C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and all the members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle for having worked together so well this year to get our work where we are prepared to move, with very little notice, to complete this appropriations process. And it has been a good bipartisan effort. On a bipartisan note, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). He and I exchanged some words earlier in the debate. He mentioned just in the last few minutes about the $400 billion increase in the debt. I want to talk about that just for a couple of minutes. He is right. He has been a trooper in this House ever since he came here to try to balance the budget, as have many of us been here to try to balance the budget. But I think the gentleman from Texas would agree with me in what I am about to say. The discretionary appropriation bills that the gentleman from Wisconsin and I and our chairman and ranking members present to the House are not the real culprit in the deficit. Mandatory spending, back-door spending, spending over which the appropriations process has no control whatsoever, that is the problem. For every dollar that we appropriate through our discretionary funds, there are two additional dollars, two additional dollars for every one that is spent through back-door spending, through mandatory programs. The latest example: the farm bill, the agriculture bill, which was like $106 billion over the baseline for a 10-year period. That is a lot of money over the baseline. But some of those who are giving us trouble on the discretionary spending bills lined up and voted for that bill. The director of the Office of Management and Budget, who has put such a top line lid on discretionary spending, signed off on that big agriculture bill. So we have to be consistent. If we are going to control this budget deficit, we have to turn off both spigots. We watch the discretionary; we watch the mandatory. Because mandatory spending programs spend $2 for every $1 that we appropriate in the discretionary programs.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting afternoon. Changes came and went and were never implemented, but we are finally at the point to vote on this continuing resolution to keep the government functioning beyond midnight tomorrow night, and to keep us going until midnight Friday of next week. I am satisfied that between now and then we will have another exercise very similar to this one. I look forward to that exercise, and I am sure all the Members of the House do. But for now, I would just ask the Members to vote this CR and let us adjourn for the night.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would announce to the House that the legislation before us, H.J. Res. 122, is the third continuing resolution for fiscal year 2003. It extends the date of the original CR that took us to midnight tomorrow night until midnight, Friday of next week, October 18th. The terms and conditions of the CR, the original CR remain in effect. We have gone over these terms twice already, so I will not go through them again. However, because the calendar has caught up with us a bit, we did have to add some new anomalies. First of all, we provided funding to meet the fiscal year 2001 caseload for all appropriated entitlements, including child nutrition programs, food stamp programs, Medicaid grants to States, payments to Medicare trust funds, trade adjustment assistance programs, veterans entitlements, and supplemental security income payments. One of the new anomalies also provides for a 60-day window to process Medicare part B premiums for certain Medicaid-Medicare dual eligibles under a provision that expires on December 31, 2002. In addition, new anomalies would provide funding adjustments for the following programs to ensure sufficient resources when we calculate the operating rate for the period of the CR, and those include the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Immigration User Fee Account, Victims Compensation Program, Securities and Exchange Commission, District of Columbia repayment of loans and interest, Transportation Security Administration, and the Federal Aid Highway program. This particular CR also provides legislative authorization to implement a new, no-subsidy cost to the United States, $3.8 billion foreign military financing 15-year loan to the Government of Poland so they can purchase 48, F-16 aircraft from the United States. And it is important that we do this in a timely fashion because there is competition; and if, by a certain date in November, this financing arrangement has not been agreed to, the Poles are going to another buyer or provider. It extends the otherwise expiring authorizations for the U.S. Parole Commission and the HOPE 6 revitalization of severely distressed public housing program through the date of the CR, and prohibits the transfer of civil works missions of the Corps of Engineers to other agencies. It reinstates the dual-use authority, through the date of the CR, to allow the Export Import Bank to make loans that may include military equipment. It includes a correction to the Department of Justice authorization bill as passed by the House in H. Con. Res. 503, and provides a gratuity to the widower of our late friend and colleague, Patsy Mink, the late Representative from the State of Hawaii. It requires reports from agencies of the executive branch on the effects of operating under a full year CR and monthly reports on obligations; and I certainly hope that a full year CR does not happen. Mr. Speaker, there are some other comments that I could make about what we are doing here, why we are here and why we are not doing something else, but I will reserve for now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, the rule just adopted, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, voting to authorize sending young Americans to war is a serious decision. Members will make that decision in this Chamber tomorrow. Yesterday and today we have heard very impressive debate, most of which favors the resolution; some did not. We have heard over and over again the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime is not only to the United States and our interests but to many other parts of the world. I am not going to restate those issues that have already been stated yesterday and today, but as one of the many cosponsors of House Joint Resolution 114, I do rise in support of this resolution to authorize the use of United States military force against Saddam Hussein's regime. Much like the first hours and days after September 11, the world, our friends and our foes, wondered how would the United States respond to that attack on our Nation? They wanted to know if we as a Nation would follow through with a serious response to bring the terrorists to justice. They wanted to see if we would respond with a token strike, as we did following the attack on U.S. troops in Somalia, at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, against our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and in the attack on our sailors aboard the USS Cole. The world watched. Our credibility was at stake. Before joining us, many of our friends were waiting to see if we were serious this time. Our enemies were not concerned because they believed they could absorb another token response, as they had in past years. But the message became clear just 3 days after September 11. A response was certain when Congress, with a strong bipartisan vote, stood and unanimously approved a $40 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill to allow the President of the United States to lead not only a recovery effort in those parts of our country that were attacked in New York City and at the Pentagon but to pursue the war against the Taliban and against al Qaeda and against any terrorist, wherever they might be hiding. It was to fund the war against terrorism, wherever they were waiting to attack again. When Congress spoke, almost immediately, with unity and with force, our friends knew we were serious this time, and it was with confidence that they joined our cause. And our enemies knew right away that America was serious; and when President Bush said what it was we were going to do, they knew that we had the resolve to fight the battle, no matter how long it would take or where it would lead. Today, we are in a similar situation. There is no question about the threat to our Nation from Saddam Hussein's regime, to our allies, and to world peace. As has been pointed out here many times today, he has defied one United Nations resolution after another for more than a decade. Remember, he lost the war. He lost the war in Desert Storm, and he signed up to certain rules and regulations which go along with losing a war, and he has ignored all of them. He has developed and stockpiled chemical and biological weapons. We know that he is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that he has aided and abetted terrorists who have struck international targets around the world. But now it is time for Congress to speak again with a firm and resolute voice, just as we did on September 14, 3 days after the cowardly attacks on innocent Americans. Many of our friends are watching and they are waiting today, as they were last year. Are they going to join with us, or not? Is this a serious effort, or not? Is Congress speaking for the American people to support the President of the United States as he seeks to protect this Nation and our interests? President Bush needs Congress to act to convince our allies, our friends, and our enemies that we are serious. They need to know that our Nation is resolved to continue this battle against terrorism into Iraq if necessary. Many have said that Saddam Hussein is not a real threat to the United States because he is so far away, and he is far away. It is a long distance. Many have said that the President's speech Monday night did not address a lot of new subjects. He compiled and organized very well, many of the existing arguments. But he did say something new for those who paid really close attention. The President discussed for the first time publicly information that many of our colleagues who work with intelligence issues have been aware of for quite some time. That involves Saddam Hussein's aggressive efforts to develop and use unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, as a delivery method for his weapons of mass destruction. The SCUDs did not have a very long range. The SCUDs were not very accurate. I can attest to that because one night visiting with General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, a SCUD was launched near our site, and it landed not too far away; but it was far enough away that it did not hurt anybody. So we know that the SCUDs were not that accurate. UAVs are a different story. UAVs have a much longer range; UAVs are able to be piloted and trained specifically on a target. UAVs are dangerous. And if my colleagues do not think UAVs have a long range, we ourselves have flown a UAV from the United States to Australia and back. Saddam is aggressively seeking ability to use those long-range UAVs to put so many more targets in his sights. We cannot let that happen. Mr. Speaker, with this resolution Congress reaffirms our support for the international war against terrorism. It continues to be international in nature, as this resolution specifically expresses support for the President's efforts to strictly enforce, through the United Nations Security Council, and I will repeat that, through the United Nations Security Council, all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq. It also expresses support for the President's efforts to obtain prompt decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance with those resolutions. One of the lessons of September 11 is that terrorism knows no boundaries. Its victims are men and women, children and adults. It can occur here; it can occur abroad. It can occur anywhere. Terrorists strike without warning. If we are to fight and win the war on terrorism, we must remain united, united in the Congress, united with the President of the United States, and united with the American people. President Bush told the Nation last September that victory would not come quickly or easily. It would be a battle unlike any our Nation has ever waged. Now is not the time to send a mixed message to our friends and allies. Now is not the time to show our enemies any weakness in our resolve. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to record our votes on this important resolution, we should remember the victims of terrorism, September 11 and other examples, and our promise last year to seek out and destroy the roots of terrorism whether it be its sponsors, planners, or the perpetrators of these cowardly missions. We should remember the unity of our Nation and the world. The battle continues, the stakes remain high, and the cause remains just. America must again speak one more time with unity, with force, and with clarity. This resolution does that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to explain to the Members why my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), is in such a good mood today: Today is his birthday; and he is not getting much older, but he is getting a little older. I remember one night we kept him here late on an appropriations bill, and it was his wedding anniversary. We all had to call and apologize to his wife. But anyway, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, happy birthday. Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is not a tax bill, it is not a budget resolution, and unfortunately, it is not even an appropriations bill, one of the 13 regular bills; it is a continuing resolution that just continues the same CR that we passed last week. It merely extends the date, it does not change anything else. Some things have been raised here today that have to do with the Committee on the Budget. I thought I might want to respond to that. For example, it was suggested by a member of the Committee on the Budget that we were going to rebuild the Pentagon twice. That is not true. We are not going to do that. First of all, the money to rebuild the Pentagon was in the initial $40 billion emergency supplemental that we passed in a bipartisan way with the help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to fight back against terrorism, to recover in New York, and to rebuild the Pentagon, so that was in that bill. It is not an issue. We do work with OMB as we deal with the numbers on appropriations bills, and the letter here from Mr. Daniels talking about the CR, the language of the CR, and Mitch Daniels is the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He said, ``Consistent with past practice, we will reduce one-time nonrecurring costs. Example: We will not rebuild the city of New York twice, we will not rebuild the Pentagon twice.'' So based on the Office of Management and Budget's preliminary spending on this resolution, spending on an annual basis would be below the 2003 budget that was submitted by the President and below the House-passed budget resolution. So I do not know where the excitement comes from from members of the Committee on the Budget. Now, another issue was raised, and I am glad my friend, the gentleman from Texas, is still on the floor. He did talk about pay-go. Pay-go has to do with mandatory spending. Pay-go is a requirement in mandatory spending that the salaries would have to be increased based on the law, but that that cost would have to be offset. But that is not in this bill, because this is not a budget resolution. If the Committee on the Budget is concerned about pay-go, they ought to put a resolution on the floor and deal with pay-go. Those rules, they did expire on October 1. I brought up the issue of pay-go not so much to talk about that, but to talk about mandatory spending. For those who are concerned about what we are doing or not doing on appropriations bills, and for those who are concerned about the fact that the government spends too much money, let me suggest that discretionary spending, the appropriations that I deal with as chairman, that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) deals with as the ranking member, we deal with one-third of the overall budget. Two-thirds, two-thirds of the government spending is mandatory, over which we as appropriators have no involvement whatever, except our vote on the floor. If we are serious about containing and constraining spending, we had better deal with mandatories. One of the big issues that Members have heard me talk about on the floor before was the agriculture bill that went $100 billion over the baseline, and some of the very people concerned about the levels of spending on the discretionary accounts voted for that bill. Now, if Members are going to be concerned about too much spending, pay attention to the mandatories, the back-door spending. Pay attention there as much as they do to the discretionary spending. Then we will have a fair and equal, balanced debate. But until we pay attention to mandatory spending, there is not a whole lot of room to talk on discretionary spending.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip; but before he begins, I would like to notify the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will be the last speaker, and then I will reserve and have a closing statement.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that based on OMB's analysis of the continuing resolution, Amtrak would do very well on an annualized basis; their share would be $1.1 billion, and I tend to be one of those who support Amtrak and believe that the Nation has got to maintain the ability to move goods and people by rail and by highways, as well as by air. But OMB believes that Amtrak does very well under the amortized CR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, which, in fact, did pass a budget this year.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I seldom try to put words in the mouth of other Members, but I listened carefully to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and I think he did misspeak on one particular issue. The gentleman emphasized that the House had not considered one appropriations bill. The fact of the matter is that we have sent to the Senate the Defense bill, the Legislative branch bill, the Military Construction bill, the Interior bill, and the Treasury-Postal Service bill. We have passed those through the House. In addition, I would add that the Agriculture bill, the District of Columbia bill, the Energy and Water Development bill, the Foreign Operations bill, Transportation bill, and the Labor-HHS-Education bill are all ready to be considered at a moment's notice. We will mark up the VA-HUD bill next week. The committee has been very aggressive in meeting its responsibilities.