THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
And just a couple of comments on the motion to recommit. These types of decisions should be made in the Committee and on the floor of the House once the Committee has reported the bill. And as the ranking member knows, the Committee on Appropriations in the House has marked up all of its bills but one. So these decisions really have been made in the committee, and once we move the bills many of the concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is concerned about will be taken care of because they are legitimate needs of the government. We do not want to recommit this bill today. We want to pass this bill, get this business behind
[Page: H8559] GPO's PDF
So, again, a continuing resolution is not the best way to deal with appropriations issues, but because of today's circumstances this is what is available to us, and, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we would reject the motion to recommit and that we would pass this CR and get on with the rest of our business.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, passage of this resolution is understandable, but unfortunate. And, louder than any words, it demonstrates the cynicism of the Republican leadership here in the House.
For months, the leadership has refused to allow the House to meet its basic responsibility of considering bills to fund any part of the government besides the Department of Defense. And by passing this continuing resolution, that pattern of dereliction will be continued through the rest of this year.
I do not think this is how we should do our business. I agree with the Rocky Mountain News that we should instead make completion of the appropriations process our top priority.
For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching the News's editorial on this subject.
Budget the Top Priority for Congress
President Bush says the ``single most important item'' facing the lame-duck Congress is creation of his Department of Homeland Security.
Actually, it's not.
The most important duty of the lame-duck Congress is to pass the Federal budget for fiscal year 2003, which began Oct. 1. Embarrassingly, one two of the 13 money bills needed to complete that budget have been passed. And that alone is why the outgoing Congress had to return to the capital, not homeland security or terrorism insurance or the energy bill.
And the returning lawmakers should pass those bills cleanly and not resort to the desperate solution of other lame-duck Congresses--stuffing all the unfinished budget business into the messy monster called an omnibus reconciliation bill.
Lame-duck Congresses are not the best possible legislative forum. They operate in a tight time frame, knowing they'll be out of business at the end of December. And they include in their ranks retiring and defeated lawmakers who no longer answer to anyone. And this lame-duck session has a novel problem. The Democrats now control the Senate, but only by one vote and only until a new Republican senator arrives in a week or so.
The lame-duck Congress' most important item of business is to pass the budget.
The second most important priority is: Go home.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Continuing Resolution.
People at home send us to Washington to do a job and make tough decisions--not simply kick the can down the street when it's convenient for us to do so.
It is irresponsible to run our government like this--without a budget or any sense of what we can afford to spend money on--especially during times of war.
We have real demands on our shrinking federal budget, and we have tough choice to make.
By passing this Continuing Resolution, we are not only avoiding making those decisions, we are putting our country in jeopardy.
This is the fifth Continuing Resolution we've passed this year that funds all aspects of the federal government at fiscal year 2002 levels, except highway construction--which it cuts by almost $4 billion. By setting spending at $27.7 billion instead of the current year level of $31.8 billion, California will lose over $261 million, which translates into about 12,400 good paying jobs that will be lost as a result.
This is wrong for California's economy and it's wrong for the highway users who have paid taxes into the highway trust fund.
Investments in highway infrastructure are not only an immediate stimulus to California's economy, but they will help alleviate congestion and reduce air pollution.
Operating under a Continuing Resolution also has a damaging impact on ongoing construction projects at the national laboratories in my district. Without an annual budget, the labs are unable to consent to the large contracts. Contracts like these at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are vital to ongoing construction work on the National Ignition Facility and the Terrascale Simulation Facility, both critical elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program This not only undermines this important national security program, it also hurts workers because contractors are let go when the labs are no longer able to guarantee payment.
National security work this critical cannot simply be continued piecemeal, and I am concerned that the Continuing Resolution, by driving the costs of construction up, will make it harder to fund these programs that ensure that we have a credible and reliable nuclear deterrent to protect the American people.
And, this Continuing Resolution hurts health care.
Medicare's foundation is crumbling. Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals will be cut by 12 percent over the next three years, beginning with a 4.4 percent cut on January 1, 2003. More than $11 billion nationwide is at stake, with each state losing millions in federal health care funds. All of this is in addition to the 5.4 percent cut that was implemented on January 1 of this year.
For Medicare seniors, I strongly urge my colleagues to immediately fix the Medicare physician payment update problem.
Physicians and other health professionals are the very foundation of the medical care system. Without them, patients will not be able to get hospital, nursing home and home health care services, or prescription drugs. It is critical that both the House and Senate stay in session to fix this mistake and avert the impending cuts before patient access is further jeopardized.
In addition to failing our nation's seniors, we are also failing America's children.
The Impact Aid program, which compensates local school districts that enroll ``federally connected'' children, is also hurt if Congress passes a Continuing Resolution. Most of these children are the sons and daughters of parents who are in the military or live on military bases.
Since Congress has failed to act appropriately, I urge the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a reasonable apportionment of Impact Aid funds for fiscal year 2003 based on historical obligations. This action by OMB will ensure that our schools can continue to meet the needs of our children.
And these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. By keeping funding at 2002 levels, Congress is not providing any money for the Securities and Exchange Commission to beef up its enforcement of corporate crime, and the National Institutes of Health has to cut back on important work.
Congress should not leave town until all the appropriations bills are completed. It is our responsibility to make decisions on how to fund the activities in the federal budget, with a new urgent priority of fighting terrorism abroad and protecting our homeland.
American taxpayers are the victim of Congress' inability to get its work done.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this Continuing Resolution and get back to doing the work we were sent to Washington to do.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant to House Resolution 602, 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.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. OBEY moves to recommit the bill, House Joint Resolution 124, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
Page 1, line 5, after ``2003'', insert the following:
``Provided, That in addition to the amounts made available by section 101, $2,416,000,000 is available for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Medical Care, for health care for enrolled veterans: Provided further, That in addition to the amounts made available by section 101, $2,800,000,000 is available for the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health: Provided further, That in addition to the amounts made available by section 101, $2,600,000,000 is available for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Management and Planning Assistance, for State and local first responders: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, $776,000,000 is available for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Salaries and expenses, and amounts otherwise made available by this resolution for salaries and expenses activities at the Department of Commerce shall be reduced by $100,000,000 and amounts otherwise made available by this resolution for salaries and expenses activities at the Department of Justice (excluding the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Immigration and Naturalization Service) shall be reduced by $200,000,000: Provided further, Notwithstanding any other provision of
[Page: H8560] GPO's PDF
Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion will, as I said, provide increases to the following accounts: For veterans medical care it will provide a $2.4 billion increase; for the National Institutes of Health for bioterrorism and general research it will increase funding by $2.8 billion; for FEMA for State and local first responders it will increase funding by $2.6 billion; for the Securities and Exchange Commission for corporate oversight it will increase funding by $300 million to finally put some teeth back in that agency; and it ensures that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has sufficient funding to provide effective oversight of the SEC and corporate accounting standards.
There are other items that I would like to have in the recommit motion, Mr. Speaker, but because of the parliamentary situation, for instance, we are precluded from including items that would include an extension of the unemployment compensation program to long-term unemployed workers. We are precluded from adding funding that was just raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) on the Medicare givebacks for providers, and we have not been able to include funding at this point for additional support for education. That does not mean those items should not also be addressed. They should. But right now we have just been told that the bill that will come up later today will in fact give Congressional blessing to the idea that the deficit will be increased by at least $30 billion on the mandatory side and yet somehow we are committing a mortal sin if we try to provide more funding for veterans medical care, for medical research, to our local police and firemen to strengthen our response against terrorism , and to the SEC in order to ensure that corporate balance sheets are actually on the square and legitimate.
I find that kind of logic quaint. I think that each of these items is perfectly defensible. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a yes vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the gentleman's motion to recommit addresses a number of important issues, but they are important to the point that they should not be discussed or determined with a 5-minute debate on one side and a 5-minute debate on the other side. These issues are so important they should have considerable debate, and consideration by the committee, and consideration by the House, and because of that, Mr. Speaker, I object to the motion to recommit and ask the Members to oppose it and then vote for the continuing resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196, nays 216, not voting 19, as follows:
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display