[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2229-H2238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, March 13, 1996, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
163) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 163

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 104-99 is amended by striking out ``March 15, 1996'' in 
     sections 106(c), 112, 126(c), 202(c) and 214 and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``March 22, 1996'', and by inserting in section 
     101(a) after ``The Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996'' the following ``, H.R. 
     1977'', and by inserting in section 101(a) after ``The 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996'' the 
     following ``, H.R. 2127'', and that Public Law 104-92 is 
     amended by striking out ``March 15, 1996'' in section 106(c) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``March 22, 1996''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, March 13, 1996, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will each be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].


                             general leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Joint Resolution 163 and that I may include tabular and 
extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution before the House 
would

[[Page H2230]]

extend for 1 week the provisions of Public Law 104-99 and Public Law 
104-92, the current temporary funding authorities for a portion of the 
Government that expire tomorrow night.
  The Senate has not yet passed H.R. 3019, the fiscal year 1996 wrapup 
appropriations bill that we passed a week ago in the House. I 
understand that the other body will probably conclude their action on 
this bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect that there will be significant differences in 
the Senate amendments to the House version that will need to be worked 
out in conference next week. Last week, when we had H.R. 3019 on the 
floor, I said I expected the White House views to be represented in the 
conference, and I hope that that will still be the case.
  But that will take some time. It cannot be done before tomorrow 
night, and that is why we are bringing this 1 week extension to the 
floor.
  I understand the Senate will agree with this joint resolution and 
that the President will sign it. I urge all Members to support this 
joint resolution. We need to pass this quickly so that we can work on 
reaching agreement on our fiscal year 1996 appropriations wrapup bill 
with the Senate and the White House, and we hope to do that as 
expeditiously as possible so we can move on to the fiscal year 1997 
appropriations cycle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not know quite what to say about this 
proposition before us. This is both a remarkable and a very frustrating 
day in the history of this institution as far as I am concerned. It is 
frustrating to me personally because regardless of the partisan 
differences which we have had in this House through the years, the 
Committee on Appropriations and the appropriations process has been a 
bipartisan exception on most occasions to the partisanship which has 
sometimes plagued this House. This year it is amazingly different, and 
it has nothing whatsoever to do with any shortcomings of the chairman 
of the committee. He has tried his level best to see to it that the 
committee functions and he has tried his level best to see to it that 
bipartisanship remains, because this committee, when all of the 
shouting is over, has the job, the way this House works and the way the 
Congress works, this committee has the job to try to make things work 
after all the shouting is over. Yet, for a variety of reasons, we are 
not going to be allowed to perform that function.
  We are now 166 days into the new fiscal year. We are debating, I 
believe, the 11th continuing resolution. We were supposed to have all 
of our work done by the 1st of October. But 80 percent of the domestic 
appropriations of the U.S. Government is still not in law, and we are 
now considering a 7-day continuation of funding in order to keep the 
Government open, and probably next week we will have to consider 
another 7-day continuing resolution.
  Stop and go, stop and go, and I think in the process, this House is 
going to look sillier and sillier and sillier. The main job assigned to 
the Congress of the United States by the Constitution is to serve as 
the chief stewards for the public purse and to allocate funding of 
taxpayers' money. And I am sad to say that on that score this year this 
body has become virtually dysfunctional. The machinery has stopped. 
Congress is stuck.
  This House has taken a position, at least the majority within this 
House, has taken a position on insisting on very severe cutbacks in 
education funding, very severe cutbacks in environmental cleanup 
funding. That is a position which has not been taken by Republicans in 
the Senate. It has not been taken by Democrats in the Senate. It has 
not been taken by the White House. And it has not been taken by the 
American people. And yet we are stuck because the one caucus, the one 
group of folks who could change their position and help do something 
about this impasse will not do it.
  Then we see in the Washington Post this morning a column by Robert 
Novak indicating that a number of freshman Republicans have gone to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the floor leader, asking him to stand 
pat against even the modest increases in education that were supported 
on a bipartisan basis, with only 14 dissenting votes in the Senate, 
just 2 days ago.
  So I think that gives you some idea of what we are up against in 
trying to do the people's business.
  Now the problem is not just that the Congress is looking sillier and 
sillier on this. The problem is also that that silliness and that 
obstreperousness is affecting the day-to-day ability of local school 
districts to function in an orderly way.
  I visited a wide variety of schools in my district during the recess, 
looked at a lot of Federal programs in those school districts. The 
problem is that those local school districts are being left hung out to 
dry by this ying-yanging here in the congressional appropriations 
process.
  April is the month that schools are supposed to sign contracts with 
the people who will be teaching our kids in September. Lots of those 
school districts do not know who is going to be in the front of the 
classroom in many of those classrooms. They do not know how they are 
going to be able to absorb the $3.3 billion reduction in education, the 
largest education cut in the history of the country.
  The Senate is moving somewhat in the President's direction. But this 
House is still stuck, and I would predict right now flatly that next 
week we are going to have to go through this entire process again. I 
think that is a shame. I think it is a shame for your local school 
districts. I think it is a shame for people who think that at least 
once in a while Government ought to look like it knows what it is 
doing.
  I certainly think it is a shame for the local school districts in my 
district who are going to experience continued turmoil and continued 
unanswered questions. And, frankly, I have had enough of it. I just do 
not think this ought to continue.
  I would call to the leadership of this House to do what everybody 
knows is going to have to be done if this is going to be resolved. It 
is not going to do us any good to sit in a conference between the 
Senate appropriators and the House appropriators next week when we do 
not know what the House leadership will accept by way of restorations 
or by way of offsets for education and for environmental funding that 
is essential to the well-being of this country and the citizens we 
represent.
  Until this House leadership focuses on that question, we are facing 
the prospect of another Government shutdown. There is no mistake about 
it. There is absolutely no reason that should happen. But people are 
going to have to give up their ideological Jihad on this issue if we 
are to break through this impasse. And so I call upon the House 
leadership, rather than going to war again, as some of our majority 
Members of this House appear to want the majority leader to do, I think 
this is the time to work things out.
  So I would urge that proper attention be paid by the leadership of 
this House before this country stumbles into another shutdown which 
will further discredit this institution, which all of us are supposed 
to respect and love.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it was my hope that we could dispose of this resolution 
rather quickly, but it appears it is going to be somewhat prolonged. So 
let me just make the point that the wrapup continuing appropriations 
bill that we await action upon in the Senate governs four bills with 
the possibility that they may inject a fifth, the District of Columbia 
bill, even though it is working its way separately through the entire 
process. It has likewise been hung up in the Senate. If, in fact, the 
Senate puts the District of Columbia bill on this final wrapup omnibus 
bill, that is their right to do so, and we will have to deal with it.
  The other four bills are hung up at this late date, and I agree with 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, that is indeed late, but they have been 
hung up not because of any inaction of the House of Representatives. In 
fact, three of those bills worked their way all the way through the 
entire congressional legislative process, went to the President of the 
United States before Christmas, and he vetoed them.

[[Page H2231]]

  Last week we put them in one wrap up bill to work their way through 
subsequently, with the good hope that the President might work with the 
Congress and reach some agreement on them. Frankly, no agreement has 
been reached to date, and the process drags on for those three bills. 
Those were the Commerce, Justice, State, judiciary bill, the Interior 
bill, and the VA-HUD bill.
  The fourth bill that provides education funding, which, I suspect, is 
going to be the topic of the next few speakers, is the Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education bill that passed this House August 4 of 
last year. That is the last time we saw it, because it was filibustered 
by presumably the minority party in the Senate, and that is where it 
remains today. It never got out of the Senate. Every time somebody 
tried to bring it up, someone from the minority party would jump up and 
object to its consideration.
  Now, I appreciate the tenor of the comments from my friend from 
Wisconsin. And, frankly, I am concerned that we are dragging out this 
process for fiscal year 1996. It detracts from the ability of the House 
to discuss the problems affecting the fiscal year 1997 appropriations 
cycle and the future bills inherent in that process become all the more 
difficult, because we have got to complete them by the end of the 
summer before the election season kicks in.

                              {time}  1045

  So every day, every week that goes by without completing the 1996 
cycle, it is just a little less time that we have to devote to 1997. It 
concerns me greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, but, putting the cards on the table, the fault does not 
lie with the House of Representatives, with either party. The fault 
lies jointly in the system. Three bills were vetoed by the President, 
one was filibustered in the Senate, and I am not going to take the 
blame for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think the chairman of this committee ought to 
take the blame for it. It is not the gentleman's fault and I recognize 
that. But I do think that it is necessary to understand that the 
President was representing the overwhelming number of Americans when he 
decided that it was not correct to cut education funding by over $3 
billion; when he decided it was not correct to cut environmental 
enforcement by 22 percent; when he decided it was not correct to allow 
massive new timber cutting in the Tongass rain forest; when he decided 
it was not correct to allow a whole laundry list of environmental and 
other legislative riders to be added to these bills which have nothing 
whatsoever to do with budgeting.
  So it seems to me that the record is clear that it is this House 
which is out of step with public opinion and with the needs of the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, every time I go out, people say, why can 
this body not be more bipartisan?
  I honestly do not think the problem is with this committee. We have 
just heard from the chairman and ranking member. They are not at each 
other's neck. Yet for people that watch C-SPAN, this is getting to be 
like ``Groundhog Day,'' the movie, where every day you get up and go 
through the whole same Groundhog Day again.
   Mr. Speaker, here we are, 6 months into this fiscal year, and this 
is the 11th continuing resolution. Kind of jump-starting it, week by 
week, as we sputter along. This one is only going to be for a week. At 
the rate we are going, we may be down to hours. Who knows, Mr. 
Chairman? You have the patience of a saint. I do not think these 
gentlemen are doing this to get time on C-Span either. I think they 
would just as soon have had this thing done and wrapped up and put 
away.
  What we are really talking about is we have had many times before 
where the Congress and the President disagreed and there were vetoes, 
but, you know what? We got together and worked it out. We have got a 
small minority within a majority refusing to let them get together and 
work it out, because they say that is capitulation.
  So when they say the President will not work with us, what they mean 
is the President will not capitulate to us. And how can the President? 
He is the President of all the people. The people are saying we do not 
want these environmental programs cut, we do not want education cut.
   Mr. Speaker, we just saw the leader in the other body come back, who 
is probably the freshest of all of us. He has been out campaigning. It 
now appears he has the mantle to carry his party into the presidency. 
He votes with the 84 people in the Senate who say, ``We ought not to 
cut education that deeply and we ought not to do that.''
  So what we have is a large consensus in the other body, the 
President, a strong consensus here. But we have a minority holding it 
back so we cannot do anything but come out week by week with another 
one of these patch and plaster up over the holes and go on.
  We are going to be committed to Groundhog Day forever unless we stand 
up. I think it is terribly important we realize this is the worst way 
to run a government, the least efficient, and get on with it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. Speaker, actually, I agree. It is not a great process. I would 
have loved to have expedited it and been done with it. In fact, I 
think, had we been able to reach an agreement with the President on the 
remaining bills not enacted since Christmas, we would have been done 
with this process.
  But back then the President closed the door, he vetoed the bills and 
then blamed the Congress for turning the Federal employees out on the 
street, when in fact it was his vetoes that did it. He won the PR wars 
during the Christmas holidays, no doubt about that. It was a public 
relations battle. I look back on what happened, and I think the 
President clearly won the PR wars.
  But in negotiating with the administration since then, in trying to 
reach a resolution on these bills, we have found it singularly 
impossible to get them to seriously come to grips with the problems 
with which we are faced in these various bills. After all, in December 
the President said that he wanted to get the budget under control and 
that he was in favor of a balanced budget. In February he said that the 
era of big government is over. About that same time, he was telling us 
he wanted $4 to $6 billion in additional spending in those bills he had 
vetoed. Now we are getting the message that anywhere from $8 to $12 
billion additional spending is necessary for the same bills.

  The fact of the matter is that the signals coming from the White 
House have been extraordinarily mixed and conflicting, and they have 
not shown any inclination to come and meet us halfway and settle this 
problem so we can move on to fiscal year 1997.
  Now, as we pointed out yesterday, the fact is that even if you use 
the President's $8 billion figure that he wants in additional spending, 
notwithstanding his proclamation that the era of big government is now 
over, notwithstanding that the fact that the bills in question already 
appropriate some $160 billion and he wants $8 billion more, when you 
get into the details of what he is really asking for, you have to 
scratch your head and say, ``Is this worth hanging up government 
over?'' Is this worth saying to the Congress, ``If you do not give me 
my $8 billion, I am going to close down government?'' Is this worth 
virtually hijacking the Congress and the processes available to us and 
threatening the closure of the operations if he does not get his way?
  I would say no. The point is, when you look at some of the programs 
that he wants to spend money on, the GLOBE Program, for example, which 
I know is near and dear to the Vice President's heart, the Global 
Learning Observation to Benefit the Environment Program. Its goal is to 
teach youngsters in the United States and foreign countries how to do 
such things as collect environmental data such as rainfall. Now that is 
a real significant program.
  Then there is the Ounce of Prevention Council. Last year they spent 
$1.5 million on it, and this year they seek to spend $2 million; and 
all they did

[[Page H2232]]

last year, they are supposed to let out a lot of grants but for some 
reason, perhaps the closure of Government, they said they were not able 
to do it. So they put out a nice glossy book, for $1.5 million. Now 
they want to raise that now to $2 million. Maybe it will be a thicker 
book.
  Then there is the Safe and Drug-free Schools Program, which I think 
has a marvelous name. Really, who can argue with Safe and Drug-free 
Schools, unless you find out that, as reported in the Fairfax Journal 
in May 1995, that in Talbot County, MD, their schools spent grant money 
on a disk jockey and guitarists for a dance, lumber to build steps for 
aerobic classes, and school administrators spent more than $175,000 for 
a retreat at a resort in Michaels, MD.
  Additionally, another school district in Texas received a grant for 
$13. How many bureaucrats had to get together and figure out that this 
was a really meaningful grant of $13, and how much did that ultimately 
cost us? Congress would trim that program to $200 million in fiscal 
year 1996. The President says that is not enough, $200 million is not 
enough. Maybe we will have a lot more $13 grants in the future if the 
President gets his way.
  He would say that the $8 billion is important because we have to 
spend more money on loan volume for direct student loan programs. The 
fact is, when you analyze what he wants to accomplish, you see that it 
would broaden the loan program for student loans for new institutions, 
some 481 new institutions, 138 of which are beauty, cosmetology, and 
barber schools. There is the Acme Beauty College, the California 
Medical School of Shiatsu, Naomi's Mile High Beauty College, the Ph.D. 
Hair Academy, and three schools of massage therapy. Now, that would be 
a real valuable use of taxpayer money.
  Then there is the Advanced Technology Program we hear so much about, 
that the President wants $300 million over the level in our bill. That 
is mostly corporate welfare. It is taxpayers' dollars going to big 
companies in order to fund new technologies.
  Then there is the trusty old AmeriCorps Program. Get a volunteer and 
pay them. Of course, the average estimate of cost was some $17,000 to 
$18,000 per volunteer. That was one thing. Then we found out in 
Baltimore they paid them $50,000. That is what the cost-per-participant 
was in Baltimore, $50,000 a volunteer. I know a lot of American 
citizens who are paying taxes that would probably like to volunteer for 
that kind of a job at 50 grand apiece.
  Well, on and on it goes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman made an interesting case. I would 
want to say that my understanding is that some of the money the 
President has requested, he has also offered offsets. I think it is 
unfair to just say he asks for flatout money. He has offered offsets. I 
think we would want the record to be clear on that.
  I think that many of these programs the gentleman is talking about 
are on the basis they have been block granted, for example the Drug-
Free School Programs the gentleman is talking about. Those were block 
grants to the local communities for people to try and figure out how to 
spend the money in the best way to get the people's attention.
  So I find it a little disconcerting that on the one hand you say we 
should trust the local officials, but then when we do and they do 
something and say this works in our neighborhood, then people say they 
did the wrong thing. So I do not know.
  All I am saying is I do think it is very important to say there have 
been offsets, that I do not think this was just a PR war, and that this 
President has vetoed fewer bills than any President that has been here 
since I have been elected.
  So I think the press looked at why he vetoed these bills, and I think 
that is why the people have been on his side.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
   Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct some of the statements made by 
the distinguished chairman of the committee. The President has not 
asked us to spend more money. What happened is very simple: The 
majority party in this House decided that they wanted to spend $7 
billion more on the Pentagon budget than the President wanted them to 
spend. The President decided, in the midst of the Bosnia crisis, that 
while he was opposed to that increase, he would accept the passage of 
that bill as a good will gesture during budgeted negotiations, as much 
as he did not want to spend that additional money. So that $7 billion 
is moved over to the Pentagon.
  Now the majority party is insisting that that $7 billion come out of 
the hide of environmental cleanup enforcement, out of the hide of 
education, and out of the hide of the Interior appropriations bill. So 
they have made these cuts in education programs, in job training 
programs, in drug education programs and the like.
  The President said, ``I do not think that is a good idea, folks.'' So 
he came down here and suggested offsets. I have got a copy of them in 
my hand. He suggested spending offsets, areas of the budget that could 
be cut in order to finance the restorations he is looking for in 
education and training and in the environment.
  So, No. 1, get off this idea that he is asking that more money be 
spent in the aggregate. He has suggested cuts to offset the money. If 
you do not like where he has taken the offsets, bring up your own list. 
But do not say the President has not offered ways to offset it.
  Let me also point out that what you have got here in my view is a 
political rather than a substantive problem. Robert Novak's column this 
morning points out that the majority leader suggested that, and I am 
reading now, ``There was no hope for the Republican Party if it 
succumbed to Clinton. Instead of cutting a deal with the President,'' 
he said, ``Let's fund the government with a series of short-term 
extensions of spending authority.''

                              {time}  1100

  Then he goes on to say it was asserted that there ``would not be much 
chance for the Republican Party to win the allegiance of Pat Buchanan's 
followers if the party leadership showed the feather.''
  That is what is going on here; it is politics, and, because of that, 
we are being asked to take huge reductions in education funding.
  Now my colleagues can laugh all they want about the GLOBE Program. I 
visited a GLOBE Program in Chippewa County in my own district and 
watched those very young kids learn something about climate, learn 
something about the interconnection of various parts of the globe 
because of the environmental issue. I think the tiny amount of money 
spent on that program was well worth teaching those youngsters that we 
are all connected on this globe.
  If we take a look at safe and drug-free schools, I will stipulate, if 
my colleagues do not like the way, and the gentleman just mentioned six 
items he did not like, spending for those items. I will happily accept 
cuts in all of these programs for the dollar amounts of the screw-ups 
that the gentleman has cited by the local school districts. But I do 
not grant that because some of the school district in Florida or some 
other State has screwed up the way they use safe and drug-free school 
money that my district should not get any, or that my district should 
not get summer youth because some other district may have screwed up 
the way they spent it. Fix it up in that locality, do not savage the 
program; that is the way to deal with it. My local police chief happens 
to think that safe and drug-free schools is an important program.
  As far as student loans are concerned, there is absolutely no reason 
whatsoever why we ought to raise the cost of going to college for kids 
in this country by $10 billion over the next 7 years. That is what our 
colleagues are asking us to do.
  Title I; I do not know how many of my colleagues visited title I 
projects. I think they are crucial to an awful lot of families in my 
district.
  AmeriCorps; my colleagues can laugh all they want about it, but those 
volunteers help coordinate other neighborhood volunteers to supervise 
kids who commit the majority of youth crime in this country, majority 
of violent crimes, between 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the afternoons 
because they are not

[[Page H2233]]

supervised. That is one of the things AmeriCorps is trying to correct.
  So do not tell Chippewa Falls district, do not tell Wausau, do not 
tell Colby school districts, or all the other school districts in my 
district they have got to take a cut because of some political agenda 
of the majority party. I do not think the country is going to buy that.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I would 
like to then yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  I just point out that, as my colleagues know, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] chairman of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, pointed out there are 760 education 
programs. Only 6 percent are actually dedicated to math, reading and 
science. Now this country spends $26 billion on just the Education 
Department alone, and by some estimates when we include all the other 
departments in the Government, we may spend some $200 billion on 
education, and yet the other side never wants to eliminate a program, 
they never want to close a program. Lord, do we need 760 education 
programs?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
is so enamored with his own opinion he states it as fact, and he is 
misinformed, first of all, that our schools, in almost every category 
we score last among the developed nations. Great Britain and Japan 
score far above us in every category, and in some categories Japan 
scores twice of our students in scores. We have less than 12 percent of 
our classrooms, and I laud the President for his ideas and working to 
get our classrooms upgraded. But we have such a proliferation of 
dollars with 760 programs spread over 39 programs.
  The ranking minority member on the budget agrees that the title I 
program, the direct lending Government-run program, should not be. A 
billion dollars just in administration fee capped at 10 percent. GAO 
estimates a greater cost, of up to $3 billion just to collect the 
dollars. We took those savings, we increased student loans, we 
increased Pell grants and so on.
  Take a look at HHS, take a look at the Department of Education's 
recommendation, the Department of Education, not exactly a right wing 
group. Every study shows that title I and Head Start are not meeting 
their goals, that you take two students track them along the same 
lines, and there is no difference, and yet we are spending billions of 
dollars. Did we kill them? No, but we said is it wrong to ask for 
quality, is it wrong to ask for performance? And a program has been 
reduced by 500 percent and is serving less children. Is it wrong for us 
to manage a program? But if that works in our colleagues' State, just 
like drug-free schools, that block grant, the State can decide. If Head 
Start works in our colleagues' State, do it, and fully fund it. If 
title I, fund it. I support their program. I think it is a great 
program, and I think it should be funded. But what we are reducing is 
not cutting. What we are reducing is the bureaucracy here in 
Washington.
  In title I, in Head Start, and in the direct lending program we are 
reducing the bureaucracy here in Washington, DC, and focusing the 
dollars down to the local level. We are insisting on quality, we are 
insisting on parental control to get the dollars down so we can pay 
teachers more instead of the mess that we have right now where those 
dollars are being squandered here in Washington, DC. Now my colleagues 
may want to call that a cut, and I will say, ``Yes, Mr. Obey, it's a 
cut, it's a cut of your precious bureaucracy, and that's what you are 
having a problem with.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority can find additional money if 
they were not so anxious to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest 
Americans. $17 billion in a windfall to the richest corporations in 
this country, and would have them pay no tax at all. Come on, that is 
the shame of this, these cuts to education.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the mind-boggling 
incompetence of the Republican majority in running this House. Six 
months into the fiscal year, twice shutting down the Government, 
threatening to do so for a third time, they have brought to the House 
floor the 10th stop-gap spending bill, this one for only 1 week. The 
failure of the Republican leadership to get their act together, to tend 
to the people's business, has a real impact on my district and 
virtually every community in America.
  I met recently with parents, teachers, and school officials in my 
district who told me that the proposed $8.6 billion in a cut to 
Connecticut's basic training skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, not 
bureaucracy, to reading and math skills. It is going to affect 9,200 
kids in my State, the loss of the dollars for safe and drug-free 
schools, the DARE Program that works.
  These are not the priorities of the State of Connecticut or America. 
These are not the values that we hold dear in this country. Public 
education has been the great equalizer in this Nation for all kids 
despite what their economic circumstances have been.
  Republicans in the other body have got the message. They voted 86 to 
14 to restore education funds. I hope the vote in this House will wake 
up the people here and say to the Republican revolutionaries, support 
education, pass long-term legislation that puts the education needs of 
America's kids first.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there can be no question but that the majority is just 
as committed to quality public education for the children of America as 
anyone in the minority. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. But let us 
face it, there are many, many Government programs that have not 
provided that kind of quality and that have wasted taxpayers' money. It 
is time to review them to see if we can do better, and I know that we 
can do better.
  In higher education, it is suggested by the other side that there is 
going to be less money for student loans and grants. This is simply not 
true. There is no child in America that is going to have any less money 
this year than last year for their higher education. The cuts are in 
the administration of the programs. We can reduce overhead and do a 
much, much better job of educating children.
  On primary and secondary education, all of the cuts in the House bill 
would amount to less than three-quarters of 1 percent of the money 
spend on primary and secondary education in the United States.
  The sky is not falling. What we are attempting to do is to 
prioritize; to look where the money is wisely spent for good results, 
and to support those areas, and to cut those where the money is not 
wisely spent or is simply wasted.

  With respect to title I and Safe and Drug Free Schools, we would like 
to have greater targeting so that the money goes where it is needed and 
does not go to almost every school district in America; many of which 
do not need it at all.
  I would like to see targeting for title I done much more tightly. We 
do not need the money in New Trier High School in Winnetka IL. It is 
needed in the inner cities and rural areas where we need to get 
results.
  We also need to look at the programs themselves. Do they work? Are 
children really able to achieve a place in the work force where they 
can be productive citizens, or are they unable to read and unable to 
compute? If the programs are not working, by God let us reform them so 
that they work.
  What we see today is really an issue between the old politics, 
represented by the other side, of serving one special interest in 
America after another, and the new politics, which I believe we 
represent, of getting solid results and make Government work better for 
people in this country.

[[Page H2234]]

  H.R. 3019, which passed this House last week, included additional 
funding for many high priority programs. We are willing to spend more 
money. Obviously we knew from the very beginning that we would have to 
move toward the President who has different priorities than the 
Congress. We are willing to sit down and negotiate these matters out, 
and if more money is desired in certain areas, fine, let us provide it. 
But let us not add more to the deficit, for if that is what the 
President wants to do, and it seems that that is exactly what he wants 
to do, the answer is no.
  Let us not increase taxes. That is not the problem in this country. 
We are taxed enough. The problem is that we spend too much. We have to 
spend less and use the money we do spend better.
  And finally, no funny money, no short-term fixes that do not work. If 
my colleagues want to provide some additional revenues that are real 
and long lasting, we will consider them. If they want to fund programs 
that they think are priorities and ought to have higher spending levels 
we are willing to do that right now; but no adding to the deficit, no 
tax increases, and no funny money.
  We can work together to find common ground on this matter. Let us 
find that common ground, let us make government work better for people, 
let us get results and let us stop playing the old political games.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, yes, I support a special interest in the area of 
education. The special interest I support is kids. They are our 
Nation's future, and I make absolutely no apology for it. Let me simply 
say, the facts remain that if we follow you on the reconciliation bill, 
we will wind up requiring people to spend $10 billion more on interest 
costs for student loans over the next 7 years because of what they put 
in the reconciliation bill.
  And that is going to benefit the banks. That is not going to benefit 
students. I have talked to college after college in my district, 
desperate to see the direct loan program expanded so they can get rid 
of some of the paperwork under the indirect loans that favor the banks 
but not the kids.
  I would also make the point that if my colleagues do not like the 
fact the proprietary schools are included in some of these programs, 
cut them out. I am for that. If my colleagues do not like the way some 
of the education programs work, cut them out. But then use that money 
in other education programs of a higher priority. Do not use education 
cuts to finance a tax cut for rich people. That is not what this 
country is looking for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett].

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the Republican 
side that there is certainly something new about this Congress. Indeed, 
it has achieved new heights. It has scaled new mountains when it comes 
to mismanagement, near total and complete mismanagement.
  When we look back over the course of the last 14 months of this great 
new revolutionary Congress, what is there to show for all the effort? 
Near nothing, somewhere between nothing and next to nothing; a lot of 
hot air, a lot of rhetoric. But in terms of doing anything that affects 
the lives of ordinary working people in this country, nothing has been 
accomplished by this Congress. This year it has been hurry up and stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased that my Republican colleagues have 
so much love in their hearts that they needed 3 weeks to celebrate 
Valentine's Day. I wish they would express a little of it on the floor 
of this Congress. I wish they would come here and get to work on the 
problems this country faces. Their great division is not with us, not 
with the President, it is with their Republican colleagues over in the 
Senate, who rejected in these past few days their radical cuts in Head 
Start. What they propose is not a continuing resolution but a 
continuing nonsolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin knows very well that I have 
been in Congress for 16 years now. During all of that time, his party 
was in the majority. During all of that time, I have personally opposed 
a 100-percent guaranteed student loan program. Government should 
neither guarantee any industry their profit nor should government by 
left holding the bag for defaults at the 100 percent level.
  But guess what; the minority party that was then the majority never 
changed that law. Today, they are promoting yet another plan that 
leaves the taxpayers holding 100 percent of the defaults, and it is 
called the direct lending program.
  This program looks good at the beginning, because the defaults are 
not realized until later on, when they occur. Both programs, the 100-
percent guaranteed student loan program and the direct lending program, 
have the same problem: They leave the taxpayer holding the bag on all 
defaults.
  What we need, Mr. Speaker, and what we are going to get is an 85-
percent loan program, where there is participation in the private 
sector, and where the banks are not guaranteed a profit and must make 
lending more wisely. If there are defaults, the banks participate in 
handling than on behalf of the taxpayers. That is the way we should 
have done it a long time ago. The gentleman's party failed to do it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out that one of the key leaders in 
proposing the changes which we now have in student loan programs, 
including the direct loan program, was that ``well-known left-wing 
radical,'' the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], who last time I 
looked was a Republican. He helped this House lead us into a better mix 
of student aid. You people are now trying to cap the programs that 
represented the reforms of just a year ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 10th or 11th, depending on how one is 
counting, continuing resolution that we have had before this House in 
the last 5 months. We are here halfway through the fiscal year. Five 
appropriations bills still have not been completed because the 
Republican leadership cannot get their act together. Every single day, 
millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are being waived through 
inefficiency and uncertainty. Now, once again, we are being asked to 
make the biggest cuts, biggest education cuts in the history of this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, the value of education has always been embedded in 
America's national soul. A long time ago mothers used to pour honey on 
the books of their children so when they went to school they would 
smell the sweetness of education. When kids were working out in the 
fields out west, mothers used to bring them in when they would see a 
teacher come by for the educational benefits that were there.
  Mr. Speaker, we just had a little discussion here about student 
loans. What galls me is the fact that your leaders, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], 
got through school on student loans. In fact, if it was not for student 
loans they would not be where they are today, which is the only good 
reason, from my perspective, to be against student loans. Nonetheless, 
they want to pull the ladder up and deny students the opportunity that 
they had to be successful in our society today.
  Mr. Speaker, education is our heritage. It is our heritage. We are 
living in a time when 70 percent of our kids will never finish college, 
a time when what one learns will make a big difference on what one is 
going to earn. Yet, this bill responds by making the biggest cuts in 
education history. It cuts safe and drug-free schools 25 percent, 
drastic cuts in the DARE program.
  It cuts the school-to-work program, which is just getting off the 
ground, 18 percent. It cuts title I funding, if we take this out 
through the whole year, by $1 billion, 40,000 teachers losing their 
jobs. It kicks millions of kids off of math and reading programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, do not tell us we are 
making

[[Page H2235]]

these cuts to give kids a better life. This bill will deny millions of 
students the skills they need for a better life. Now is the time that 
teacher contracts are being signed. Now is the time that cities are 
submitting their school budgets. Now is the time that kids are making 
their important decisions about where they are going to go to college 
and if they are going to go to college, but they cannot do that if we 
keep messing around, week by week, month by month, with their funding, 
and messing around with their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know the President is not going to accept these 
extreme cuts. He understands that education needs to be a priority in 
this country. In order to force through an extreme agenda, my 
colleagues are willing to hang American schools and communities and 
families out to dry.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. America deserves a 
break. It deserves a government that is on their side. They do not need 
a Congress that is going to stand in their way, but that is exactly 
what this bill does.
  I urge my colleagues, vote no on this bill, and let us give our kids 
the opportunity they deserve, the opportunity that the gentleman and 
his leaders have had on that side of the aisle. Let us give them the 
opportunity to be successful and to live the American dream. Vote 
``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I love the word of the month, ``extremists.'' 
Republicans are extremists. I must hear it from 43 Democrats a day in 
one form or another, either on the floor or somewhere on the media.
  Mr. Speaker, they are talking about how we are cutting education, 
knowing full well there are 760-some-odd education programs, only 6 
percent of which go to math, reading, or science. But if we want to 
pare one down, we are extremists, and when we did send a perfectly good 
bill, trying to pare down some of the inefficiencies, to the Senate, it 
was the Democrats that filibustered that bill for 9 months. The reason 
we are here talking about education is because their party filibustered 
it over in the Senate, and would not let it move.
  Mr. Speaker, for crying out loud, let us try to be a little credible. 
We are not extremists. We are trying to save the American taxpayer 
money, and make sure that the money is spent on the people who deserve 
the money, and that is the students.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard concern for the kids. Where is the concern for 
the kids when we are spending billions of dollars, anywhere from $26 
billion to $200 billion, on education programs in this country, and 
yet, since 1972, SAT scores have dropped from a total average of 937 to 
902 in 1994; 17-year-olds scored 11 points worse in science than in 
1970; in reading, 66 percent of 17-year-olds do not read at a 
proficient level, and reading scores have fallen since 1992; United 
States students scored worse in math than all other large countries 
except Spain; and 30 percent of college freshmen must take remedial 
education classes.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear the compassion, I hear the charges and the labels 
of extremists, but I do not hear any good that is coming from the 
billions of taxpayers funds that they have wasted on one redundant, 
inefficient, unnecessary program after another. If Members want 100 
programs, fine, or if they want 200 programs, maybe that is a good 
idea. But 760 is absurd and obscene.
  By the way, I heard earlier a little charge that we are beefing up, 
building up the military-industrial complex; that we are not cutting 
defense enough, or that we are building it up too much, spending more 
than the President wants.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the President who stood in the Rose Garden on 
December 13, 1994--check it out. There was an article in the Washington 
Times and the Washington Post where he was surrounded by his generals 
and his admirals, wrapping himself in the flag--and said

       I've got to spend $25 billion more on defense, because the 
     support and logistics and equipment of my troops is going 
     down the tubes. We are putting people who are expected to 
     maneuver tanks on the battlefield out on the training field, 
     and they are working their courses rather than driving tanks 
     because they cannot even afford the gasoline.

  We were in a position where planes were crashing, and maintenance for 
tanks and boats and ships was not being adequately made. Even the 
President of the United States, this President, who says we are 
extremists has consistently said, or at least back then said, for all 
the TV cameras, he needed $25 billion more than was previously 
appropriated for the Defense Department for concern for our troops.
  Since then he has deployed troops to Haiti; he has deployed troops to 
Bosnia; he has people on alert near China, in the area between China 
and Taiwan, two carrier battle groups. He has troops going all over the 
world, and what did he do? Instead of pushing for that $25 billion 
extra this year he recommends a $12 billion cut on top of his low 
recommendation last year that we increased by $7 billion. So in effect, 
there is almost $50 billion difference between what the President said 
that he needed on defense and what he was willing to give the people in 
uniform, who are risking their lives every day on behalf of every 
freedom-loving American citizen.
  Mr. Speaker, I say that defense is not an issue, because we did not 
give the President the cuts he asked for in the fiscal year 1996 bill, 
and we do not intend to give it to him in the fiscal 1997 bill. In 
fact, defense is expected to be level funded. Actually, it went down by 
$400 million in fiscal year 1996 under fiscal year 1995, so defense is 
not an issue.
  The President keeps sending troops all over the world, and yet he 
just does not want to support them. That is his problem. He can take 
that to the American taxpayer and to the American voter in November. 
But the real issue is whether or not the Democrats have ever seen a 
program that they did not want to fund, or an American taxpayer dollar 
that they did not want to waste on an unnecessary program.
  I have a list of some of the programs that money is in fact being 
spent on. We talked about the book. This $1.5 million book of the Crime 
Prevention Council. We talked about the other programs that money was 
being spent on. The direct loan third-year schools program, that the 
President wants to expend. He says we are not spending enough money on 
it. If we do not spend money on these items, he says, we are extreme, 
we are extremists. We are radicals in Congress.
  We are extremists because we do not want to spend money on another 
138 hair, beauty, cosmetology, barber schools like Earl's Academy of 
Beauty. It might be a nice place, but how much taxpayer money should go 
to it? Or to the International School of Cosmetology; three Columbine 
Beauty Schools in Colorado; Naomi's Mile Hi Beauty College. I will bet 
that is a nice one. There is the Ph.D Hair Academy, Hair Arts Academy, 
BoJack Limited Academy of Beauty Culture, Patsy and Rob's Academy of 
Beauty, Acme Beauty College, Aladdin Beauty College Number 22. What 
happened to 1 through 21? I guess they are already getting funded, but 
now he wants to fund number 22, and we are extremists if we do not go 
along with it.
  There is the Southern Nevada University of Cosmetology; 15 Empire 
Beauty Schools, beauty schools in Pennsylvania; the Avant Garde College 
of Cosmetology; the Circle J Beauty School.

  These are nice places, but do they deserve so much taxpayer dollars 
that the President puts a gun to Congress' head and says ``Give me my 
$8 billion to spend on these foolish things, or else I am going to 
close the Government down?'' That is essentially what he is saying.
  He wants to spend money on the Desert Institute for Healing Arts, the 
California Medical School of Shiatsu, the Euro Skill Therapeutic 
Training Center, the Florida Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 
the Myotherapy Institute of Utah, and three schools of massage therapy. 
``If you do not fund these things,'' President Clinton said ``We are 
going to close the Government down, and it will be the Republicans' 
fault and they are extremists.'' Give me a break.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument from the other side is we are not doing as 
well in international comparisons on education as we should, and so 
what we

[[Page H2236]]

ought to do is cut education support by $3.3 billion. That may not be 
extremist. It is dumb.
  The issue is not who did what in the Senate or in the House. The 
issue is simply whether or not it is smart to run the Government 1 week 
at a time so that nobody can plan what to do next in every local school 
district in the country. Again, that may not be extremist. It is dumb.
  I would urge you to stop it and recognize we need to fund this 
Government for a full year at a reasonable level. If you do not like 
these other programs, reform them.
  But I do not see any arguments that you made for cutting back on 
chapter 1. I do not see any arguments you made for cutting back on 
school-to-work. It would be kind of nice if we paid some attention to 
kids in this country who are not going to college. That is what the 
school-to-work program tries to do. Again, it may not be extremist, but 
it is dumb to cut those programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what is extreme about today's 
action is that once again the House Republicans are turning their back 
on America's children. Today the House Republicans are taking a hike on 
America's education for its children, because today the House 
Republicans are confirming their position against that of the Senate, 
where a bipartisan coalition has determined that America's children 
deserve this support for education.
  It is one thing to get up here and read off all these programs of 
cosmetology. There are no title I children enrolled in those schools. 
Why are you cutting the title I children? There are no high school 
children enrolled in those schools. Why are you cutting those children 
from this program?
  That is what is extreme. You talk about one thing and you do another. 
You ought to go back to your schools, as I do every Monday, and visit 
with the title I children, visit with the school programs and talk to 
them.
  Then you will understand how extreme your position is, how you are 
playing Russian roulette every 7 days with the education of our 
children, with our teachers, with our parents and with our communities. 
Every 7 days you threaten to shut down the Government. That is what is 
extreme.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what this is all about is priorities. What 
the Democrats are saying is that if we look at this continuing 
resolution, education, the amount of money that goes to our schools is 
cut by 13 percent. If we look at the amount of money that goes to 
environmental protection, it is cut by 22 percent.
  The gentleman from Illinois said that this is all about priorities 
and that is what this is about, priorities. The Democrats are saying 
that there is insufficient funding, there are too many cuts here in 
educational programs, back to our schools, environmental programs.
  The President was in New Jersey last week. He talked about the 
Superfund program and how many sites will not be cleaned up, hazardous 
waste sites, because of these cuts constantly in these continuing 
resolutions, and it is irresponsible to act this way.
  We are now talking about a 1-week CR. How can we continue to operate 
a government on a 1-week basis? What does that mean to the Federal 
Government? It means that a tremendous amount of time has to be wasted 
in just gearing up or gearing down because agencies do not know how 
much money is going to be available.
  When the Republican majority was elected, they were elected to 
govern, and they have not been governing. They come here with these 1-
week resolutions, and it is about time that we said enough is enough. 
Vote ``no.''
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier it was said that there were cuts in higher 
education funding. Let me be clear about this. The loan programs are 
entitlements. They are not in this short-term spending bill at all. The 
money continues to flow exactly as before.
  The work-study program, the TRIO program, the SEOC program, the 
Perkins loan program are all level funded. The Pell grant program was 
increased by the largest increase in 1 year in history, to the highest 
level in history, by this side. That is an increase, not a decrease. 
The only program that was eliminated is State student incentive grants, 
exactly as the President had suggested.
  Let me say regarding title I, Mr. Speaker, that giving the money for 
a program that does not work is not good government. The program is not 
working. What we must do is devise a better use of the money and target 
it to where it is most needed and make a program that really does work.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when we cut through all the shouting, I think it is easy 
to see by looking at the actions of other parties who is the odd man 
out today and who is not.
  The Senate 2 days ago, with only 14 dissenting votes--and the last 
time I looked, the Senate was controlled by the Republican Party, the 
Majority Leader was a fellow who is going to be the Republican 
candidate for President. When the Senate acted on this bill, on the 
Labor-Health-Education-social services funding bill, with only 14 
dissenting votes out of 100, they put back $60 million in the Goals 
2000 program. They put back $917 million in the school-to-work program. 
They put back $814 million in title I to teach the most disadvantaged 
kids in this country. They put back $82 million in vocational 
education.
  The gentleman from Florida says it does not work well in Florida. It 
works terrifically well in Wisconsin, and we do not want to cripple 
that program.
  They put back $58 million in Perkins loans. They put back $32 million 
in SSIG. Summer youth, you are wiping out that program, an awful lot of 
jobs for kids who are going to be on the street instead of learning how 
to work. School-to-work programs in the Department of Labor $91 million 
that they are trying to put back. Head Start, $136 million.

  We can talk all we want about how some local school district has 
applied for money and used it in a stupid way. I do not doubt that. It 
is the job of government to try to cull those out. You talk about the 
way some proprietary schools have abused these student aid programs. 
That is why I would like to see most of them largely declared 
ineligible, unless they can demonstrate they have a solid record of 
performance.
  I pay taxes, just like you do. My constituents pay taxes, just like 
you do. I deeply resent it when a dime of it is wasted. But I also 
deeply regret it when Members of this House use some little screw-up 
somewhere to provide an excuse for obliterating support for chapter I 
for a million kids in this country who need some help to get ahead.
  Now, I just released a report on Monday which showed that the 
wealthiest one-half of 1 percent of American families in this country 
saw their net worth grow from $8.5 million in 1983 to $12.5 million in 
1989, just in the 1980's alone.
  The net worth of 90 percent of American families did not grow by 
almost $4 million, as it did for the high rollers in this society. The 
net worth for most families in this country, 90 percent of them, grew 
by $2,000 in the 1980's. They had a grand total of $29,000 in assets. 
The best way for most working families to get off the treadmill, to get 
ahead for their kids, to build a decent future for their kids, is to 
expand, not contract, educational opportunity.
  Now, if you do not like what was done in the past, fix it. You are 
the majority party. If you want to consolidate those programs and clean 
them up, do it, and we will try to help you. But do not use some of 
these local screw-ups as an excuse to gut chapter I for a million kids 
or to say to hundreds of thousands of kids who are looking for summer 
jobs, ``Sorry, it's more important go give the wealthiest 1 percent of 
people in this country another tax cut. You guys worry about your kids 
some other day''.
  That is what you are saying when you are cutting education by over $3

[[Page H2237]]

billion. When you come in here and say we ought to cut back on 
environmental enforcement by 22 percent, that is disgraceful. It 
destroys the future environment for every family that wants a decent 
environment. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Vote ``no'' on this 
proposition. It is a silly 1-week, childish game.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, here it is. We ought to be ashamed of 
ourselves. We are extremist for trying to save the taxpayers money and 
to not spend money on silly, dumb programs that do not work.
  Compassion is not just exclusively on that side. We have got a lot of 
compassion. We have got compassion for the kids. We have got compassion 
for the taxpaying citizen, the hard-working American people that want 
to make sure that if they are going to send their money here, that it 
is going to be spent wisely
  In reality, this should be debate simply about a continuing 
resolution for 1 week so that we can go try to wrap up this whole other 
exercise on all these bills, three of which were vetoed by the 
President and one which was filibustered by their guys in the other 
body. Now let us not make any more of this than that.
  The summer youth jobs program we heard about, that is a total other 
bill. That is not even in this resolution before us. That issue should 
be resolved as it was signed by the President in another bill. It is 
over because it did not work. It was getting money to kids who just did 
not work, and it did not train them for anything.
  The title I program that the gentleman talks about goes to rich 
school districts that do not need it. It needs to be revamped. When you 
want to get money to kids that need help, let us not spend it on kids 
that do not need help.
  All we are saying is fix the programs first. You have had 760 
programs to do all the wonderful education things you want. You have 
wasted it, and the SAT scores have plummeted. They have gone down. It 
is time to take a new look. It does not take a new program. It does not 
take more money. What it takes is some common sense, and that has been 
totally lacking over there for the last 40 to 60 years.
  I urge the adoption of this poor, measly 1-week bill, and let us get 
the real bill up next week.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this short-
term funding bill, both in regards to the substance of the bill and the 
process under which we are dealing with these very serious issues.
  The record on spending issues is clear--I've supported the balanced 
budget amendment, the line-item veto, and have voted often enough to 
control spending to make the Concord Coalition Honor Roll. I know we 
need to control spending.
  But there are some serious mistakes being made in this bill and in 
the appropriations process overall for fiscal year 1996.
  I respect my colleagues, Chairman Livingston and Chairman Porter, and 
know that this has been a difficult year for the Education, Labor, HHS 
appropriations bill. But I have to object to the serious cuts being 
made in support of education in this country. When I'm home each 
weekend, I am constantly contacted by the school administrators, 
teachers, and parents who are concerned about the shrinking support 
they are receiving for very important education initiatives. And with 
Eastern Illinois University, Southern Illinois University, Millikin 
University all in my district and the University of Illinois close by, 
I am also concerned about our approach to supporting opportunity for 
our students and families to access the education they need to compete 
on the job market.
  The title I program which helps our school districts serve families 
of modest incomes is important in my district. The title III program 
which serves our community colleges is important in my district. We are 
not doing as well for our communities in these areas as we should.
  If we need educational reform, I stand ready to help my colleagues 
fashion a stronger approach than what may now be in place. If we need 
to control spending, my record is there in terms of sorting out our 
priorities and getting return for our investment.
  But I oppose funding the Government on a weekly, monthly, or 
quarterly basis. And I oppose doing so on 75 percent of funding in the 
previous year. That obscures the very real policy issues we face in 
education, health care, the environment, and our economy as a whole. I 
oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do better in future efforts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Wednesday, March 13, 1996, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 179, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                               YEAS--238

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs

[[Page H2238]]


     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     Dickey
     Durbin
     Greenwood
     Lowey
     Moakley
     Myers
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Royce
     Scott
     Stokes

                              {time}  1200

  Messrs. BOUCHER, HOLDEN, DICKS, CRAMER, RICHARDSON, ANDREWS, and 
BARCIA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________