Waiving Requirement of Clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions Reported from Committee on Rules

WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON RULES -- (House of Representatives - November 20, 2004)

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it appropriate for me to rise in light of the gentleman from Texas's remarks. First of all, I note that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is on the floor. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is one of the most respected Members in this body. He is a gentleman who has led our committee with fairness and great ability. Mr. Dyer is also on the floor, our chief clerk of the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations continues to be, in my opinion, one of the committees that really strives to work in a bipartisan fashion to meet the responsibilities that it has and the responsibilities that this Congress has to the American people.

The budget to which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SESSIONS) spoke has resulted in a dysfunctional appropriations process over the last 4 years really. I have served on the Committee on Appropriations for 23 years, so I have some experience of the workings of that committee. In the early years that I served, it was also difficult to pass appropriation bills. Then we got into the 1994 election, the majority changed and, in 1995, of course, we shut down the government on November 22, 1995. The government essentially remained shut down and with sporadic periods of being open between then and early in January of the following year.

Since that time, particularly since the election of President Bush in 2000, in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, this year, we have clearly had a dysfunctional budget and appropriations process, about which my friend from Texas seems to be so proud. In fact, this is the third year in a row where we have passed an omnibus appropriations bill including most of the appropriations. We have ignored the regular order. We have ignored the process of adopting appropriation bills one by one. We have ignored the process of having our appropriation bills open to full disclosure and consideration, not only by the House of Representatives, but by the American people. We have prevented the American people from having the opportunity to make their views known on these appropriation bills. Why? Because we have passed them in the dead of night, as we did last night, come out with a very quick Committee on Rules report, a martial law rule, and an inability to expose those to the light of day.

Now, most of those appropriations bills, the nine bills that will be incorporated into this omnibus have, in fact, been subjected to hearings, discussion on this floor, discussion on the Senate floor, and most, I do not know what percentage, but I would guess well over 90 percent, perhaps even as close to 97 or 98 percent of the bills have, in fact, been subjected to the regular order and the legislative process as it should run.

But the fear of the American people is that in the dead of night, in the cloudiness of quick consideration, that many things are included in these bills which perhaps both Houses would not have put in there, as has happened too frequently during the course of this Congress, or that neither House really knows is in there.

So when my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) refers to this as being a process that is contrary to regular order, he is absolutely right. It is not something of which we ought to be proud. To that extent, I disagree with my good friend, the gentleman from Texas. It is, in fact, something that we ought to commit ourselves to not repeating. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good friend, is on the floor, and was the chief of staff of one of the most distinguished leaders with whom I have had the privilege of serving, Bob Michel, himself a member of the Committee on Appropriations. I used to remember Leader Michel during the times when he was the Minority Leader of this House saying that this process was wrong when we pursued it, when we got into a deadlock and could not get bills passed.

So it is not that it is solely the actions of one party. It is, however, to say that we ought not to pretend that when we are doing it, that it is good, and that when the other guy is doing it, it is bad. It is not a good process. We did not in the year of last year pass eight of our appropriations bills until the calendar year following the beginning of the fiscal year. It was January. The previous year, it was February before we adopted most of the appropriations bills. I regret that we do not consider the appropriations bills one by one. There has not been a conference on the Labor-Health bill, a bill which will have approximately $150 billion in discretionary funding in this bill. It has not been conferenced. I have been a member of that committee for 23 years. I did not participate in a conference on that bill.

Now, because of the way our committee operates, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA) and others have kept me apprised, and I am not surprised at that. As I said, they are good and decent and fair leaders of the Committee on

Appropriations. We ought not to delude ourselves because of their fairness and because of the fact that they have kept me informed and kept the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) informed and others informed. But the American people who have been precluded from seeing that bill conferenced have not been informed as our democracy contemplates, so I do not share the gentleman's pride in this process.

Mr. Speaker, because I have the time and I am on my feet, I also want to make a comment. I may make this comment again when he is here. In my view, the House of Representatives has sustained an extraordinary loss in the last election. I do not speak in terms of the fact that another candidate won the election. I, in no way, denigrate that candidate. But I do rise to lament the loss of a giant of this House, a Member of this House who, in my opinion, is arguably the best legislator in this House, a Member of this House whom I have grown to have the highest respect for, for his intellect, for his integrity, for his focus on fiscal responsibility. No one, no one in this House or in the United States Senate has any more faithfully focused on fiscal responsibility than my friend, the gentleman from Texas (CHARLES STENHOLM). It is a great loss to the House that he will not be serving with us next year.

As we consider this appropriation bill, and as the gentleman from Texas remarks with respect to constraining funding, I will tell my friend that we have constrained funding less over the last 4 years perhaps than at any time since I have been here, less than we did during the Clinton years. Domestic discretionary spending has risen higher over the last 4 years, as perhaps the gentleman knows, discretionary spending has risen higher. Now, there have been some reasons for that. Certainly, 9/11, terrorism, the war in Iraq. As the gentleman from Texas knows, I have supported that funding. We cannot, we must not send our best abroad to fight terrorism without supporting them fully. I have done that, and I intend to do that. But having said that, I do not intend to pretend that that money is for free, that somebody is not going to pay that bill.

Earlier this week, the Republicans increased the debt of this Nation by $800 billion, meaning that over the last 42 months we have increased the national debt by 25 percent, $2 trillion. I personally do not believe that that is something of which to be proud, $2 trillion in additional debt. I have three grandchildren. One is a little older, one is little younger, and one is very young. And all of them are going to pay that bill. Because this generation of Americans, acting through its Members in the House of Representatives, has determined that it will not pay its bills. I think that is an immoral policy. It is the refusal to accept personal responsibility for the challenges confronting our generation, and we are going to allow the next generation and perhaps generations thereafter to pay that bill.

The immediate consequences, of course, were evidenced yesterday. I hope they will be ameliorated. I hope interest rates will not skyrocket. I hope the deficit will, as the gentleman from Texas hopes, will be constrained. But I will not delude myself, I tell my friend from Texas, that it is discretionary spending that has caused our problem, because those of us on the Committee on Appropriations know it is not discretionary spending. In fact, discretionary spending as a percentage of the budget is less today than it was in 1962 and 1972 and 1982. So we ought not to delude ourselves that our failure to fully fund No Child Left Behind, as the gentleman from Florida has said, is something of which to be proud. There are going to be children left behind as a result of us failing to do that.

So I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say that I will vote for this omnibus bill when it ultimately gets to the floor. I will vote against this rule, but I will vote for the omnibus bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), Jim Dyer, and each one of our chairmen and ranking members have worked hard to try to come to grips with bills that meet our responsibilities. These bills do so only in part. I thank my chairman and would say that there are areas in which we are short, not because we want to be short, but because the resources are not there to meet our commitments.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this brief time, at a time when debate is not fulsome and I had time to ruminate to some degree on what I consider the very serious fiscal challenge that confronts our country. We cannot pretend that we can have tax cuts and war and investment in education and transportation and energy and other needs of our country and simply pass the debt along to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, that is not right.