C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is now almost 10 p.m., and Members have a right to know what the plan is for the balance of the evening or the morning, whatever the case might be. Maybe as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) suggested, we can have an off-site conversation about this. That being the case, we will report back.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think that is fair; but before we make any motion to open the title or close the title, I think we need to have an idea. If Members intend to keep us here all night, we ought to know that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious to Members what exercise we are going through here and why. There has been a lot of debate. I remind Members of a very famous Member of this House, Morris Udall, and I think many know him, if not personally, by reputation. If I can paraphrase what he said, everything that needs to be said has already been said; the problem is that not everybody has said it yet. We have had a fairly good debate here. I would like to ask someone representing the organized effort to amend this bill, if someone could tell me how many amendments we might be looking at in title I of this bill, for example. We have some colloquies and some points of order we need to get to. We could open up title I and deal with the amendments that are at the desk, but I am wondering how many amendments are at the desk or would be if that request is made. I wonder if some Member could respond to me with an answer.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that, and I do not want to be combative about this, but I am looking for an explanation. I want to ask the same question that I asked of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). What is the difference in back- door spending dollars versus the discretionary spending dollars?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, I commend the gentleman for that, for being realistic about the needs. But what is the difference in the mandatory dollar versus the discretionary dollar? It seems to me they are both the same. They are both spending.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting close to the end of this debate, at least I have consulted with some of the potential speakers, and I think we are near the end. I have to say I am a little uncomfortable here today because these Members who are proposing this amendment, I find myself more philosophically tuned in to their position than to my friends who are supporting my position on this amendment. However, I still think these Members are wrong in this case. I want to correct a couple of things. First of all, the President's budget, when he sent it down here, was $768 billion for discretionary spending. The budget that we are working under in the House is not the $768 billion that the President requested, it is $759 billion. We are under the President's budget request by $9 billion, but we are working with it. One of the earlier speakers, the gentleman from Wisconsin, talked about how this is unraveling the appropriations process. He talked about how we are going to spend all the money on the easy bills, and then we are going to rip off the bills at the end. The gentleman specifically mentioned the Labor-HHS bill, the Veterans Affairs-HUD bill, and the Commerce-State-Justice bill. The Labor-HHS bill under the Committee on Appropriations' 302(b) is exactly at the President's request. The 302(b) for the Commerce-Justice-State bill is only one percent below the President's request. The 302(b) for the VA-HUD bill is less than one percent below the President's request. So we are not messing up the appropriations process. It is not unraveling. As I said, philosophically I tend to be more in tune with these Members, but in this case it is important that we defeat this amendment. The Bureau of Land Management is involved in processes that bring in $6 billion a year because of leasing arrangements that have been ongoing. We do not want to unravel that process. I want to close with this comment, and I did not ask all of my colleagues this question because there were too many of them. But what is the difference in a dollar spent by back-door spending in a mandated spending bill, and a dollar spent in a discretionary spending bill? The way I look at it, there is no difference. A dollar spent is a dollar spent. What is magic about mandatory programs versus discretionary programs? I was happy to remind some of my friendly colleagues who support this amendment that they in fact voted for the farm bill, and I am not saying that it is a good vote or a bad vote, but it spent $90 billion over the baseline. That is a $90 billion increase over a period of years. What is the difference in $90 billion spent there. And now they want to unravel this bill for $162 million.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding to me this time. As I think most of us know, this will be the last bill that Chairman Skeen will present to this Congress before he enjoys his well-deserved retirement. I think that I can truly say that, of all the Members in this House, I do not know of anyone who is more respected and more loved by his colleagues. Those who support and endorse his work, and even those who disagree with his work, understand that Joe Skeen is a real statesman, a real gentleman, and someone we have come to learn and trust and respect and love over the years. Joe came to Congress under an unusual situation. He was elected as a write-in candidate. I do not know a lot of people who have come to Congress as a write-in candidate. It does not happen very often. But Joe Skeen was such an overwhelming personality and such a hard worker in his district that people understood and respected him. When our party became the majority party in Congress, Joe became the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations. He did a really good job. He helped to create farm and agriculture packages that were workable and that were good for our farming communities. Since then, because of term limitations placed on chairmen, Joe became chairman of this Subcommittee on the Interior. Last year he produced an excellent outstanding interior bill; and this year once again Chairman Joe Skeen, along with his partner, the minority ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), has produced a very good bill. It might not satisfy everybody. It might not be enough spending for some. It might be too much for others, but all in all it is a good bill. And it is a bill that should get a substantial vote in this House when we finally get to voting on the bill itself. And as we go through the amendment process, we will listen to what Chairman Skeen has to say because he is a strong leader on this issue. But my primary comments were not to be about the bill itself. They were to be about the chairman who produced the bill and the members of his subcommittee. He is just a very much-revered member of Congress. He is loved and respected in his own home district. I know it is not proper to speak directly to a Member on the floor; but, Joe, I will tell you that as chairman of the committee I will miss you. You have been a long-time friend. I could not respect you more than I do. And in the most sincere way, let me tell you that as a human being, I love you, Joe Skeen. You have been a tremendous, tremendous positive effect on this House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question. If he would explain to me and to our colleagues in the House the difference in discretionary spending and mandatory spending, back-door spending in effect, and compare that to this amendment versus the farm bill that the gentleman voted for and that spends $90 billion over the baseline. If he could just explain the difference, explain the consistencies or inconsistencies.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I feel inclined to do this at this time. I listened to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who is my friend, and I have said many times on the floor I believe in years to come he will become one of our very strong leaders. He is right to want fiscal discipline in the Congress. Congress should not be spending any more money than is needed. But I have to disagree with some of the comments that he made. For example, he said the appropriations process has unraveled. On the contrary, the appropriations process is one of the few processes in this Congress that has not unraveled. The appropriations process works. Look at some of the others. Why is it that appropriators are asked to include nonappropriations issues on appropriations bills? Because the other processes are not working, we are asked to do a lot of things that are not even appropriations matters. The appropriations process has not unraveled, not at all. Let me tell the Members what has unraveled: The budget process that the gentleman seems to like so much has totally unraveled. We do not have a budget process, I will say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin. There is no budget process in this Congress. Here is the way it is supposed to work. Under the law, the House should pass a budget resolution. We did that. The Senate should pass a budget resolution. They did not do that; but nevertheless, they are supposed to. Then the two houses come together and we decide on what the top number is for the budget, referred to as a 302(a) number. That did not happen this year. The House deemed, then, a budget resolution. But let me tell the Members what this budget resolution does when the Senate does not have the same top number. How do I reconcile appropriations bills with my colleagues in the other body if their top number is $9 billion higher than the House number? How do I force them down? Well, we try. On the supplemental we are working on, we have brought the Senate down almost to the House number that we passed. There are still some differences there, but we did bring them down. But it is very difficult if we do not have the same top number. So the budget process broke down. And now about Social Security and fiscal discipline. Spending, Mr. Chairman, spending is spending. Whether it is spending by a discretionary appropriations bill or whether it is spending by back-door spending, through mandated entitlement programs or mandatory programs. A dollar being spent as a mandated program, or back-door spending, if you will, is the same, as a dollar appropriated by the Congress. Congress earlier this year approved an agriculture bill. That bill increased the baseline for agriculture by $90 billion. Ninety billion, I would say to my friend from Wisconsin, spread over a 10-year period. Actually, it was supposed to be spread over a 6-year period, but it looked like it was less by doing it over a 10-year period. My friend from Wisconsin feels worried about Social Security, and I applaud him for that. I am too because I represent a lot of people on Social Security. But I voted against that farm bill because it provided a $90 billion increase over the baseline. The gentleman from Wisconsin, who just spoke talking about fiscal and budget discipline, voted for the $90 billion increase over the baseline. Now, we have got to be consistent in this House. If you are for spending, then vote to spend. If you are against spending, then vote not to spend; but do not stand up here after having voted for a very large increase in back-door spending and then criticize a small amount of money in a discretionary bill. I am opposed to this amendment, and I hope the House will come down in large numbers to oppose this amendment. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has worked hard to get this bill in balance, to make it a good bill. We can show you reasons why the BLM could use additional money, but we do not have additional money; and so we are not going to recommend it to the House. I hope the House will give us an overwhelming vote against this amendment. We will not let this appropriations process unravel, and I know there are some that would like to see that happen. I read some comments in some of the in-house news media bout how some people are going to disrupt totally the appropriations process. One of the few constitutional requirements and obligations that Congress has is the appropriations process, the power of the purse. Nobody else has the right to spend money for this Federal Government except the Congress of the United States, and we are going to protect that constitutional responsibility. We are going to keep the oath of office that we took to protect the Constitution. Stick with us on this bill. Vote down this amendment. It is not a good amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this morning I have introduced legislation to name the United States Post Office at 3135 First Avenue North in St. Petersburg, Florida for the Honorable William C. Cramer, who represented the great state of Florida in this House for 16 years from January 3, 1955 to January 3, 1971. Bill Cramer moved to St. Petersburg in 1925 where he attended public schools and The St. Petersburg Junior College. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1943 and served with distinction as a gunnery officer during World War II. In particular he was cited for his service daring the allied invasion of southern France. He was discharged as a Lieutenant in 1946. Upon leaving the Navy, he graduated from the University of North Carolina and the Harvard Law School. He was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1948, when he began practicing law in St. Petersburg. Bill Cramer began his distinguished career in public service in 1950, when he was elected to the Florida House of Representatives, where he served until 1952, including one year as the House's first Minority Leader. It was in November of 1954 that he was elected to the United States House of Representatives, and was sworn into the 84h Congress on January 3, 1955. Bill Cramer was the first Republican from Florida elected to the House since reconstruction in 1875. He was reelected to seven succeeding Congresses. During his eight terms in the House, Bill Cramer established a reputation for being one of our nation's foremost experts on transportation and public works issues. His career in Congress culminated with his service as the Ranking Republican on the House Public Works Committee, its Subcommittee on Roads, and on the Federal Aid Highway Investigating Committee. He also served as a member of the Judiciary Committee. Following his retirement from the House, Bill Cramer was a distinguished professor and lecturer at The St. Petersburg Junior College, where he taught very popular classes in politics and government. He is the father of three sons: William C., Jr., Mark C., and Allyn Walters. He and his wife Sara currently live in St. Petersburg. Mr. Speaker, Bill Cramer is a friend and mentor who served our nation with great honor in this House, The enactment of this legislation will leave in St. Petersburg, the hometown he so dearly loves and served, a lasting tribute to his service, his patriotism, and his devotion to our nation.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. This is an open rule. Unlike some of the bills that come to this floor under closed rules, this is an open rule. The Committee on Appropriations brings open rules to the floor. Members will have an opportunity to deal with this bill responsibly, and this rule makes that in order. Now, I understand, listening to some in the debate, that there are going to be some who do not like this bill. Well, that is usually always the case that some will not like this bill. But we cannot predict what will happen to bill number 13 based on bill number three. And this is only number three of the FY 2003 appropriation bills. Now, why is that? Why is this only bill number three, and we here in the middle of July? It is number three because this chairman made a commitment to the President of the United States that this year the first appropriations bill to move through the House would be the defense appropriations bill, and the second one would be the military construction bill. And, Mr. Speaker, this chairman kept that commitment. While we were doing that, we were also working on a supplemental, which was basically all defense and homeland security. So we have been very busy. Now, these other bills backed up because we have kept that commitment to the President to move the defense bills first. In a time of war, I think that is perfectly acceptable. I think it is a good idea. But now I understand that because some people might not like what is coming down the road, they are going to use all the dilatory tactics we can on this interior bill, which is the last bill that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is going to present to this House before he retires. We are providing the membership with a good bill. There may be some differences, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is why we have an open rule. But this is a good bill. It meets the needs and the requirements of this country. There is nothing wrong with this bill. If there are some who think they want to change it, they can offer an amendment. Under an open rule, that is what you do. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I read some comments by some of our colleagues who want to destroy the appropriations process. Do it, if you can. But understand that of all the bills that are considered in this House during a fiscal year, the ones that really have to pass are the appropriations bills, because without the appropriations bills, nothing happens. So destroy the process, if you want. The budget process WAS destroyed. There is no budget process here, which makes it very difficult to appropriate and confer with our counterparts in the other body. If what you are about here is just numbers and the destruction of the appropriations process, so be it. But I believe that a vast majority of this House will not agree to that because they understand the importance of the appropriations process to this House. Mr. Speaker, again, this is a good rule, it is an open rule, and it allows the House to work its will.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time on this very important rule on this very important bill. As she has pointed out, this is an open rule; and I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that since I became chairman of this committee, I have never, ever asked for anything other than an open rule so that Members would have an opportunity to be part of the appropriations process. So this is an open rule as we always ask for on all bills. I had asked the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), I wanted to make a few comments not only on the rule but on the bill, the defense bill that we moved earlier today under the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the bill we moved this afternoon under the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), ranking minority member, both very good bills. We had made a commitment to move the defense bill first. We have now done that. We now will be moving the Military Construction bill. We are keeping our commitment on schedule, and so I wanted to take just a few minutes, besides mentioning the open rule, to mention the fact that this bill goes directly to the quality of life for America's men and women who serve in uniform. A lot of the money in this bill goes for housing for those who serve in the military. I would suggest to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that if they ever have an extra couple of hours, they might want to visit some military bases and look firsthand at some of the housing and where our troops are quartered; and I think they would come back here demanding even more money than this bill provides to provide decent housing for the military in those cases where the housing really is not all that good. I think if one of us took our kids to a college or a university and we saw housing like some of our military live in, we would put them back in the car and take them back home. We would not let them live like we are requiring some of our military to live. So this bill goes a long way towards solving that problem. But I must point out that there is a much longer way to go. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done. I want to compliment again the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for the good work in producing this bill in a bipartisan fashion, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). They have done a really good job. I do not think there is any controversy to this bill whatsoever, and it should move quickly. I just want to point out also that, on the defense bill that I did not speak on earlier today, trying to save time, that the staff and the chairman and the ranking member and the members of that subcommittee worked long, hard hours, days, nights. Oftentimes we hear that about the staff. But in the case of the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), he was here on weekends, late at night; and he was here every step of the way. That is why the bill he produced, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), was such a good bill. It was really well-thought-out, and it does a good job for our Nation's defense. So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be supportive of this rule; and I am very proud to be supportive of this good bill that adds considerably to the quality of life for our men and women who serve in our uniform. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. She has done an outstanding job on this good rule; and she has an interesting closing comment, I think, which I support enthusiastically when she makes it.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4775) making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering this motion to instruct, for it gives us an opportunity to remind our colleagues what it is that we are doing here. We are dealing with an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to provide for the defense of the Nation and our homeland security. What we are talking about is repaying to the military services the funds that they have expended already on the war in Afghanistan. The services have used considerable amounts of money that normally would have been reserved for their fourth quarter training activities and maintenance activities, quality-of-life activities. So in effect, we are paying back money that has already been spent because of the war in Afghanistan. So our troops are involved, our intelligence community is involved. We are talking about paying for the safety and security of the United States, at home and abroad. We are talking about recovery in New York City; and we are talking about promoting U.S. foreign policy to prevent future terrorist attacks. In other words, we were a government mobilized after the terrible, terrible attack on September 11 to protect America, to protect Americans, and to do everything humanly possible to guarantee that those tragedies are not allowed to happen again. So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this. But I cannot support his motion to instruct for a very simple reason, and it is not that I disagree with some of the items that he has spoken of and that he would like to see done. I know the gentleman from Wisconsin and I both have visited the agencies that he has mentioned and we both understand the needs that they have to bring their technology into the 21st century, for example. But the gentleman from Wisconsin is an experienced expert negotiator; and I think because of that expertise, he understands that if we were to pass this motion to instruct, we would take away much of the flexibility of the conference committee to resolve many of the differences that exist between the House and the Senate. The Senate bill is approximately $3 billion higher than the House bill. It does contain some special projects that were added in the other body which I would like to see taken from the bill, and I would like to have the opportunity to negotiate some of those special projects out of the bill, because from what I have seen of the bill so far, there are numerous projects that were added there that I do not think belong in this bill. But we have to have the ability and the opportunity to negotiate with our counterparts in the other body to reach a conference agreement that we can bring back to both Houses and pass quickly and get this bill to the President. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that here we are in the middle of June. If the services do not have these monies replaced by July 1, their planning is already set to stand down training operations, to stand down sailing Navy ships, Navy vessels, to stand down flight hours, training hours for pilots. I do not want that to happen. So we need to expedite this, and we need to have the ability to conduct negotiations that are necessary to get this conference completed, and then passed by the House and the Senate, and then sent to the President for his approval. So I think the gentleman's motion is well intended, but I think it really ties our hands behind our backs on the part of those of us who will be part of this conference that will be leading the negotiations with the other body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), another subcommittee chairman on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank all of the Members for their very spirited and enthusiastic participation in this great exercise in democracy, where the majority rules. My only request of the Members is to remember that before they vote, this is a wartime emergency supplemental appropriations bill. My colleagues may not like some of the feathers, but the main body of the product is exactly what I said, a wartime emergency supplemental to support our troops in the field and to make sure that they have whatever they need and that we do not stand down any of our military preparedness. So what I would ask is that Members will vote for final passage for this bill. On this vote, let us vote ``no'' and then let us go to the final passage vote. Parliamentary Inquiry