[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27313-27316]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 27314]]

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 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

[[Page 27315]]

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 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.

[[Page 27316]]

  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 
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.

                          ____________________