[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 40 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2578-H2588]
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 House Resolution 386, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 165) 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 House Joint Resolution 165 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 165

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 104-99 is further amended by striking out ``March 22, 
     1996'' in sections 106(c), 112, 126(c), 202(c), and 214 and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``March 29, 1996'', and that Public 
     Law 104-92 is further amended by striking out ``March 22, 
     1996'' in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``April 3, 1996''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 386, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  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, I come before the House again today 
regarding funding for the remaining fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
bills. I do hope that we will have everyone's help to prevent a 
Government shutdown and allow the House and the Senate conferees on the 
omnibus wrap-up continuing resolution time to close out this fiscal 
year and get on with the business of the Congress.
  On Tuesday evening, the Senate concluded action on H.R. 3019, the 
omnibus continuing resolution, making a further downpayment toward a 
balanced budget. This was a big bill in the House because it addressed 
big problems. In the Senate it became a bigger bill because they added 
funding for the District of Columbia as well as providing additional 
funding, with some offsets, for programs in education and the 
environment.
  We have begun analyzing the differences between the House and the 
Senate bill, and I might add that the Senate amendment is some 933 
pages long, so it has taken us some effort to do so, and we are trying 
to find out additional offsets to pay for these program increases 
without exceeding our budget allocations. I have talked with Senator 
Hatfield, distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 
that body, and it is our intention to get together informally this 
afternoon to begin the process of working out the differences between 
the two bodies on the omnibus bill. Both of us are asking the 
administration to join with us in concluding the business of fiscal 
year 1996 so that we can indeed move on to the pending budget for 
fiscal year 1997.
  I might just point out that regardless of what happens on this bill 
or subsequent ones, by December 31, 1996, this year, the 104th Congress 
ceases to exist. It is going to be over. And in the interim we have 
about 4 months that are going to be predominantly taken up by the 
election season, if you will. So that really only leaves between now 
and the middle of September for active, ongoing effort to conclude the 
business of Congress.
  We have got lots of policy initiatives to deal with from the 
authorizing committees, and we have to conclude the fiscal year 1997 
appropriations process, which entails 13 bills which must pass the 
House, pass the Senate, go to conference, pass both Houses again, and 
be ultimately sent to the President and signed by the President. That 
means we have a great deal of business to do for fiscal year 1997, and 
here we are still contemplating the effort in fiscal year 1996, 
primarily because the President vetoed three of the bills under 
consideration and because the fourth bill, the Labor-Health bill, 
languished in the Senate for some 9 months because our liberal friends 
over there decided to just filibuster it and keep it from coming up for 
consideration.

  In addition, the District of Columbia bill, which should have been 
sent to the President a month or two ago, was not because of some few 
Members' concern about a little $3 million school voucher program which 
would allow poor youngsters to go to private schools. They do not want 
to take on the NEA, the National Education Association, and all of 
those great stalwart protectionist organizations which protect the

[[Page H2579]]

great quality education provided by our public schools today, or lack 
thereof; they just do not want to let the camel's nose get under the 
tent, and have opposed the possibility of poor youngsters going to 
quality schools. As a result, the District of Columbia bill has been 
hung up, and now the Senate has included that bill in this omnibus 
wrap-up effort which we are going to be considering in conference over 
the next 8 days.
  But obviously since the Senate did not complete their business until 
Tuesday, and here it is Thursday, and for the last 24 hours we have 
been evaluating the 933 pages of additions that the Senate put on our 
effort, we need some time for the conference to do its work. We begin 
today, we will work through the next 8 to 10 days, and we hope to be 
concluded before the close of business on Friday next. If we are, we 
will be delighted, because that will wrap up the fiscal year 1996 
season. Then we can go on to the fiscal year 1997 season.
  I regret that we have to be here today, but our work is not yet 
completed. I do believe that we have to keep Government open. We tried 
doing the other in the past, and that was not a pleasant experience for 
anybody. So we come here to try to keep Government open while Congress 
does its business on the remaining stages of the process for fiscal 
year 1996.
  The bill I bring before the Members today keeps Government 
operational through March 29 with the exception of two programs, the 
AFDC and the foster care program, which we carry through into law 
through April 3 to allow continuity of the bureaucratic effort to make 
sure that people who are entitled to the benefits under those programs 
actually get those benefits.
  But we really must have this extension. I expect some prolonged 
debate here today, much as we had last week on a similar 1-week 
extension. I would like to think that despite whatever debate we have, 
the issue is not that controversial, that the vast majority of our 
Members will ultimately vote for this bill, and that we can go about 
the business of the conference and conclude fiscal year 1996 once and 
for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time. Let me just say, with due respect to my friend 
from Louisiana, that this is indeed controversial, at least it is on 
our side of the aisle, and I will tell the Members why.
  We had a rather interesting, heated and enlightening debate on the 
rule that governs the discussion of this resolution. The objection from 
this side of the aisle is that we are continuing stop-and-go 
Government. Stop-and-go Government is not good for this country, it is 
not good for this Congress, and we are doing it under such a closed 
procedure. We are in our sixth martial law resolution right now.
  What does that mean? That means basically that the folks out there in 
the country have been shut out from the process, from testifying at 
hearings, from having their input into legislation. Members of this 
body have been shut out from their committee work. This is all being 
done out of the leader's and the Speaker's office, coming right to the 
floor. We have been at it now for 4 months like this. Seventy-three 
percent of all legislation that has come to the floor this year has 
bypassed the committees, come right to the floor. Why have a committee 
structure?
  Mr. Speaker, this is distressing because it runs roughshod over the 
rules and the traditions of this great institution. This is supposed to 
be a deliberative body. It is supposed to look at legislation, discuss 
it, have people come and give witness to whether it is on-track or off-
track. Yet here we are jamming through another resolution.
  The reason we are doing this, the gentleman from Louisiana is correct 
in this, is to give a little bit more space so they can do the work 
that they were supposed to have gotten done 6 months ago. The budget 
was supposed to be finished 6 months ago. Here we are with five 
appropriation bills unfinished.
  That is maybe all well and good in terms of discussion in this 
institution, and people are saying, ``Well, what does that have to do 
with me out there in America?'' What it has to do with people out there 
in America is that it gives them no sense of where this country is 
going, where their school district is going to in terms of education. 
Let me use education as an illustration of the incompetence of this do-
nothing and delay Congress that we are in now.
  Mr. Speaker, when is this assault on education going to end? For 15 
months now you have been talking about giving our kids a better life. 
You have come to the well, you have made that case, but time and again 
you have denied our children in this country the skills that they need 
to have a better life.
  You started off the beginning of this Congress by cutting school 
lunch, and then you attacked student loans. You wanted to take $17 
billion out of student loans, so kids could climb that ladder of 
success? No, you have brought that ladder up and you have said, ``We 
can't afford it.''
  Then, after the student loan debate, you have gone after a very 
important program called DARE, safe and drug-free school program. We 
are talking about cuts of $3 billion plus in this fiscal year in 
education as a result of this inaction and this stop-and-go. DARE is 
just one of the programs that is going to be affected. It is a great 
program. It deals with drug abuse in our schools and for our children.
  What these cuts will do, Mr. Speaker, is put approximately 13,000 
DARE officials out of work. It will deny literally millions of our kids 
the opportunity to get the education they need to say no to drugs.

                              {time}  1230

  In addition to that, title I, a program that helps our young people 
in math and science, is going to be cut. It is going to be cut by $1 
billion, if you take this over the course of the full year.
  Now, school districts across the country right now are trying to plan 
for September. They are making decisions about how large the classes 
are going to be, they are making decisions about how many teachers they 
are going to have. Across this Nation, this week and next week, 40,000 
to 50,000 teachers are going to get pink slips and classes are going to 
be enlarged because you cannot get your act together to let us know 
where the budget is going to be on education.
  Now, the Speaker likes to refer to public education as subsidized 
public dating. He actually said that. This is much more than subsidized 
public dating. This is about the best investment that we can make in 
this country, investing in our young people today, and they know that. 
They know what they earn will depend upon what they learn.
  This is the 12th time in 5 months that we have had a stopgap 
continuing resolution, the 12th time. You cannot run a government that 
way. You cannot do it. It does not work, and it has proved it does not 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues this afternoon to vote against 
this resolution. It denies us the opportunity to restore those 
education funds, to restore those cuts in the Environmental Protection 
Agency, to restore those Superfund cuts so we can clean up our toxic 
waste sites and our dumps and disposal sites. We need to have that 
opportunity, so we can get on with the business of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astounded. I just heard the 
distinguished whip from the minority party say he wants to vote against 
this simple bill to keep Government going for 1 week. He gives a lot of 
reasons, but basically instead of allowing the committee to do its 
business and go ahead and go to conference and work out the bigger 
issues by a week from Friday, he wants to shut the Government down. He 
would totally shut the 9 departments, I think, maybe 10 departments, 
and the entire District of Columbia down, because he is frustrated 
about a program that he says works.
  I would like to comment on the DARE Program. First of all, I would 
like to make this point: He says we have not done our job. We are 
talking about the labor-health-education-human services bill that 
passed this

[[Page H2580]]

House at the end of July 1995. It passed this House, and whoever is 
responsible dutifully took it from the House of Representatives over to 
the Senate and delivered it to them. Every time someone wanted to bring 
it up for discussion in the other body, the Democrats stood up and 
objected and filibustered it.
  Now, I want it to be clear that the gentleman is accusing the 
majority of creating a situation whereby this bill was not funded.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. I am just 
replying to the minority whip, if I might.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, but I 
would suggest if you are going to point out the history of the Senate, 
that you point out the complete and accurate history of the Senate. The 
fact is that there were objections to consideration of that bill from 
both sides of the aisle, not just once, but many times more than once, 
on both sides of the aisle, as we both well now know.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the issue of striker 
replacement was repugnant to the liberals on the other side. I 
personally turned on the television and watched the proceedings and 
watched one of the liberal Democrats object to the bringing up of this 
bill.
  The fact is it is the normal process for the House to pass a bill and 
the Senate to pass a bill and to meet in conference. This bill has 
never been conferenced, because the bill never got out of the Senate. 
Now, it is absolutely impossible to draw the conclusion that anybody in 
the House of Representatives, Republican or Democrat, is responsible 
for that state of affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, if I might go on, the DARE Program, it is Safe and Drug-
Free Schools. As I pointed out last week, this is a program that has 
got a wonderful name, an absolutely fantastic name, until you start to 
understand that in the implementation of that program, it often goes 
terribly awry. In Talbot County, VA, they spent grant money on disc 
jockeys and guitarists for a dance, lumber to build steps for an 
aerobics class, and school administrators spent over $175,000 on a 
retreat to a St. Michaels resort. I think that is in Maryland on the 
Eastern Shore. Nice place.
  Additionally, a single school district in Texas, the Alomar 
independent school district, received a grant of $13. How many 
bureaucrats had to get together and huddle in a room for how many weeks 
to figure out that we have got to give this district a $13 grant? And 
all for a good cause, mind you, to promote the advocacy of Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools, to discourage children from using drugs.
  What is the history during the entire Clinton administration. After 
the Clinton administration decimated its own drug abuse office in the 
White House by 85 percent of its budget, what is the history? Drug 
abuse among teenagers went up, not down. This program does not work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can cut through the bull gravy and 
focus on what is really happening here today. The fact is that this 
proposal really represents the majority party's determination to keep 
Government running on the installment plan. They do not have enough gas 
in the tank to get the car down the road apiece, so what they are doing 
is driving the Government about a block and then they have to get 
renewed authority and fill up the gas tank to get the Government to go 
down another block. That is no way to drive a car, it is no way to run 
a railroad, it is certainly no way to run a government.
  What you really are doing, by extending the ability to operate on a 
week-to-week basis, is you are playing weekly Russian roulette with 
local school districts, with veterans, with recipients of government 
assistance and a wide variety of programs. It is an immature way to run 
a government, and it ought to stop.
  This is the 12th time, the 12th time, that we have now had a 
temporary continuing resolution before us. In 2 weeks we will be one-
half of the way through the fiscal year, and yet 70 percent of the 
domestic appropriations will still not be in law.
  Now, why is that? It is because the majority in this House insisted 
on passing through this House an extreme ideological agenda under which 
you slashed funding for education by 15 percent, you slashed job 
training by 18 percent, you slashed environmental cleanup enforcement 
by one-third. You attached a laundry list of special interest 
legislative riders to these appropriations bills, and to protect the 
public interest the President vetoed a number of the bills.
  The Education and Labor proposal was so extreme that the Republican-
dominated Senate added more than $3 billion to at least partially 
restore the draconian cuts that you made in education, in manpower 
training, in summer jobs, and the like.
  Because of the extreme nature of that bill, we have not even yet been 
able to get to conference. The chairman just says ``Why don't you let 
the committee do its work and go to conference?'' Why does the 
committee not bring up the motion to appoint conferees? You cannot even 
have a conference until conferees are first appointed. The last time I 
looked, there is a dispute between the majority leader and the Speaker 
about process on the floor, so we cannot even officially get to 
conference because of yet another internal division within the 
Republican Party leadership in this House.

  Meanwhile, what is happening? What is happening is because they 
cannot get the decisions made, they are saying ``OK, let us run the 
Government on a reduced funding basis a week at a time.'' So they are 
funding education at a low level, which is going to require the layoff 
of a good many teachers and teachers' aides. They are preventing us 
from continuing to clean up all of the Superfund sites that we ought to 
be cleaning up, and then what do they do? They gin up a smokescreen. 
And the gentleman says, ``well,'' he justifies the cuts in drug free 
schools by pointing out something that some idiotic administrator did 
at the local level in a city or two to justify cutting back by a huge 
amount in that entire program.
  I would like to take just a minute to run through some of the 
arguments the gentleman is making. He argues, for instance, about what 
has happened to drug free schools. Let me say to the chairman of the 
committee, I will have unanimous-consent requests at the proper time to 
remove funding for virtually any of these items that you name. If you 
do not like the fact, for instance, as the gentleman indicated, that we 
had cosmetology schools being funded under the Student Aid Program, 
fine. I will ask unanimous consent to strike all funding for 
cosmetology schools.
  You mentioned last week you did not like the fact that there were 
massage schools being funded. I will have the unanimous-consent request 
to eliminate all funding for massage schools. I hope the gentleman will 
support that unanimous-consent request.
  I will have a number of other unanimous-consent requests.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman is in the business 
of asking for unanimous-consent requests, would he join with me in 
asking for a unanimous-consent request that might obviate the need for 
continuing to come back in this manner? Would he join with me in just 
striking the date March 29 and inserting the date September 30 on the 
issue pending before us here today? That way we would not have to come 
back. We would not have to go to conference. We would go ahead and be 
done with this whole doggone thing.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let us take a look at what 
the effect of that would be on the local school districts. You would 
require local school districts to lay off 40,000 teachers. Am I going 
to support a unanimous-consent request for that? Absolutely not.
  It means you would nail in the large reductions in Federal support 
for School to Work programs. Am I going to support a unanimous-consent 
request to do that? Absolutely not.
  It means you would nail in the huge reductions in enforcement for 
environmental cleanup. You think I am going to support a unanimous-
consent request to do that? Absolutely not.

[[Page H2581]]

  I will offer a unanimous-consent request to eliminate some of the 
abuses of funding which the gentleman claimed he was concerned about 
last week, but I am not going to support a unanimous-consent request 
that will tell schoolteachers that 40,000 of you are going to get pink 
slips so you can continue to provide tax cuts in your budget for very 
wealthy people making over $200,000 a year. If you want to offer a 
responsible unanimous-consent request, I will be happy to entertain it. 
But it is not responsible to suggest that local school districts should 
lay off 40,000 teachers because you've got a political dispute within 
the leadership of the Republican Party in this House. That is not 
responsible and the gentleman knows that.
  So let me simply say that what is at stake here is whether or not we 
are going to vote for a continuing resolution which cooperates in the 
strategy by which we tell working families, for instance, that we are 
going to raise the cost of their getting student loans by $10 billion 
over the next 7 years.

                              {time}  1245

  We are not going to cooperate in that kind of an agenda. What ought 
to happen here is very simple. Instead of bringing these silly, stop-
and-go, week-by-week extensions to the floor, what my colleagues ought 
to do is go into that conference and recognize they need to restore 
funding for the NLRB, they need to more fully restore funding for 
education. They need to fully restore more funding for environmental 
cleanup.
  They need to buy into some of the offsets that the administration has 
suggested to pay for those programs. They need to drop the extraneous 
special interest language which is going to let timber companies rip up 
the Tongass Forest, which is going to allow other special interests to 
get away with murder in the environmental field. And they need to rip 
up some of the other special interest language that they have attached 
to these appropriation bills.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what the President is asking for. That is the 
rational thing to do. That is what they ought to do rather than running 
the risk every week that the Government is going to shut down again.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have walked into the middle of 
the same movie I was in a week ago. Why are we debating this matter? 
This is the same thing we did last week. Mr. Speaker, we might as well 
just play the tapes of last week's debate. All the same things are 
being said all over again.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, I think he has got that 
``tax cuts for the rich'' down like a mantra. He says it over and over 
again and cannot remember what the words are, they just pour out the 
same way.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Is the gentleman making a unanimous-consent request to play 
the tape again so we can stop going through this charade?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I will make that unanimous consent.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would agree to that request.
  Mr. PORTER. Why do we not yield back the balance of the time and vote 
then? Would the gentleman agree to that?
  Mr. Speaker, what we are having here in Washington lately is about 70 
percent politics and about 30 percent substance. While politics are 
always going to be a part of it, I think what the American people 
expect of us is 30 percent politics and 70 percent substance, or even 
more.
  We have to reverse all of this. There is way too much politics 
involved.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has just sent to the Congress a budget 
that is 90 percent politics and 10 percent substance. It ramps up 
spending in a lot of areas. I agree with the gentleman on some of the 
areas he mentioned earlier and some of the special interests that are 
not contributing at all to deficit reduction and ought to. But the 
President very easily ramps up spending and plays to every special 
interest group in our country saying we are going to do better for you 
in this, better for you in that, better for you in another thing. And 
he does it without any responsibility for the bottom line, and that is 
for the country as a whole.
  Mr. Speaker, he sends up a budget that has in it cuts that are made 
only in the last 2 years after he is constitutionally out of office 
that he knows very well would be impossible to be made because they are 
so huge and they are in the discretionary spending side alone. He plays 
the same old game of playing to seniors and farmers and union people 
and the like with no responsibility for where the money is coming from 
to pay for it.
  Where is it coming from? Well, it is coming from adding to the 
deficit, that is where it is coming from. We were asking future 
generations to pay our bills. That is the old way of doing it in 
Washington. It has been done for years, and here we are attempting 
again apparently to do it all over again.
  The fall election, Mr. Speaker, is going to be about whether we are 
going to continue to do business in the old way and play the special 
interest politics game or not. Whether we are going to change to a new 
way, to take responsibility for the country, to ask people not what 
they get out of the process but what they are willing to give to the 
process to make it work for all the American people, to look at 
everything that Government does to ensure that it is worth doing in the 
first place. That it is something that has to be done through 
Government in Washington and can only be done there, to decide our 
priorities and to make certain that the money is spent to get results 
for people.

  That is what has been failing to happen over and over and over again 
in Washington. It is money that is shoveled out the door to serve 
interests rather than getting results for people. It is time that we 
change this process and that we make Government work for people and 
that we stop playing the special interest game and the political games 
that are so evident throughout the President's budget and throughout 
all of these debates.
  It is time that we get control of this process. It is time that we 
behave responsibly. It is time that we work budgets within a framework 
of fiscal responsibility and not ask people in the future to pay for 
what we receive from Government today.
  So I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, yeah, let us just 
play the tape. It is all the same old stuff over and over again. It is 
all the same old banter. It is all the class warfare and playing the 
special interest game. Let us get on with it. Let us get this job done. 
Let us get the substance done. That is what the American people expect 
of us and not just politics as usual.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not have either the President's budget or the 
Republican budget before us today. What we have before us is a 
proposition which continues the reduced funding levels of education and 
environmental protection which will threaten the environmental future 
of the country and the educational future of our children. That is what 
is before us today.
  But if we are going to mention the President's budget, let me simply 
point out the gentleman can say all he wants about how too many of the 
budget cuts in the President's budget are in the outyears.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out that in the seventh year of the 
budget which my colleague voted for, the budget reductions in the 
seventh year in the Republican budget are larger in the seventh year 
than they are in President Clinton's. Now, my colleague may not know 
that fact, but that is a fact.
  So I would suggest that, if he is concerned about reliance upon 
outyear cuts, I think he ought to look in the mirror because the budget 
that he supported has deeper cuts in the seventh year than the 
President has.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.

[[Page H2582]]

  Mr. Speaker, the point was made earlier that this practice of a lot 
of continuing resolutions coming directly to the floor and not going to 
committee, is highly unusual. I think it is important to point out for 
the record that in fact it is not unusual. In 1985, when the Democrats 
controlled the House of Representatives, we had three continuing 
resolutions that went directly to the floor. In 1986, there were six 
continuing resolutions that went directly to the floor; two in 1987; 
five in 1991; three in 1993.
  The point is nobody likes the process that we have engaged in, but we 
are where we are because the President vetoed three of the major 
appropriations bills just before Christmas, prompting the expulsion of 
thousands of Federal employees from their jobs at Christmas time. And 
the other bill, the labor HHS bill, was hung up in the Senate because 
it was filibustered for 9 months until really now.
  So as distasteful as this whole process is, it has been done before. 
It will be done again. The old adage that you do not look at sausage 
and laws being made because it is troublesome is painfully apparent in 
this particular process we are working our way through. I think for the 
Democrats, the minority's position seems to be to vote against this 
bill and close down Government because they do not like provisions that 
are being discussed in the conference in H.R. 3019; that is ludicrous. 
It just does not even make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, just a few comments on the interior portion 
of the omnibus bill that will be coming before us in the near future in 
the form of a conference report.
  Obviously, it was very difficult to meet all the needs with the 
allocation that we had. The final product that we put out was $1.7 
billion under the President's request. Now, that is $1.7 billion that 
we are not loading on to future generations. What that means is that, 
when young people in the next century, soon to be upon us, want to 
borrow money to buy a house, it will be at a reasonable interest rate 
instead of an inflated rate. If we can reduce the deficit and ensure to 
the marketplace that we are going to achieve a balanced budget over the 
next 7 years, I think we would see a dramatic decrease in interest 
rates. Even now, of course, that translates into jobs, as people start 
businesses, as they expand businesses, as we gain a larger share of the 
export market because the cost of production is reduced by not having 
the high overhead of interest rates, and I remember the late 1970's 
when we were up at something like 21 percent. So the potential benefits 
are enormous.
  Mr. Speaker, in structuring the interior bill, we did all that we 
could to make our contribution. We divided our responsibilities into 
must-do's, need-to-do's and nice-to-do's. On the must-do's, we kept the 
funding for the parks flat, a little bit of increase but relatively 
flat, and said manage it better. They are doing that.
  We did the same thing with the forests. The cut of timber we allowed 
was at the President's number. So it was not a case of cutting below in 
that instance because we recognized that the availability of timber is 
very important, wood for housing. When we had the bill on initially, I 
had a piece of 2-by-4 to illustrate what has happened to prices for 
lumber, and this affects of course the price that young people need to 
pay when they build or buy a house.
  So I think what we tried to do was recognize that the agencies that 
dealt with people, the parks, the forests, fish and wildlife 
facilities, BLM, and they also have a lot of facilities that are used 
by people on a multiple use basis, we kept that funding level so they 
would have the people and the ability to respond.
  We eliminated the Bureau of Mines. I noticed in the President's 1997 
budget he takes credit for eliminating Bureau of Mines, which we have 
done already in 1996. He has become a budget cutter.
  What we did is took care of the things that we had to do on the must-
do's. We finished facilities that were under way because that was 
important. If there was a repairs, for example, we put--and this has 
just been recently--$2 million in the CR to take care of the C&O Canal 
because thousands of people enjoy that every week. Those sorts of 
things are must-do's.
  Now when we got the nice-to-do's, build new visitor centers, buy more 
land, we did not do it because let us take care of what we have.
  Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that we are trying to be responsive 
and be reasonable and to get the job done but not do it at the expense 
of loading an enormous burden of debt on future generations. I think 
they will thank us for it when they go to buy that house and maybe get 
a mortgage at 5 percent instead of 8, 9, or 10 percent. They will thank 
us when they are not saddled with all the costs that go with the debt 
burden that this Government has.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker just gave a wonderful speech on the 
reasons to have debt reduction and deficit reduction. The problem is 
that has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill and nothing whatsoever 
to do with the budget that the gentleman voted for.
  If the gentleman will check the numbers, he can talk about bringing 
interests rates down all he wants, but the budget that he is trying to 
foist onto the American people ha a deficit which goes up next year. It 
does not go down. If he can explain to me how interest rates are going 
to go down as the deficit goes up, he is a whole lot smarter than Alan 
Greenspan.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I took the floor last week when we had this debate and said I felt 
like I was at the Groundhog Day movie. My colleagues know how every 
morning the alarm went off, the guy gets out of bed, and they run 
through the same day. But even in the Groundhog Day movie they did not 
do it 12 times, because they figured the audience could not even take 
that. And here we are with the 12th time.
  Now the gentleman from Louisiana says continuing resolutions are not 
new, we have had those in prior Congresses. He is right; we have. But 
it seems to me the other side seems to think we have to hit our full 
40-years score in one 6-month period. Our colleagues are about to throw 
as many continuing resolutions up on the scoreboard as it took us to 
accumulate over 40 years, and I want to say that is not something we 
were proud of. We tried to have as few as possible.
  I think the reason is because it is impossible to manage, it is 
impossible to plan, when we have this lurching, and jerking, and week 
to week, and will it continue, will it shut down?
  But the real bottom line is we now have out there school boards all 
over America trying to decide whether they give teachers pink slips, 
whether 40,000 teachers are going to get a pink slip, because we are 
going to slash education at such a low level.
  As my colleagues know, my concept had always been the family was the 
seat of virtue in this country. That is where we plant the seeds of 
virtue, in the family, and our job is to try and help that family raise 
that child, and one of the ways we try and help through the Federal 
level is with some supplemental money to education so that we have safe 
schools, drug-free schools, we have remedial education and math and 
science and reading. Those are key things that school districts need 
extra help with, and I cannot stand here and say it is a great idea to 
gut that, nor can I stand here, as spring has broken out over America, 
and say it is a great idea to cancel many of the environmental programs 
and, while America is going green, we are going to go brown.
  That is why this is happening, and I think the time has come to end 
this.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise in support of 
this continuing resolution and to correct some

[[Page H2583]]

of the implications of comments that have been made about its impact on 
the environment.
  First, let us put a lot of politicking aside. This continuing 
resolution is for 1 week, 7 days. It is not permanent policy, although 
I think much of it would be reasonable policy for the rest of the year.
  We need another week's continuing resolution because until recently, 
and very candidly, the administration has not been willing to bargain, 
and bargaining, the last time I checked, did not mean simply holding 
out until the other side capitulates.
  So now real bargaining seems possible, and we ought not to shut down 
the Government while that negotiation continues. Again, this is only 
about 1 week. Not even Congress can cause much damage in that time.
  Concerning the environment, this resolution is obviously not perfect, 
but it moves responsibly in the right direction pending further 
negotiations. It provides more dollars to the Environmental Protection 
Agency than either the House or the Senate passed, not enough, but a 
good start until the President comes to the negotiation table.
  Similarly, with the riders. I prefer no riders. Maybe that is where 
we will end up. But by and large, these are not the kind of damaging 
riders that the House debated last year.
  Take the Tongass, for example. The Tongass rider in this bill is a 
compromise that I helped negotiate with the Alaskan delegation and 
other concerned parties that allows the scientific planning process to 
continue. Let me stress that: That allows the scientific planning 
process to continue, and it will not increase actual timbering in that 
important national forest.
  So let us not waste a lot of time trying to score political points 
when we are on the verge of serious negotiations. Let us pass this 
harmless 1-week bill. We can do so in good conscience.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly wrong about the 
Tongass because the Tongass provision still contains a waiver of ANILCO 
and NEPO as far as environmental safeguards are concerned. All it has 
is the safeguards provided in a contract, which were not nearly as much 
as provided for.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, my distinguished colleague from 
Illinois knows full well the budget realities, the dollars and cents of 
it all. There will not be an increased timber cut in the Tongass. That 
is something that I strongly believe is the right policy. I do not want 
that. I think my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], has worked very well and very diligently on this.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out on the Tongass that 
the allowable cut with the money we put in is less than has been true 
in the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal 1994. We have actually reduced the 
cut, recognizing, of course, some of the differences of opinion. But I 
think that is an important fact that ought to be brought out here.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. And I am so glad the gentleman did, Mr. Speaker, and I 
want to thank him publicly for the outstanding work he has done and all 
the help he has given us to try to fashion a responsible compromise 
that was environmentally sensitive, and that is very important.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I simply note that earlier in the year we were told, ``Let's just 
pass a 45-day continuing resolution. That will give us enough time to 
work out the long-term budget problems.'' That expired. Then they 
brought to the floor another continuing resolution. Then last week they 
brought to the floor another one, saying, ``Let's pass one to keeping 
the Government going for a week. That will be enough time to work out 
our problems.'' Now they are here saying the same thing they said the 
previous week, ``Just give us another week. We will work out the 
problems.''
  Meanwhile, I still see no indication that the gentlemen on that side 
of the aisle are willing to back away from the environmental riders 
that are holding us up on the Interior bill. I see no indication that 
they are willing to restore the funding the President has asked so that 
we do not have to lay off 40,000 teachers.
  The problem is that every week that they continue with this 
``government on the installment plan'' they push local school districts 
further and further to the point where they have to lay off teachers. 
We do not want that done. We want them to get down to the business now, 
deal with the regular long-term CR rather than continuing this ``let's 
pretend'' extension of the Government under which you are continuously 
week by week squeezing the guts out of education and squeezing the guts 
out of our ability to enforce the law when it comes to environmental 
cleanup.
  That is the problem we face here today. And we believe sincerely that 
the way that you are running this House is going to greatly increase 
and enhance the likelihood that, in fact, they are going to either have 
to come up with another CR next week or else they are going to have to 
shut the Government down next week.
  I mean every week it is the same thing. When are we going to get 
serious and simply resolve the differences on the long-term resolution. 
Otherwise they are using that as an opportunity to gouge every local 
school district in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  I just want to clear up a point. The gentleman from New York who was 
in the well was saying that the Tongass provisions, the rape and ruin 
of America's only temperate rain forest, have not been corrected. In 
fact, what they have done under this legislation is put in place a 
harvest plan for that forest that has already been found to be flawed 
scientifically, that is unsustainable and will lead to the overcutting 
of that rain forest, and then they put hurdles in the place of 
replacing that. So, in fact, they have gone from having a plan for 2 
years to having a plan that essentially is in perpetuity that will lead 
to the overharvesting and the stripping of that forest and its 
resources. It is the only temperate rain forest that we have in North 
America, and it ought to be protected, and it ought to be harvested in 
a scientifically acceptable and understandable fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not what this legislation does. It overrides the 
scientists, puts in place a plan that was rejected already by the 
scientists, and then says that is the method by which we will harvest 
the Tongass Forest. That is why it continues to be unacceptable to the 
administration, to the American people, and to those of us who care 
about reasonable forest practices.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 
yielding this time to me.
  To put it crudely, my colleagues, this is indeed a lousy way to do 
the people's business. These weekly CR's are Government by political 
hiccup. It is atrocious that ideology, and stubbornness, and 
extremists, and extremism and hostage-taking have been substituted for 
what in previous Congresses had been a rational and timely 
consideration of and passage of the Nation's budget and appropriations 
process. These CR's come weekly, many of them. This is the 12th, as we 
have heard, the 12th continuing resolution.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and a couple of others have 
mentioned what I know each of my colleagues has heard in their own 
offices, and that is that school boards are apoplectic about this 
situation. Many teachers do not know if they are going to have their 
contracts renewed or at what salary levels.
  It is not true that the environment is not suffering. Public lands 
acquisition has been put on hold. Necessary construction on public 
lands has been put on hold. EPA enforcement has been slowed in some 
areas almost to a stop. There has been disruption in the

[[Page H2584]]

Superfund work, and I can tell my colleagues, in that I have two great 
national parks, all or part within my State of Montana, that the morale 
of Park Service workers is the lowest I have ever seen it, and that may 
be true throughout the Federal system.
  Let me say in closing, what I said at the beginning. Crudely put, 
this is a lousy way to do the people's business. It is perhaps no 
wonder that for 40 years the American people kept the current majority 
in the minority. If this is the way they do the public's business, they 
will probably be put in the minority again with good reason.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed the same speeches and same 
thing this Congress did last week, and the month before, and the week 
before, and the weekend before that, but there really is something 
different: It is a week later, and another week of cuts, significant 
cuts in education, and the environment, and important other areas. One 
week, Mr. Speaker, 1 week, 45 days.
  I voted for the 45-day temporary spending bill because I thought that 
it was fair to give time to work this out, and so I voted ``yes'' for 
those 45 days of cuts. But yet now, it is another week, and another 
week, and another week. At some point, we say ``no.''
  As my colleagues know, education and the environment, like Caesar, 
can die by 100 cuts just as easily as 1, and the impact is very clear, 
Mr. Speaker. In West Virginia, when this temporary spending bill 
expires, and they are asking for another one, 226 teachers will have 
gotten their pink slips, 90 aides; 6,500 students that benefit from the 
math and reading programs that are so important will no longer be 
eligible.
  Mr. Speaker, whether it is the environmental cleanup, the toxic waste 
cleanup, the education programs, the job training programs, this is no 
way to do business.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunate procedure. This is an unfortunate 
year. This is an unfortunate Congress.
  I agree with the gentleman from Montana who spoke that the judgment 
that will have been made of this Congress, is that it is probably the 
worst-run Congress in 50 years. That is the sentiment expressed by 
Kevin Phillips, a very conservative Republican columnist; not my view, 
but I share that view. And today we see another result of that.

                              {time}  1315

  I do not believe, frankly, that the chairman of the committee would 
want this to happen. I have said that before. I do not think the Chair 
of any of our subcommittees would want that to happen. I am speaking of 
the Republican chairs. I frankly think it is central management that is 
to blame for this, but I want to say that I supported the last 
continuing resolution, a CR, as we call it, or perhaps ``completely 
ridiculous,'' as the American public must view it.
  I supported it because obviously I want to see the 56,000 Federal 
employees that I represent remain on the job doing the work that 
America expects of them, and being paid for that work. But the fact of 
the matter is I am going to oppose this resolution, because what is 
happening is, in my opinion, part strategy and part an admission of 
failure; strategy to the extent that it is, as the gentleman from West 
Virginia, said, death by a thousand cuts; just drip, drip, drip, drip; 
cut, cut, cut, cut, education, environment, energy assistance for old 
people and poor people; drip, drip, cut, cut.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a responsible action to take. The Contract 
With America talked about personal responsibility. I have said it 
before, but in point of fact, we have abrogated our responsibility to 
the American public to handle the finances of this Nation responsibly. 
This is not responsible management of the Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, these 1-week CR's are unprecedented. This is the 12th 
extension, because we cannot get our business done in this Congress. 
Mr. Speaker, it is not because the President is vetoing so many bills. 
In fact, this President has vetoed fewer bills than either George Bush 
or Ronald Reagan. Let us be responsible. Let us fund at least the 
balance of this fiscal year, halfway through it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, 
very much was helping us all focus upon the point. There is little 
doubt that the American public knows full well that we need to reduce 
the rate of growth of Government, because the past rate of growth of 
Government has taken us to a deficit that is pushing $5 trillion. The 
American public further knows that in their own households they have to 
be able to pay their bills, and if consistently they do not pay their 
bills, they eventually declare bankruptcy.
  Mr. Speaker, some suggest that a $5 trillion deficit has a 
tremendously negative impact upon our economy. The problem is not the 
result of cuts, but rather the result of spend, spend, spend, spend. 
This Congress, dominated by one party for 40 years, moved us toward 
this horrendous condition. In the short time the gentleman from 
Maryland and I have been together on this committee, the majority, the 
former majority: spend, spend, spend. Never could they find a program 
that was not working, never cancel a program whenever you create one, 
but expand it; spend, spend, spend, spend; tax, tax, tax, tax. Mr. 
Speaker, that is not the way to solve the problems of our people or our 
Government. Indeed, it is time for a change.
  If the President would work with us instead of vetoing bills, we 
would not have to be here today. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is time for a 
change.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I 
reserve the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a simple choice here today. We can continue to 
pass 1-week continuing resolutions, which will force our school 
districts within the next 3 or 4 weeks to begin laying off 40,000 
teachers; we can continue in place the policy of the majority party 
that will make it much more difficult for 1 million kids to learn how 
to read and how to deal with math; we can continue the process of 
cutting deeply into the school-to-work program, which largely enables 
kids who are not planning to go to college to get some help in 
transitioning from high schools to the world of work; we can continue 
to cripple the ability of the Government to protect the public interest 
from environmental damage by continuing the very large reductions in 
environmental cleanup that we have in the bill; or we can decide that 
we have had enough of that, and we are going to ask that those funds be 
restored.
  This issue is not about how much will be spent, because the President 
has offered offsets to every single dollar he wants to put back in this 
budget for education and for environment. The majority party simply 
made a decision that they want to buy twice as many B-2 bombers as the 
Pentagon asked for, and then they want to pay for it by taking it out 
of education and out of worker training and out of environmental 
cleanup. We think those are dumb priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can talk all he wants. He invents this 
fictitious list of about 760 Federal programs that are supposedly for 
education. If the gentleman wants to take out air traffic controller 
training, he is the chairman of the committee. Why does he not do it? 
He is not a helpless victim. If he wants to eliminate NIH kidney 
research, which they ludicrously count as an education program, if he 
wants to eliminate NIH heart research, which he ludicrously counts as 
an education program, if he wants to eliminate FBI advanced police 
training, go ahead, offer the motion. He is the chairman of the 
committee. He has the power to do so. We do not think it is a good idea 
to eliminate those things.
  The President's budget recommends the consolidation or elimination of 
70 education programs so we can focus

[[Page H2585]]

our money where it is needed most in the education area. Yet, we get 
this smokescreen pointing to some little silly action here or there at 
the local level to justify the fact that they are trying to impose on 
this country the largest reduction in support for education in the 
history of the country.
  We do not think that is a good way to help middle-class families 
raise their living standards and help give their kids decent jobs. We 
do not think it is a good idea to raise the cost of getting student 
loans by $10 billion over the next 7 years. We think we ought to get 
about the business of keeping the Government open full time, rather 
than this week-to-week nonsense.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to end the nonsense and vote against this 
silly piece of legislation.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. 
Speaker.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to hear my 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, talk about how we could do this 
or how we could do that. The fact is, we tried to take out all those 
programs and zero them out. The gentleman voted against the bill.
  Now the gentleman says, well, he is willing to stand up and give me a 
unanimous consent request to get rid of such screwy things as an Ounce 
of Prevention Council, that funds 2 billion dollars worth of a glossy 
magazine, because they have not done anything else. Hopefully he will 
join with us in reducing the extremely dumb grants of $175,000 for 
school administrators to go on a St. Michael's resort retreat under 
safe and drug-free schools, or buy lumber for the steps of aerobics 
classes. Hopefully he would like to join with us and strike the good 
old President's favorite AmeriCorps Program, which, in Baltimore, the 
average cost per participant of a volunteer is some $50,000.
  Mr. Speaker, he said that he wants to strike the unnecessary and 
wasteful, yet never have I heard him offer one single cut, ever. He 
always wants to spend more money, more programs, tax the American 
people. We have got 726 education programs, each with their own 
bureaucracy, each with their own beneficiaries. it does not matter how 
duplicative, wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant they may be.
  The point is, the gentleman talks a good game, but the fact is, all 
he wants to do is tell the American taxpayer to pay more money so he 
can tell them how it can best be spent.
  This is a simple request to keep the Government working so the 
conference can go into action between the House and Senate and we can 
send the President a final bill. Mr. Speaker, they would close down the 
Government. They are hoping to vote unanimously against this and get a 
few Republican votes and just close down the Government so they can 
say, ``I told you so.'' Is that the answer? Does that help all the 
beneficiaries of the various programs the gentleman is concerned about? 
I think not.
  The point is, Mr. Speaker, they do not have a leg to stand on, 
because the American people have caught on to their game. They have 
said, ``We have paid enough taxes, and you have misspent it time and 
time and time again, and the time has come to quit, to streamline, to 
strike the redundant and the necessary programs, to try to make 
government work as efficiently as business works, to downsize the 
government, the bureaucratic conglomerate that Washington has 
created.''
  He talks about the harm that would happen to education if our 
downsizing goes through. The fact of the matter is 30 years ago the 
Federal Government did not give $1 to education. It was always the 
State and local responsibilities. Now the Federal Government pays 
between $20 and $30 billion in education, and we pile on the 
regulations, we pile on the restrictions, we pile on the bureaucracy, 
we extract the money from the American people and tell them what we did 
for them, and the quality of education goes down. Look at the charts. 
Look at the statistics. American pupils, students throughout America, 
are going lousy today compared with what we did 20 years ago.
  When are we ever going to restore common sense to the American 
budget? never, if the gentleman from Wisconsin has his way.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition House Joint Resolution 
165, the 12th short-term continuing resolution for the current fiscal 
year. Where will it end? How many stopgap measures will it take for our 
Republican colleagues to realize that this is not the way to operate 
the Government?
  After two GOP-politically contrived shutdowns, which cost the 
American people over a billion dollars, action is still pending on five 
major appropriations bills. This week-to-week, piecemeal, and part-time 
management of the Nation's Government must end. Funding for nine 
critical Federal agencies is in jeopardy including the Departments of 
Education, Housing and urban Development, Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Veterans Affairs. These agencies Provide vital services 
upon which families across the country depend.

  Mr. Speaker, this needless and continuing disruption of the lives of 
the American people is irresponsible. This is the 12th continuing 
resolution in less than 6 months. Our Nation's children are among the 
hardest hit by the Republicans' budget. While hard-working parents are 
raising their children, telling them to study hard, play by the rules, 
and you will succeed, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
destroying the very foundation upon which that philosophy was built.
  I know the children and families in my district, in Cleveland, OH, as 
well as those throughout the State, and across the country will suffer 
as a result of the Republicans' mean spirited budget. Over $3 billion 
is gutted from education, the largest cut in history. Where will our 
disadvantaged children, who need and want to learn, turn for teaching 
assistance in basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, when the GOP-
measure cuts over a billion dollars from title I alone? Approximately 
40 thousand teachers would be eliminated. In Ohio, 1,300 title I 
teachers would be removed from the classroom, 32,000 children would 
suffer.
  School systems across the country would suffer from the $266 million 
cut in the Safe and Drug-free Schools Program. Ohio's students would 
suffer from an over $8 million cut. This would make it nearly 
impossible to maintain effective violence and substance-abuse 
prevention programs. Most programs would be destroyed. Children must be 
provided a safe, crime-free environment in which to learn.
  Communities and States would be denied the funding they need to 
provide youth and adults vocational education training. This program 
would be devastated by the Republicans' $185 million cut. Ohio's 
students would suffer tremendously from the loss of $7 million in basic 
grant funding alone.
  Mr. Speaker, the cuts in education coupled with those in critical 
employment training programs including the elimination of the Summer 
Jobs Program, and the $362 million cut in dislocated workers' 
assistance would threaten the quality of life for hundreds of thousands 
of hard-working families across the country.
  The elimination of the Summer Jobs Program alone means that over 
600,000 students would be denied the opportunity to gain the skills 
they need to enter the work force. The cut in the dislocated workers' 
program means that workers who have been laid-off through no fault of 
their own would be denied the assistance they need to reenter the work 
force. It is estimated that over 20 million workers will be permanently 
laid-off in 1996 alone.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people need and want to work. Our children 
and their families must not be denied the resources necessary to help 
them achieve their highest academic and economic potential. In this era 
of escalating global competitiveness, the American people must be 
equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to earn a living wage.
  Furthermore, this short-term fix still does not dismiss the fact that 
what is ultimately being proposed by our colleagues on the other side 
would: Jeopardize the welfare of millions of veterans, who are 
dependent upon a certain level of interaction from the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs, by restricting the Secretary's travel; threaten the 
security of millions of elderly and low-income Americans who, without 
adequate Federal assisted housing, are at-risk of going homeless; add 
to the growing ranks of persons living in the streets as a result of 
their appalling reductions to homeless programs; endanger the 
environment by cutting EPA funding for programs that maintain clean air 
and keep our drinking water safe; and imperil the public's health by 
reducing Superfund efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites.
  Mr. Speaker, America must protect and invest appropriately in her No. 
1 resource, the American people--to do otherwise is fiscally 
irresponsible. I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for children, 
and to stand up for families. Let's go back to the budget negotiation 
table and restore the Nation's investment in human capital including 
education, summer jobs, health care services, employment training, 
veterans's services, the environment, and housing. Vote ``no'' on House 
Joint Resolution 165.

[[Page H2586]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.


                       request to offer amendment

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in light of the express concern of the 
chairman of the committee about retreats or administrative personnel, 
student vacations, cosmetology schools, et cetera, I offer an 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 
operation of the previous question on this amendment, that I be 
permitted to offer the amendment at this point, which would read as 
follows:

       At the end of the joint resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 101. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (a) none of the funds made available under this Act for the 
     Safe and Drug Free Schools Program and the Title 1 
     Compensatory Education Program for Disadvantaged Students 
     shall be used to pay the costs of disc jockeys, aerobics 
     classes, retreats for administrative personnel, and student 
     vacations; and
       (b) none of the funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to administer any program subsidizing massage therapy 
     and cosmetology schools.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, the fact 
is that I probably will object to this in a second, but I want to point 
out that the gentleman will have ample opportunity in the conference 
that begins today informally and will be more formalized as we go 
through the next 10 days, so he will have an opportunity to strike 
these programs.
  If he is sincere, if he really means what he says, I will join with 
him to strike the money for this waste and this inefficiency. But Mr. 
Speaker, I would point out that the gentleman is grandstanding here. 
The request before the House of Representatives is simply to extend the 
existing CR's for 1 week.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman is constrained to object, 
because the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will have his 
opportunity later on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 386, 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.

                              {time}  1330


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). Is the gentleman 
opposed to the joint resolution?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I most certainly am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
   The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 
     165, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the resolution back promptly with an amendment to 
     provide the necessary funding during the period of the joint 
     resolution to avert all layoffs of instructional school 
     personnel whose salaries are paid in whole or in part by 
     programs of the Department of Education for the 1996-1997 
     academic year.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment. We have just now received it and I would like to 
have a chance to read it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana reserves a 
point of order.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me explain what we have just seen and let 
me explain this motion. The majority party is insisting that we pass a 
resolution which continues in place lower funding levels that cut some 
$3 billion out of education and continue very savage reductions in 
environmental cleanup legislation.
  They argue the necessity to do that because the chairman has pointed 
out the abuse of a few programs. I just tried to offer a motion 
directed to eliminating every single abuse the gentleman just 
mentioned. I asked unanimous consent that they eliminate under safe and 
drug-free schools the ability to fund programs such as the gentleman 
just objected to. I also asked that under this bill we eliminate all 
funding for schools of cosmetology and massage therapy because the 
gentleman has objected to those.
  The gentleman then accuses me of a smokescreen for responding to the 
criticisms he has made in existing programs. He said, ``Why don't we 
fix it when we go into conference?'' Why do we not fix it right now? I 
would suggest what is really at stake here is they are desperately 
trying to hang onto the money they are cutting out of education so they 
can funnel it into their tax cuts for very wealthy people. And I do not 
think we ought to lay off 40,000 teachers so they can give a gift to 
their rich contributors.
  So what I am saying is simply this. In this recommit motion, we are 
simply asking the committee to go back into committee and to restore 
all of the funds necessary so that no local school district has to lay 
off any teaching personnel.
  What this motion does is ensure that those local school districts 
will have the Federal funds they need to pay for the teachers and other 
instructional personnel to provide the reading and math classes for 
disadvantaged kids, to hire guidance counselors, to provide antidrug 
abuse and drug prevention education to both teachers and students, to 
retain teachers and counselors to help students make a successful 
transition from schools to jobs, and to the jobs they need.
  What this simply says is, do not fund your tax cuts by cutting the 
guts out of personnel in the local school districts. That is what it 
says. I urge a vote for the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation and speak in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The fact is that if the gentleman's motion to recommit were granted 
and were adopted by this House, the entire guts of the bill before us 
would be virtually obviated, would be wiped out, and we would be forced 
to either report today a conference agreement on the overall four bills 
that remain outstanding, actually five counting the District of 
Columbia, or else Government would shut down.
  I do not think that the other side is serious when they say that they 
want the Government to shut down. But the fact is if they all vote in 
unison for this motion to recommit and some of our Members vote for it, 
the likelihood is that the Government could indeed shut down with 
respect to those departments which are covered by the five outstanding 
bills.
  I think that that would be a terrible thing to happen.
  I know, I hear all of the pleas of mercy for the beneficiaries of the 
multitudinous numbers of redundant, unnecessary, and crazy programs 
that the taxpayers have been forced to fund under the outstanding 
bills, but the fact is that the same beneficiaries would be really in 
trouble if we were to create a procedural vote, adopt their motion to 
recommit, and just close the Government down.
  In 1 week, the Department of Education would not be able to figure 
out the cost of impact of the Obey amendment. So all those teachers we 
heard about, and I question the figures that they were using, but all 
those teachers that we heard about, that they say they are concerned 
about, would be automatically not getting any Federal funding and that 
would be ludicrous. That would be absolutely absurd.
  So if you want to close the Government down, go ahead and vote for 
the Obey motion to recommit. If you want to keep an orderly process and 
show that Government can operate, albeit no matter how ugly the process 
sometimes gets, then we would urge that you vote against the motion to 
recommit, vote for this 1-week extension, and hopefully by the end of 
the next week, a week from tomorrow, we will, in fact, have a 
conference agreement which will wrap up and conclude action for fiscal 
year 1996 on all of the outstanding bills.
  That is my fondest hope, it is my desire, and I am going to work 
every hour that I can to make sure that comes to pass. But we need a 
``no'' vote on the motion to recommit or else this Government is going 
to shut down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.

[[Page H2587]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage of the joint resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 192, 
nays 230, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               YEAS--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--230

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     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
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Collins (IL)
     Johnston
     Moakley
     Radanovich
     Roukema
     Stark
     Stokes
     Waters
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1354

  Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. SCHIFF, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The question is on 
the passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 180, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               AYES--244

     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
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     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
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     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
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz

[[Page H2588]]


     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--180

     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
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     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
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Collins (IL)
     Johnston
     Moakley
     Radanovich
     Stark
     Stokes
     Waters

                              {time}  1406

  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________