seven submitted by Democrats was allowed.
A lot of them had no political overtones whatsoever. What is wrong,
for example, with studying ways to improve and expand day care services
on the Hill for our employees? That is hardly political. The only thing
I can imagine is wrong is that a Member of the majority did not think
of it; and I am sure if they had, it would have been made in order. But
that should have been allowed, to study it.
Now, I acknowledge that at least four of the amendments have some
political overtones, and I can appreciate the embarrassment that
Members of the majority must experience when their legislative actions
stretch the bounds of proper rules and procedures of the House.
How long, I think we know how long, what, 3 hours we kept that vote
open on Medicare prescription drugs. We have subsequently read about
all of the promises and the threats that were thrown back and forth to
change the result, successfully, I might add.
Then, on a separate issue, how often have we seen conference
agreements completed before the conference was even convened? The
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) had every right to bring our
attention to that abuse of power.
I doubt the majority would have approved any of those amendments, but
they should have been debated.
Then there are the two amendments by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Sherman). First, should C-SPAN tapes be rebroadcast for political
purposes? I am not sure, but I think it is something that ought to be
discussed on the floor of the House, and I regret the fact that we did
not get an opportunity to discuss it.
He had a second amendment to curb another potential abuse of power. I
think it could be a pretty serious one. It is inappropriate to use the
franking privilege out of committee resources to mail mass propaganda
pieces on behalf of any Member, on the majority or the minority side.
Now, if you look at the numbers that we have, the Committee on
Resources apparently has asked for about half a million dollars to be
mailing pieces into other Members' districts. We saw the explanation by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). No matter how much we want
to cooperate with the other side, this is a major potential abuse of
power, if somebody does not stand up and say wait a minute, there is
something wrong with this.
This has to be discussed. The public needs to be aware of it before
we embark on this. Of course, if nothing is said, other committees are
likely to do the same thing, and no ranking member has that ability.
So this was an amendment that really needed to be discussed, and
perhaps in that discussion we could get an explanation that would show
us that this is not as abusive as it appears at first glance. Perhaps
there is a logical explanation, but we sure ought to get that kind of
explanation. The fact that we were denied the opportunity to discuss
this is reason enough to vote against the rule.
What we are looking for is fairness. We are looking for the resources
in this bill to continue this great institution at a reasonable level,
a fiscally responsible level, one that is acceptable to both sides. But
when the process is clearly not acceptable to both sides, I think we
have an obligation to stand up and say no.
I would like to see some support from the other side of the aisle for
raising objection to the way in which this rule was put together.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am in no way trying to defend or impugn any question
of what the Committee on Resources did, but I think the appropriate
place to have a look at that is through the Committee on House
Administration or through the bipartisan Committee on Franking. I
expect that will be done. Not on the floor of the House.
I know they do not want to miss an opportunity to make political hay
over this, but the fact of the matter is, this is an inappropriate
place to have that discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me take this time just to express my disappointment
with this rule and my opposition to it. I listen frequently where
Members of Congress like to say that we do not want to treat ourselves
differently than we treat the general public. Yet
[[Page H5346]]
on this appropriations bill that affects our budget, we use different
standards than we do on other appropriations bills. That is wrong.
The ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), pointed
out there are only eight amendments that were offered to the Committee
on Rules. It would have been very easy to allow those amendments to be
considered and then use the democratic process to either vote up or
down those amendments. But, no, the majority refuses to allow us to
have a debate on this floor on issues that affect the manner in which
we operate the legislative branch.
I am particularly disappointed that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was not made in order. We have
an obligation to make sure that the resources of this body are used
appropriately. That is the Committee on Appropriations' responsibility;
that is the responsibility of our debate on the legislative branch
bill. Yet we are not going to have an opportunity to see whether we
could use a better standard on the franking privileges of our
committees.
It is my understanding that the majority controlled that. The
minority has no opportunity. The majority has used that at least in one
committee in a partisan manner. That is wrong. We should have a chance
to be able to debate that issue.
We work together to try to make sure that the resources of the
legislative are used appropriately. In this case, it looks like it was
not. Our opportunity to speak is when the legislative appropriation
bill is on the floor. We are going to be denied that opportunity,
because the majority refused to make in order an amendment so we could
have that debate. That is wrong.
Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, reject
this rule, so that we have an opportunity to be able to have a full
discussion on the legislative branch appropriation, as we would on any
other appropriations bill that comes before this body.
{time} 1145
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment offered
by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), was
perfectly germane. The only reason in the world it was turned down was
for political reasons. It was a major embarrassment that they had been
found out, and I have to assure the people who are listening today that
on my part, and I am sure on the part of others, that we will not rest
until we rectify this mistake, although it is not a mistake. It is a
blatant attempt, frankly, to misuse taxpayers' money as incumbent
protection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, I
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This vote will be followed by two 5-minute
votes on House Resolution 706 and H.R. 3980.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 194, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 336]
YEAS--223
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--16
Berry
Blumenauer
Carson (IN)
Collins
Deutsch
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Honda
LaHood
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Oxley
Platts
Quinn
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1211
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. BACA and Mrs. DAVIS of California changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. NORTHUP changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
[[Page H5347]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________