[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 124 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8525-H8528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 68, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS,
FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 469 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 469
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68)
making continuing appropriations for the
[[Page H8526]]
fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative
day of Thursday, October 6, 2005, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The
Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority
Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for
consideration pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 3. A motion to proceed pursuant to section 2908 of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 shall be in
order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui),
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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 469 is a rule that provides
for consideration of House Joint Resolution 68, making continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2006. This rule provides for 1 hour
of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution. The rule provides one motion to recommit the joint
resolution.
Additionally, the resolution provides that suspensions will be in
order at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, October 6, 2005,
and the Speaker or his designee shall consult the Minority Leader or
her designee on any suspension considered under the rule.
Lastly, the rule provides that a motion to proceed pursuant to
section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
shall be in order only if offered by the majority leader or his
designee.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California
(Chairman Lewis) and the entire House Committee on Appropriations on
both sides of the aisle for sticking to the timetable they laid out at
the start of this legislative session. In an impressive display of
bipartisanship and just sheer hard work, the House passed all 11
appropriations bills prior to the July 4 District Work Period. Since
July, the Senate has returned to us only the interior and legislative
branch appropriations bills, which have each been signed into law by
the President. Additionally, the Senate has passed six of its remaining
10 appropriations bills. These six are awaiting closure in conference.
We are now just anticipating action from the Senate on those last four
appropriations bills so we can move forward, finish the appropriations
process, and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill.
Unfortunately, the appropriations process within the two bodies has
not been completed prior to the start of the new fiscal year which, of
course, begins this October 1. We must institute a continuing
resolution in order to allow the government to function through
November 18, 2005, while we complete consideration of the remaining
appropriations bills, waiting on the Senate to complete their final
actions, and for the conference committees to do their work. This rule
allows consideration of the imperative funding measure.
I am most impressed with the work of the Committee on Appropriations
on this continuing resolution. Throughout the appropriations process,
the committee has shown its commitment to the budget resolution and to
fiscal responsibility. The committee has funded programs and activities
at the lowest level of the House-passed level, the Senate-passed level,
or the fiscal year 2005 current rate. For agencies for which the Senate
has not passed a bill by the start of a new fiscal year, the funding
rate is at the lower of the House-passed level, or the fiscal year 2005
current rate.
The legislation includes language prohibiting agencies from
initiating or resuming programs or procurements not funded in the
fiscal year 2005, and prohibits agencies from awarding new grants and
certain other forms of assistance during the period of the CR, which,
of course, is through November 18 of this year.
I again congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) and the entire
committee for their hard work this year. I urge Members to support this
rule and the underlying CR so that we can finish the appropriations
process, move down the road to responsible funding for the needs of
this Nation, and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to debate H.J. Res.
68, a continuing resolution that will fund the Federal Government past
September 30. While this is an essential procedural measure, it also
represents an opportunity. Between now and November 18, when the
resolution expires, Congress has a responsibility to step back and
consider its priorities. The facts on the ground have changed, and our
agenda here in the House must change accordingly.
I am confident that we will do right by those affected by the
hurricanes, but we still need to ask ourselves where our financial and
legislative duties are in response to Katrina construction, continued
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, and increasing fiscal deficit. Are we
looking at the big picture? Are our priorities in line with our
financial obligations? We know that because of Katrina, the victims,
those displaced from their homes, are more likely to rely on medicaid.
With that known expense, can we honestly reduce the funding for this
responsibility and still extend tax cuts?
Mr. Speaker, we need to take care of our fellow citizens, but what we
do now should not mean we pass on an unsustainable debt to future
generations, especially when we know there is a way we can offset these
costs. For the costs of this year's installments of the tax cuts
enacted in 2001 and 2003, $225 billion this year alone, we could pay
for the gulf States' recovery from Katrina. We know that we need some
of these cuts, such as AMT relief, but let us at least be reasonable
and put them on the table.
We must have an honest discussion about our fiscal situation. I urge
my colleagues to step back and take a hard look at how we will move
forward, not just this fall, but next year and the decades after that.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of my colleagues have heard me talk
about my granddaughter Anna, and we all have someone like her, someone
we see as our future, someone that means the world to us. I believe
that she will grow up to a better future. But, to do right by them, we
must all step up to the plate, not as Members of one party or another,
but as leaders and statesmen willing to accept the reality of our
fiscal situation and make the difficult decisions.
Our priorities in the coming months should not waver from the
ultimate goal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I certainly agree that this
debate about the budget and the appropriations process is always a
debate about our future, and it is a debate about priorities. Clearly,
we have had a shift in priorities since that budget resolution passed.
As a State that was hit by four hurricanes last year and had the
beginnings of Katrina come across our State this year, our hearts go
out to our brothers and sisters on the gulf coast, and we recognize
that this government has a commitment to help lift up those citizens on
the gulf coast and, where appropriate, we have a Federal responsibility
in the rebuilding and reconstruction process in Louisiana and
Mississippi and Alabama, and a lot of other places.
So I think that that reinforces the need for us to move ahead with
this
[[Page H8527]]
continuing resolution and allow our appropriations process to work,
instead of positioning ourselves to a situation where we end up with an
omnibus bill that I do not think either one of us thinks is the
appropriate way to go.
There is an opportunity here for us to reprioritize, using regular
order, using the strength and talent that sits on our committees, and
bringing about a measured approach to doing that. It is going to
require offsets. The numbers that are coming out of there fluctuate
wildly, and it is important that we have a handle on what those needs
truly are. It is important that we recognize that had we not taken some
of the steps that we have taken in the past, we would not have
eliminated $100 billion off of the deficit in the last year. We would
not have been in a position where revenues to the government would have
actually been higher than they were as a result of the lower taxes and
the growth in the economy that has come about as a result of that.
But that is a debate for another day. This is a debate about the
continuing resolution and the need for us to make sure that the
government does not shut down.
The House has done its work. I think we can all be very proud of our
appropriators finishing their schedule before July 4, and now we are in
a position, unfortunately, of being in a bit of a holding pattern,
waiting on the Senate and our conference committees to do their work.
But it is important for us to pass this rule and allow the CR to move
ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a
closed rule, although I do understand the need for prompt action on the
continuing resolution. As my good friend from Florida has pointed out,
the Senate's slowness in acting on appropriations bills means that the
continuing resolution that we are discussing here today is necessary.
However, as we prepare to provide the funds to keep the government
running, I think we need to consider the larger budgetary picture. It
is essential for us to respond to the devastation brought by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita but, as we do, we should consider and respond to the
fiscal and economic risks we have been running.
I think there is an urgent need for both the administration and the
Congress to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies
based on laws that defy the laws of fiscal gravity. For too long, there
has been a dearth of both presidential leadership and accountability in
this area.
That is why later today, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and perhaps the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), I will introduce a bill that I
think could promote both. The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership
in Cutting Expenditures Act, or the SLICE Act for short. It would do
two things: First, it would authorize the President to identify
specific items in Federal spending that he thinks should be cut; and
second, require Congress to vote on each of those items.
The bill would apply both to appropriations and to spending items in
the recently signed transportation bill. It would set deadlines for the
President to propose cuts and for Congress to act on them.
Under the bill, Congress would have to vote on each proposed cut. We
could not ignore those proposals, as can be done under current law, and
if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.
The President has said we should pay for responding to Katrina and
Rita through spending cuts alone, but the President's own party and the
majority in this House are divided on what to cut.
We may disagree on budget and tax priorities, Mr. Speaker, but one
thing is certain. It is past time for a serious debate about specific
proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the deficit hole. This bill
is intended to jump-start that debate.
I hope all of our colleagues will join us in this crucial effort to
restore fiscal sanity to our Nation's Capital.
Mr. Speaker, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita not only brought death and
destruction across a wide swath of the Gulf coast. They also delivered
a blow to the Federal budget and sounded a wakeup call about the fiscal
and economic risks we have been running.
A full response to these natural disasters must include more than
emergency repairs, humanitarian relief, and community rebuilding. We
also need to consider serious questions about the limits of government,
the wisdom of wartime tax cuts, and our national capacity to look
beyond short-term political priorities.
If anything good can come from these terrible storms, maybe it will
be recognition by both the Bush administration and Congress that now we
need to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies based
on defying the laws of fiscal gravity. It's about time.
Even if Katrina and Rita had taken less destructive paths and the New
Orleans levees had held, the problems would have been serious because
the Federal budget was already on a dangerous course marked by tidal
waves of red ink and towering piles of debt. Since 2001, the budget
surplus that President Clinton and a Republican Congress bequeathed
President Bush has been erased and our country is now in debt to the
tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and
child.
This was the result of several factors, of course, but the size and
scope of the Bush tax cuts must bear a large part of the blame.
Several parts of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the
marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child
care tax credits--were good. They gave a reasonable boost for the
economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But having
campaigned on giving back most of the budget surplus in tax cuts,
President Bush insisted on much more, and Congress went along.
Many of us warned against reducing the surplus so recklessly, and
urged the administration and Congress to remember the need to be ready
for future emergencies. Our pleas for restraint were ignored. And then
came the attacks of 9/11 and with them the need for increased spending
on homeland security, a military response in Afghanistan, and a war in
Iraq. The budget nosedived from surplus into deep deficit.
Even in the face of national emergency, neither the President nor
Congress has seen fit to call on Americans for any sacrifice, and
instead of temporarily scaling back tax cuts, the President has
insisted on making them permanent even as Federal spending has
skyrocketed.
So now we are putting the costs of war and everything else the
government does on the national credit card--but the debt is owed not
just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and India.
Why have we allowed things to get so far out of hand?
Part of the answer is that budget and tax policy in Washington has
been so captive to very partisan and extreme ideological voices that it
has been hard to find common ground and moderate consensus.
Even in this time of war, extremists in the Republican Party view tax
cuts as almost a religious calling, while some in my party reject any
spending cuts except in defense. And the Vice President dismisses
complaints by saying ``deficits don't matter.''
So, it not surprising that the appropriations process has not been
marked by fiscal discipline. Unless the President or Congressional
leaders proclaim a need for restraint, let alone sacrifice, why would
Members of Congress not work to meet the transportation and
infrastructure needs of their districts and seek funding for other
valued purposes?
But all this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to
give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is
better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our
budget policies, including both taxes and spending.
It could be that, just as they revealed the problem, Katrina and Rita
can provide a catalyst to beginning that overdue job.
The President has said the Federal Government will undertake to help
rebuild the communities left devastated by the storms--and has said
that spending for other purposes should be reduced to offset the costs.
I have serious doubts about the adequacy of that approach, about the
desirability of whatever spending cuts the President may propose, and
about the readiness of Congress to seriously consider any cuts at all.
But I am hopeful that maybe at last the time has come for a serious
debate about specific proposals for ways to dig ourselves out of the
deficit hole.
To help begin such a serious debate, earlier this year I introduced
legislation that would give the President authority to require Congress
to vote, up or down, on specific appropriations items the President
deemed unworthy of funding--a workable and Constitutional
[[Page H8528]]
alternative to the line item-veto legislation that the Supreme Court
struck down in 1998.
Now, I am introducing an updated version of this bill that focuses
directly on the President's suggestion that disaster response costs be
offset with spending cuts.
The bill is called the Stimulating Leadership In Cutting Expenditures
or, ``SLICE'' Act.
That name fits because the bill would promote Presidential leadership
and Congressional accountability on proposals to reduce other spending
in order to offset the costs of responding to the recent natural
disasters.
Toward that end, it would authorize the President to identify
specific items of Federal spending that he thinks should be cut and
would require Congress to vote on each of those items.
The bill would apply not only to regular appropriations, but also to
the transportation bill that was passed and signed into law earlier
this year.
The bill would establish a two-phase process: the President would
have until November 1st to tell Congress which, if any, of the spending
in the transportation bill should be cancelled. And he would have until
the end of this year to identify any items in fiscal year 2006
appropriations bills we wants to eliminate.
In each case, if the President proposes a cut, Congress would have to
vote on it--we could not ignore the proposal, as can be done under
current law--and if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.
Mr. Speaker, as our budget situation has grown worse, there has been
a lot of talk about ``earmarks,'' meaning funding allocations initially
proposed by Members of Congress rather than by the Administration.
Some people are opposed to all earmarks. I am not one of them. I
think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that
Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax
dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items
that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so.
At the same time, I know--everyone knows--that sometimes a large bill
includes some earmarked items that might not be approved if they were
considered separately, because they would be seen as unnecessary,
inappropriate, or excessive.
Dealing with that problem requires leadership and accountability. My
bill would promote both.
Presidents are elected to lead, and only they represent the entire
Nation. The bill recognizes this by giving the President the leadership
role of identifying just which other spending he thinks should be cut
in order to offset some of the amounts the Federal Government will be
spending in response to recent natural disasters.
And, under the Constitution, it is the Congress that is primarily
accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be
spent. The bill respects and emphasizes that Congressional role by
requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President.
I do not know exactly which spending the President might propose to
cut, so I do not know whether I would support some, all, or any of
those proposals.
But I do know that we should stop wasting time in theoretical debates
about whether we should make spending cuts and start debating specific
proposals.
My bill is intended to get that debate started now.
For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the bill:
Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (SLICE) Act
The purpose of the bill is to facilitate Presidential
leadership and Congressional accountability regarding
reduction of other spending to offset the costs of responding
to recent natural disasters.
The bill would amend the Budget Act to provide as follows:
The President could propose rescission of any budget
authority provided in the recently passed transportation bill
or an appropriations Act through special messages including
draft bills to make those rescissions.
The President would have until November 1, 2005 to propose
canceling spending items in the new Transportation Act and
until January 1, 2006 to propose rescissions from FY 06
appropriations bills.
The House's majority leader or minority leader would be
required to introduce a bill proposed by the President within
two legislative days. If neither did so, any Member could
then introduce the bill.
The relevant Committee would be required to report the bill
within seven days after introduction. The report could be
made with or without recommendation regarding its passage. If
the Committee did not meet that deadline, it would be
discharged and the bill would go to the House floor.
The House would debate and vote on each proposed rescission
within 10 legislative days after the bill's introduction.
Debate would be limited to no more than four hours and no
amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to reconsider would
be allowed.
If passed by the House, the bill would go promptly to the
Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to
consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be
limited to 10 hours and no amendment or motion to recommit
would be allowed.
{time} 1145
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I applaud the gentleman's bipartisan effort to find ways to pay for
these unanticipated expenses that we have come across, and I wish him
the best in that effort. I think it is important that we all recognize
on both sides of the aisle that offsets are going to be necessary and
that we do have to reprioritize.
As the gentleman knows, the President submitted a list through the
regular budget process of 150 programs to cut or eliminate earlier this
year, and some of them received some attention and others received more
attention than others. It is certainly a difficult proposition in this
town to eliminate any program, but the President led early this year
with that thought in mind and he had mixed success.
Again, recognizing the importance of your bipartisan effort and
recognizing the facts that we are going to have to have these offsets,
this bill, this rule that we are here to consider essentially keeps the
government from shutting down while we have that debate. It appears
that there is genuine broad support for the CR and for the rule, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for
her work on the Rules Committee and what is essentially a broad
commitment that we have to have this CR through November 18. Frankly,
it is not for lack of effort on the House side. Both parties have a lot
of reasons to be proud of the efforts of our appropriators and the
entire House. We had a Herculean effort this summer to move these bills
on schedule, move them out before July 4th, and because of Supreme
Court nominations and everything else obviously the Senate has had
other issues on their agenda, and we are in a holding pattern on the
appropriations. Nobody wants to see the government shut down after
Saturday, so it is important that we move this rule, move the
underlying CR, and allow the regular order, the talent and skills that
exist within this House, to work their magic as we deal with these
unanticipated effects from two gulf storms, and we are not even
finished with hurricane season yet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________