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
There is little doubt that the preceding 5 weeks were anything but an evasion of leadership and responsibility. While we bobbed and weaved, the American people took it on the chin again and again and again.
[Page: H7820] GPO's PDF
The unemployment rate showed a tiny reduction from 5.7 to 5.6 percent from August to September, but it still was far above the rate of 3.9 percent in October, 2000.
There are 8.1 million unemployed Americans today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an increase of 2 1/2 million Americans from just 2 years ago.
The year before President Bush took office, the economy created 1.7 million new jobs. Since January of 2001, we have lost 1.5 million jobs.
The poverty rate increased for the first time in 8 years in 2001. In the first year of the Bush administration, 1.3 million Americans slipped back into poverty, with 32.9 million now living in poverty and this the richest nation on the face of the earth.
The median household income fell 2.2 percent in 2001, after increasing every year since 1992. More than 400,000 bankruptcies were filed in the second quarter of this year, an all-time high. In the same quarter, 1.23 percent of home loans were in foreclosure, a record high, but that is not all.
The number of Americans without health insurance increased by 1.4 million people from the end of 2000 to the end of 2001. Health insurance costs increased 12.7 percent in 2002, the largest annual increase since 1990. Prescription drug prices increased by nearly twice the rate of inflation in 2001. And then, of course, as all of us know, the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value between January, 2001, and September, 2002.
But the topper, the most egregious statistic for which we have a large share of the responsibility, has been the historic reversal of the Federal budget.
The $86.6 billion surplus inherited by this administration, excluding Social Security, that President Bush inherited has turned into a $314 billion deficit, almost half a trillion dollars; and the only medicine the Republican party's economic gurus can prescribe is this--cut taxes.
As we consider this continuing resolution, I urge the American people to ask themselves Ronald Reagan's famous question: Are we better off today than we were 2 years ago? The answer tragically and unfortunately is we are not.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week we went through a very similar debate when we passed the CR last week to get us to this point. There was some heated discussion on the floor, and there was a bit of finger pointing. I do not think it does this institution all that good to point fingers, but I suppose that is just the nature of a political body that that has to happen.
I think in that light it may be instructive just to review where we started in the 107th Congress and the start of this year and where we are right now. That perhaps has added to some of the sounds of confusion that we are going through this time.
We are required by law, as we all know, to pass a budget and agree on some numbers between the House and the Senate. We have talked about that at length on the floor of this House, and we all know that the House responded to that in a way and passed a budget according to the rules and laws that we abide by. We also know that the Senate did not do that.
It presents a problem, obviously, simply because we do not have an agreement on both sides by which to argue about our differences. It causes some dissension, certainly does not make the appropriators' job very easy, but that is the framework by which we have to work with this appropriation process.
So we have tried then to get bills out at least and have broad consensus. Five of them, if my number is correct, have passed the House, now await action in the Senate, and we have some contentious appropriations bills that need to be acted on later.
Every year, as a matter of fact, the same bills tend to pop up that are contentious, and the appropriators are working very hard to try to work out the differences so we can narrow that gap, but unfortunately, this year happens to be an election year. Everybody, or at least one-third of the other body and everybody in this body, desires to go home to campaign and hopefully come back and start the 108th Congress anew, but before we do that, of course, we have to finish this process.
It is true when we were up in the Committee on Rules meeting earlier this afternoon, the CR was to take us until November 22. The reason for that time between then and now was to give the appropriators a little bit more time to work out the differences that they may or may not have and try to take a deep breath, come back after the election and get it resolved.
Of course, in this body there are a lot of discussions that go on under the radar, and it was felt, probably through a signal of Members perhaps on both sides of the aisle, that a resolution carrying the CR to November 22 may not have passed. We do not know that, we did not put it to a vote, but sometimes we take a gauge and we learn where the levels are.
The determination was made, because there had been talk not only last week but the week before, that probably the last CR would be on the 18th of this month, a determination was made then that we would have the CR until the next week to allow the appropriators to go back to work, and that is what this rule is all about, is to allow us to have a CR to take us into next week. We will come back next week.
I suppose that we will hear the same sort of rhetoric next week as we try to get all of our business done, but I think this is a responsible way to do it.
There are some major issues, I might add, that are overhanging the whole Capitol, not just this body. Today, we passed a very historic piece of legislation that, as my colleagues know, we debated for 2 1/2 days regarding the Iraqi situation. But in line with the Iraqi situation and the potential that we may have to go to war is the issue of homeland security, and we have acted on that.
When the President came to the Congress with his proposal for homeland security, there were Members, probably on both sides of the aisle, that said would it not be great if we could create an Office of Homeland Security and have that done by September 11. We did not get it done by September 11, but the House did act on that bill, and that is waiting in the other body, again, for that bill to pass so we can work out whatever differences we may have.
I think it would be unconscionable for us as a Congress, in view of what we did today and the action on Iraq, to leave here, to leave here and not pass the homeland security bill. I hope that the other body will work on that. I hope they work extremely hard on that in the next week so that when we come back, we will have to come back next week to at least, if nothing else, respond to the CR.
I believe that for us as a Congress one of the things that we need to do is to put the final exclamation point on what I think all Americans want us to do, in lieu of the threat that we have coming from the Middle East and particularly Iraq, is to make sure that our homeland security is as strong as it can be. It can only be stronger, in my view, if the Senate acts on that bill, we can go to conference and work out the differences and pass it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker be so kind as to inform us as to the amount of time remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 22 1/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was going to ask my good friend and namesake, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), whether or not we needed a budget resolution to pass the Defense bill today.
We did not need one.
And are we going to take up appropriations measures next week when we return?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in the best of all worlds, of course, it would be nice if we could do that. Anything is possible. It is likely probably not, in all honesty.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, did my colleague not just say,
[Page: H7821] GPO's PDF
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am sorry if the gentleman misinterpreted what I said on that. The purpose of the CR is to fund the government for one more week, if, in fact, under that period of time these things can come together.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my colleague is not going to answer my question. They did not need a budget resolution, as argued that we needed, in order for us to go forward with the Defense bill today. The answer to that is, no, we did not. The answer to are we going to take up appropriations measures next week, absolutely not. We are going to come back here and do another CR, and we need to get on with it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I am wondering if my friend from Wisconsin would answer a question.
I am very curious about this explanation that we cannot act on appropriations bills because there is no conference agreement on a budget resolution. As our friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) indicated, we passed two final bills today. Is that not right? How could we do that?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. When they had the will to pass a bill, they passed it. When they do not want to pass the bills, they do not pass them. They were not trying to hide what they were doing on Defense, but they are trying to hide what they are doing on Education and Agriculture and Transportation.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, do we have a number of bills that have been passed out of committee available for floor action?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, you bet. We have the Agriculture bill. We have the Labor H, could be ready very quickly if they would let us bring it to a vote. We have the HUD independent offices bill. We have a number of others as well.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I will have another question for the gentleman.
I read this continuing resolution, and there is something that bewilders me. As we all know, our economy is fragile and there is always a dispute about what we can or should do at the Federal level to help speed up the economy.
Clearly, one of the areas in this country where we have major problems is our transportation and infrastructure.
[Time: 17:45]
Am I right that this year we are having highway obligation limit of about $31.8 billion?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the language in this CR----
Mr. SABO. No, this year.
Mr. OBEY. Right now we are operating under the level the gentleman described, yes.
Mr. SABO. In our previous continuing resolutions we were told we had an obligation limit of $31.8 billion.
Mr. OBEY. Right.
Mr. SABO. What is this language in the bill today? I read it, and it seems to me we are writing into law something about 31.8, that appears to be a smoke screen to make people feel good, then there is an exception for it which indicates and takes us back to a highway obligation limit to 21.7.
Mr. OBEY. That is correct. This resolution cuts the amount that would be available to the States to $27.7 billion. So the gentleman's State is going to lose $54 million, my State will lose $69 million, if it is carried to term, and so on.
Mr. SABO. This is confusing. I know that there is disagreement between House and Senate bills, but from all the interpretations of what we have been doing, I think it is clear that no one can dispute that if we want to spend money that has impact on jobs, maintaining or creating jobs, the best money spent is on existing programs, where plans are made, where States are ready to spend it. Am I wrong?
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is right, and what is at stake here is 200,000 jobs.
Mr. SABO. And so this bill goes contrary to what we have done in our first couple of CRs and actually writes into the CR that we are reducing funding for highways next year.
Mr. OBEY. That is right. Instead of having a disagreement between the House and the Senate, we have a disagreement between the House and the House.
Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I feel a sense of frustration similar to some who have expressed it on the floor today, because I joined some of my colleagues in the Committee on Rules in seeking support for a rule to allow the CR to be brought up to do one primary thing, to keep the government running beyond tomorrow night at midnight.
Now, there may be some who would like to see the government close down and play the blame game: ``it is your fault, or it is your fault, or it is our fault, or it is their fault.'' The problem is, the blame game does not get us anywhere.
Now, we are here today with a CR because the appropriations bills have not become law. Today we passed the conference reports on the defense bill with a very healthy bipartisan vote and on the military construction bill with a very bipartisan vote. Those are two good bills, and we had promised the President we would get them to his desk before any others. But if anybody listening to this debate believes that we have not passed the appropriations bills because the Committee on Appropriations has not done its job, they are mistaken. If anyone believes that the appropriations process has broken down, they are mistaken.
There was a breakdown. The breakdown was in the budget process. It totally collapsed. And it collapsed because the law was not followed. The Budget Act was not obeyed. The Budget Act provides that the House pass a budget resolution; send it to the other body, the way we do other legislation; the other body passed a budget resolution; the two Houses come together in a conference committee and work out the differences; and then report back to the House and report back to the Senate the ideal budget resolution with the same numbers and the same words. As all my colleagues know, a conference report has to be identical.
Here is where the breakdown occurred. The House passed a budget resolution. Whether you voted for it or did not vote for it, whether you liked it or did not like it, the House passed a budget resolution. The other body did not. So during the appropriations process we have been dealing with a broken budget process because the top number, the 302(a) number which is the overall budget number for discretionary spending, is one number in the other body and a different number in the House.
Now, I have been seeking a mathematician ever since that happened to tell me how we can reconcile these appropriations bills when one top number is $9 billion higher than the other one. Either the high one has to come down or the low one has to come up or they have to meet in the middle somewhere. This has not happened so the budget process totally collapsed.
Nevertheless, the Committee on Appropriations has continued to do its work. We have already passed and sent to the other body a number of appropriations bills, including the two we passed today, the Defense and Military Construction bills. We have also sent the Interior bill to the other body and, we have sent the Treasury, Postal bill the legislative branch bill to the other body. And I would report to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to send all the other bills to the other body after they are considered here. The committee has marked up those appropriation bills and they are ready for consideration.
Someone asked about an omnibus bill, and I would have to suggest that at this late period in this process that may be the way out, that is, to do an omnibus bill. As a matter of fact, seeing this day coming, I could prepare an
[Page: H7822] GPO's PDF
So that is sort of the history of where we are and why we are here. The appropriations process did not break down; the budget process did. And most of the bills that we reported from committee had general support from both parties; and all of those bills were reported out of the committee with good solid votes. But now the bill we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, has to do with a continuing resolution to keep the government functioning beyond midnight tomorrow night.
After writing and rewriting several different continuing resolutions, we introduced the first one last night. Since then, we have introduced three additional ones. We went to the Committee on Rules, they gave us a rule that would allow us to take up the CR that would take us to the 22nd of November. That does not mean we will quit and run and go home tomorrow or tonight. That means we have that much more time available to work on trying to conclude our business.
But along the way we ran into another obstacle, and that obstacle was that there are some people who did not think there was enough in this CR for an interest that they had. And I think their interest is legitimate, but there are legitimate interests all over this Congress that are not included in this CR because a CR is a temporary funding measure.
So we were hoping to bring this rule to the floor, get a bipartisan vote for it, take up the CR, and keep the government functioning so that the Congress could continue to do its work. Now we have found out that we may not have all the votes we need on our side to pass it and we may not get any votes on the minority side. That doesn't make it very bipartisan, to say the least. I have asked a number of my friends on the other side if we could have some votes to help us pass this rule, to make up for the votes we may lose on our side; and the answer was no, we are not going to vote for it.
| <<< | >>> |
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