[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10315-H10323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1999

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from the further 
consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 133) making further 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for other 
purposes, when called up; and that it be in order at any time to 
consider the joint resolution in the House; that the joint resolution 
be considered as read for amendment; that the joint resolution be 
debatable for not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and 
controlled between myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); 
that all points of order against the joint resolution and against its 
consideration be waived; and, that the previous question be considered 
as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening 
motion, except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request just agreed to, I called up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
133) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 133 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 133

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 
     106(c) of Public Law 105-240 is amended by striking ``October 
     9, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 12, 1998''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H. J. Res. 133, 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. Speaker, today the initial continuing resolution for fiscal year 
1999 expires, so we need another continuing resolution. Not all of the 
appropriations bills have yet been enacted, and for that reason we do 
need a little extra time to complete our business.
  Adoption of H.J. Res. 133, which runs from tonight through October 
12, will give us the time we need to complete our remaining work.
  I am disappointed I have had to bring this joint resolution to the 
floor. I really thought that it was possible that we could get our 
bills done by tonight, but evidently we have run into some roadblocks 
and we need a little bit more time.
  The negotiations are proceeding. There are tough issues yet to be 
settled. I appreciate all parties for having participated to the degree 
that they have. But I hope they understand that we need to knuckle down 
and do a little bit more if we are going to finish the job through the 
end of this particular continuing resolution which expires on Monday.
  I was a little taken aback by the press conference by the President a 
little while ago suggesting that the Congress is not intent on doing 
our business. As you know, Mr. Speaker, both Houses have been 
diligently working on the budget ever since the President came to 
Congress and requested approximately $9 billion over the budget 
agreement that he agreed to last year, which ultimately led to 
balancing the budget this year. He requested $9 billion more than he 
had agreed to last

[[Page H10316]]

year and we have been doing the best that we could to meet the caps, 
the budget caps that were put in place by that budget agreement.
  It would appear now that the President wishes us to exceed those 
budget caps with the promise that he has certain unidentified offsets 
for any monies that might be expended in excess of those caps. And yet 
to this moment, Mr. Speaker, to this very moment, despite our requests 
since July, I have not seen those offsets.
  Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly requested from the administration day 
after day, week after week, month after month to give us a sneak peek 
at the offsets that they might provide for us, so that we might know if 
we spend more than the budget caps agreed to by the President. We will 
offset that amount and the budget agreement that the President engaged 
in last year will not be broken, will not be breached.
  To this minute as I stand here, I still have not seen those budget 
offsets. And so it concerns me when I turn on the television a little 
while ago and see the President of the United States standing in the 
Rose Garden surrounded by Members of Congress from the other side of 
the aisle saying that we have not met his prerogatives and he is going 
to hold the Congress here until we meet his demands.
  We would love to meet his demands, but all we ask is to let us see 
these offsets which pay for the amount that he wishes to expend in 
excess of the amount that he agreed to in his budget agreement with us 
that led to the balanced budget that we all reached last year.
  I am hopeful, I am deeply hopeful that we are going to be able to see 
those budget offsets some day soon. Maybe even today. But just a few 
minutes ago, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget said 
that he wanted to wait until the end of the process before he showed us 
his offsets.
  Well, I think the time for Kenny Rogers to step up to the table and 
say, ``You've got to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em'' is 
long since past. The time is to put the cards on the table, and we have 
not yet been able to get the administration to do that. So, we have not 
really been able to get an agreement yet.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry about that. I apologize to all the Members of 
this body that we have not concluded our business. I am hopeful and 
optimistic that we will be able to do so by Monday. But I want to say 
to all of my Members, all of my colleagues throughout Congress, we are 
going to stay here. We are going to stay here until we conclude the 
people's business. We will stay as long as it takes to finish our 
business, pass our appropriations bills, live within the budget caps, 
the agreement that the President and the Congress made last year.
  When we conclude our business, we will go home and get elected. Until 
then, I am afraid that we may be here with another continuing 
resolution, and that grieves me greatly. I would like very much not to 
have to say that. But to think that just a few minutes ago the 
representatives of the President of the United States would not show us 
the offsets that they intend to use to pay for any spending over and 
above the budget caps that the President agreed to a year ago is 
absolutely astounding at this late hour.
  So, I have no choice but to come here and request this continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the gentleman from Louisiana and I 
are good friends. We are an awful lot alike; we are both very placid 
individuals. Neither one of us ever gets excited; neither one of us 
ever gets mad; and we are always the quietest, most calm people in the 
place.
  Let me simply say that I have enjoyed listening to my friend's 
speech, and he is doing his duty in bringing this extension of the 
continuing resolution to the floor. But I kind of feel like Yogi Berra. 
This is deja vu all over again. And I think we really do need to 
understand why we are here and what the practical steps are that must 
be taken if we are to get out of here in a reasonable length of time.
  This House has had sort of a schizophrenic history the last 2 years 
on appropriations bills. Last year, I thought we had a very good year, 
and I thought that both parties could genuinely be pleased about what 
was produced in the appropriations process. After the fight over the 
government shutdown several years ago, where my friends on the other 
side got badly burned because they thought they could shut the 
government down to force the President to cave into their priorities, 
and they were proven wrong, in reaction to that, last year, I thought 
they behaved quite responsibly. And, as a result, we had a bipartisan 
approach to virtually every appropriations bill except one. And at the 
end of the process I thought we all felt pretty good about ourselves 
and about each other.
  But when this year's appropriations cycle began, it was apparent that 
the majority leadership was in a new mode, and they were telling the 
leadership of the Committee on Appropriations on the other side of the 
aisle that they wanted them to adopt a more confrontational mode so 
that they could more clearly define the differences between the two 
parties. The press has written about that. I have been told that, 
frankly, by a number of Members on the other side of the aisle.
  So, as a consequence, what has been the track record? The track 
record is that this Congress never did produce a budget. We are now 
through the entire fiscal year, and we still do not have a budget. We 
also have very few bills that have gone through the entire process. I 
think only two of them have been signed, one has been vetoed, and the 
rest are still stuck in the Congress somewhere.
  One of the reasons for that, in my view, is because the leadership on 
that side of the aisle in this House decided that they wanted to try to 
pass a series of appropriations bills with only Republican votes. And 
so, for instance, on Labor, Health, Education, they produced a bill 
which is some $2 billion below the President's on education; they 
eliminated the Low Income Heating Assistance Program; they eliminated 
Summer Jobs; they shredded the President's education initiatives; and 
they produced a bill which was so extreme that their Republican 
brethren in the Senate would not accept that bill, and that bill has 
never even been finished by either body. Finally, yesterday, that bill 
came to the floor, and then we simply had a brief debate on family 
planning and then that bill was pulled from the floor.
  Now, we do not run this place; the other side does, because they are 
the majority. I recognize that. But when the other side follows a 
policy of confrontation rather than cooperation, they have to expect 
that we are going to have problems. And so now we are stuck. No budget. 
Almost no appropriations bills passed. Fiscal year gone. We have 
already had one continuing resolution and now we have yet another one. 
I would predict for my colleagues that this is going to have to be 
extended again.
  Members in this House need to understand there is not a chance of a 
snowball in Hades that we can possibly reach all of the agreements that 
have to be reached and have a bill to the floor on Monday. I have 
talked to a number of our friends in the press, and they seem to have 
been told that there were only 9 or 10 items that separated us. We 
still have over 300 items that have to be resolved, in numbers and in 
language. And that is a practical fact. That means that we are going to 
need every second of this extension and then some, in my view.
  I would just ask that we recognize that while the majority party 
controls both Houses of the Congress, and it is their right to produce 
a bill that can only be passed with Republican votes, they must 
understand that if they want those bills to become law, they do need a 
Presidential signature, and that means there is going to have to be 
compromise. We are going to have to find common ground. And, until we 
do, we are going to be stuck here. I hope we can find that common 
ground sooner than later, but it is going to be very difficult.
  With respect to the chairman's comments on offsets, offsets are 
simply what is produced in order to pay the bill. The check comes after 
we know what the bill is. Well, until we know what the differences are 
between parties, and until we know the size of

[[Page H10317]]

those differences, it is pretty hard to say how we are going to pay for 
them when we do not even know what the differences are. So what we have 
to do, with all due respect to my friends on the other side, we have to 
sit down and lay out what our differences are so that we know rather 
than are guessing about how the other feels, and then we can proceed to 
try to bridge those differences.
  I hope we can be here early next week with a resolution to these 
bills, but we are a long way from settlement. And as the President said 
in the White House, we are not going to leave, we are not going to 
leave until this Congress is responsive to the President's education 
initiatives and we have those funded to considerable measure. And that 
means that we had better start recognizing that right now.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  As the gentleman has said, the process is to work between the bodies 
on the Hill and between the parties in this body and the other body to 
work out our differences, and, of course, work with the White House to 
try to achieve some degree of compromise to where the bills can be 
signed. And that is exactly the process that we are in and have been in 
for several weeks now.
  As far as knowing what the White House offsets are going to be so 
that we can know where the money is going to come from to pay for these 
extra frills that the President seems to want, we simply want to know 
what the cost is going to be and where the money is going to come from. 
When we go shopping at the store and the store shows us the goods that 
we would like to buy, they have to know that we have got the money to 
pay for it before we can strike a deal.
  And so we simply want to see the White House's money. If they have a 
way to pay for the frills that they are asking for, then that is a 
different story. But until this time they have simply refused to tell 
us whether or not they have the money to pay for the frills that they 
want to add to these bills.
  Now, we are in the process of working differences out between the 
bodies and the White House. That process is ongoing. The budget office 
from the White House has been here now for several days meeting with 
the leadership in the Congress, the Speaker, the majority leader, and 
the leaders of the minority party in both bodies. We are in the process 
of negotiating and working. We simply have not had time to meet the 
demands of the White House at this point in time.
  And I would urge that the White House be reasonable in their 
requests. We are trying to be reasonable. We are trying to find ways to 
do what the White House would like to do on all these bills. They are 
being a bit unreasonable at this point in time, and we simply are going 
to stay here until we get this job done.
  Now, the White House can take their campaign trips wherever they 
want. This body, this House, is staying in session until we get the job 
done.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic Whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and 
giving me some time to talk about the lack of a budget.
  Madam Speaker, here we are. We are 9 days past the end of the fiscal 
year. We are passing another short-term budget because the Republican 
leadership has failed to do its work. We have no budget.
  If we were running a business and we were entering a new year, we 
would have a budget to follow so we would know where we were going, 
what we were going to spend, what income we were going to take in, how 
we were going to make our ledger work.
  A family would have a budget so they knew how to take care of their 
housing needs and their children's education and all of the things that 
are important.
  We are not talking about some small entity here. This is the Federal 
Government. We have no budget. For the first time in 25 years, there is 
no budget. And only 6 of the 13 spending bills have been passed. Excuse 
me. Six have not been passed.
  So what have we been doing here for, lo, these many months since the 
President came and talked about issues of concern to the country in the 
State of the Union address?
  Have we dealt with the minimum wage so that people who work 40 hours 
a week can earn at least a poverty level wage? They do not now. They 
did not do that. The Senate a couple of weeks ago voted against that. 
The Republican colleagues killed that in the Senate.
  How about campaign finance reform to clean up our system? Did not do 
that in the Senate. They killed that one, too, after squandering months 
on it in the House not wanting to take it up.
  How about teen smoking for the health of our children? What did we do 
there? Zippo, nada, nothing.
  How about HMO reform, a patients' bill of rights so that when someone 
wants to see a doctor they can see a doctor. So that if someone needs a 
test they can get a test. So if someone has an emergency they can go to 
the closest hospital? They killed it in the Senate today in the other 
body.
  So this Congress has basically done nothing on the issues that the 
American people care about. We have no budget.
  And my colleague on the other side of the aisle, who I respect, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), talks about frills, how are we 
going to pay for the frills?
  I just was handed a definition of ``frills'' because I was on my way 
to the dictionary which sits in this Chamber next to the Speaker's 
podium, and they define frills as a trimming, as a strip of cloth or 
lace gathered at the end, a ruffle, something superfluous.
  Let me tell my colleagues what kind of frills we are talking about 
and then decide whether or not it is superfluous. We are talking about 
education, and we are talking about reducing our class size in America 
so that our children can get a good education, so that there can be 
discipline in the classrooms and our teachers can teach, and we have a 
bill that we have advocated for months and months and months, and they 
have said no and no and no to it. That is the frills we are talking 
about today.
  Or how about this frill? How about taking care of the schools in this 
Nation that are falling apart, where the plaster is falling down and 
the plumbing does not work or our children are getting educated in 
trailers outside the main building, where the heat does not work 
sometimes? Is that a frill?
  That is why we want to stay here, so that we can take care of those 
issues that we came here to take care of.
  They have closed the door to a good wage for people already. They 
closed the door on patients' health reform, a patients' bill of rights, 
reforming HMOs today. They closed the door on doing something about 
teen smoking and health care in this country, and now they talk about 
education reform as frills.
  We have no budget. This, in my opinion, has been the worst, most 
unproductive Congress that I have been involved with in my 22 years 
here. Oh, it has done a lot of investigating, but when it comes to the 
people's business, the business that the people talk about around their 
kitchen tables, nothing, and then we get it called frills.
  Madam Speaker, I hope in the next week, and I suspect we will be here 
for a week, I cannot imagine that we will get 300 items taken care of, 
because that is what is in disagreement, as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) mentioned, 300 pieces of 
disagreement on these appropriation bills, in numbers and in language.
  I hope in the week or so that it takes to get this done we will 
elevate the education issue to where it belongs in this country so that 
our children will get the respect, the dignity and the resources that 
they need to be able to compete in our world.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), whatever he 
calls the additional spending the President has requested, he has yet 
to tell us how he is going to pay for it. I mean, the budget agreement 
that the gentleman agreed to, the President agreed to, under which we 
are operating, sets caps for spending.

[[Page H10318]]

  We are spending up to the caps. Now the President says disregard the 
caps; give us more money for X, Y and Z.
  Well, we cannot consider that until we know how we are going to pay 
for it. Where are we going to cut spending in order to increase 
spending for something else so that we stay under the overall caps, 
under which this Congress operates and the White House agreed to and is 
operating?
  Now, as to whether or not there is a budget resolution, it makes not 
a hill of beans' difference. We are operating under the budget 
agreement that the parties and the White House agreed to a couple of 
years ago. We are spending in the appropriations bills every penny of 
those caps. Whether or not we have a budget resolution is irrelevant, 
because we agreed back in June, without the budget resolution, that we 
would spend up to the caps. We cannot spend more than the caps unless 
we change the law. So what difference is it if there is not a budget 
resolution, which only is an internal paper of the Congress anyway?
  So we are spending all of the caps that we are allowed to spend under 
the budget resolution, the budget agreement, that the White House 
signed off on and now wants to violate.
  I want to ask the White House, how come they want to violate the 
balanced budget agreement that led to the Nation's first balanced 
budget in 37 years and which they are so big about crowing about on 
television? Why do they now want to violate that balanced budget 
agreement?
  As long as there is a refusal to come up with the offsets to spend 
more in one category than we agreed to, it simply is a hollow demand.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like to 
ask the gentleman a question on my time. He is asking what the 
administration will do to pay for its initiatives. The Speaker is 
asking that we spend at least $8 billion in additional funding for the 
Pentagon, in addition to the bill that we just passed through here 2 
weeks ago.
  Where are you going to get the money to pay for that?
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield, I assume that the Speaker 
has suggested the offsets with which to pay for it. That is the way 
this place has to operate under the balanced budget agreement.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman assumes wrongly.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, this debate is almost hilarious. My 
colleagues on the other side say there is no budget. But each 
appropriations bill we have in the balanced budget has a cap. Every 
appropriations bill has a budget in it, all 13 of them. There is your 
budget. And in every case, every single case except one that the 
liberals always want to cut is defense, and our national security is 
the lowest it has been in 30 years. That is your cash cow. In every 
single one. You say, well, education. Your party over 40 years has 
screwed up the education program to where we are 15th in the 
industrialized nations in math and science. We are last in literacy. 
And for the first time we have taken the 760 federal education programs 
so you can rein down your excessive money and limit it and get the 
money to the classroom. Instead of 50 cents on the dollar, we are going 
to get 90 cents on the dollar down to the classroom.
  You call us extreme. Well, yesterday's fiasco, so that you can 
generate your base, we are trying to lead the country based on the 
Constitution and here you are with a gimmick to try to generate your 
base. And now you are over at the White House saying, Mr. President, we 
need to spend more, we need big government, we need to tax more, and do 
you think we are going to stick around and let you do that? We are 
going to stick around, but we are not going to let you get away your 
liberal spending, liberal tax and liberal bigger government. Absolutely 
not.
  I feel sorry for my colleagues on the other side. They look at the 
polls and they know that many of them are not coming back next term. 
The only thing they can do is sit here and demagogue and push the White 
House to spend more money. We are not going to let you do it. Because 
the American people know exactly what you are trying to do.
  When you say education, what about the children, well, what about 
Davis-Bacon? We could have waived Davis-Bacon for construction on 
schools in D.C., Mr. Bonior, and your union bosses preferred union 
bosses instead of children, instead of building and putting roofs on 
our D.C. schools.
  Let us call it like it is. You talk about increasing education. The 
money that is in there for education out of the President's budget is 
not there. It is above it. And the only way he can increase it is to 
take it out of the surplus. And you take it out of the surplus, I do 
not guess you want to take the surplus and put it into Social Security 
anymore. I guess you have changed your mind. Because of all these great 
spending programs you have, you want to keep spending and spending and 
spending. You cannot have it both ways. You have got to adhere to a 
balanced budget that the President signed which you on the left do not 
want to do. I feel sorry for you. Because not many of you are coming 
back.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman says 
that the Democratic Party has screwed up education. I guess that means 
that he feels we should not have passed the Nation's student loan 
programs which we would not have had without a Democratic Congress. I 
guess that means he feels we should not have Pell grants that helped 
the kids from working families go to college and technical school. I 
guess that means he feels that we ought to repeal handicapped 
educational legislation. I guess that means he feels we ought to repeal 
Head Start that is the main program that we provide so that kids who 
are having trouble learning to read and deal with mathematics get a 
decent start in the early grades on that. The gentleman may think that 
that is screwing up America. I think it is creating opportunity for 
every working family in America.
  On this side of the aisle, we make absolutely no apology in being for 
that kind of spending. In contrast, in the last 3 years, this Congress 
has added $20 billion to the President's defense budget but $17 billion 
of the $20 billion has gone for pork rather than readiness. I will 
compare and debate those priorities anytime.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time. It is interesting that the Republicans who spent months 
and months trying to get a budget, then when they cannot get a budget, 
they say it does not amount to a hill of bean, that it makes no 
difference to the American people. Then why did you spend all those 
months in the Budget Committee trying to hammer out a budget? You say 
it does not matter that the appropriations bills are not done yet. But 
why did you spend all this time trying to do it?
  The fact of the matter is you have an ideological fight going on 
within the Republican Party within the right wing and the far right 
wing and you cannot resolve it and you have not been able to do the 
American public's business. You have not been able to do it.
  Most of the businesses in America are increasing their productivity. 
Workers all across America are increasing their productivity. People 
are making investments in productivity. The Republican Congress is 
working less every year. Every year. You lost a month this year. Last 
year we worked 132 days. This year we worked 106. You have lost a 
month. Two years ago you worked more days. You have lost 2 months in 2 
years. At this rate we will be the most unproductive workers in 
America. You cannot get a budget, you cannot get appropriations bills, 
you could not get a tobacco agreement, you have not been able to reform 
HMOs, you cannot deal with crumbling classrooms in this country, you 
cannot deal with getting more teachers in the classrooms because of a 
teacher shortage, and yet you are getting the same pay. But you have 
lost 2 months in 2 years' time. If you worked for any corporation in 
America, either you would shut down your corporation, you would

[[Page H10319]]

reinvent your corporation, or you would go out of business. Name 
another entity in this country that lost 2 months in the last 2 years 
in worker productivity. American workers are working harder than they 
have ever worked before for their wages and the first thing that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) suggests is that we take 
away their wages in Davis-Bacon, that we take hardworking Americans and 
his answer to the budgetary problem is to take away their wages. That 
is outrageous. Those people are working 8 and 10 hours a day. They are 
working 6 and 7 days a week. The Congress is coming in on Wednesday and 
leaving on Thursday, the Congress cannot show up after its August break 
until the middle of September, and it is ready to go home in October 
and it is not coming back until March. That is a hell of a job we have 
got here, ladies and gentlemen. The only problem is you have not done 
your work. Anywhere else in America, you would be fired. You would be 
fired, because you failed to show up and go to work every day like 
every other American.
  So what has happened? So we have said no, this Congress, to 100,000 
teachers for our children. We have said no to our children who are in 
crumbling classrooms, where $12 billion worth of work needs to be done 
to make those classrooms safe. We have said no to America's children 
for afterschool programs that the police departments tell us all the 
time they need to help us fight crime after school between 3 and 6 in 
the afternoon. You have said no to the people who want to submit the 
patient-doctor relationship, you have insisted that we are going to 
continue to let the insurance companies get in between patients and 
doctors who need that kind of care. You have said no to the tobacco 
settlement so we can get back to the Medicare system the money that was 
stolen from them because they had to deal with the tobacco ailments of 
the American public from smoking after being deceived by the tobacco 
companies.
  This is the most unproductive Congress in the history of this 
Congress. If we keep losing the days of work like this, pretty soon we 
will just show up in January, collect a year's pay and go home, because 
according to you, it makes no difference whether we have a budget and 
appropriations. It makes a difference to the American people because 
the reason you do not have a budget is you do not want to admit what 
you have not done.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Apparently the 
gentleman does not believe that a balanced budget is important. This 
Congress achieved a balanced budget for the first time in 37 years. 
Apparently the gentleman does not believe that cutting taxes to the 
American people is important. This Congress cut people's taxes. 
Apparently the gentleman does not believe that having the best economy 
in decades is not important. We believe it is. This Congress created 
the atmosphere in which we have got the best economy in decades. The 
gentleman apparently does not believe that having record employment is 
important. We believe it is. Under this Congress's policies we have had 
record employment for the last several years ever since this party has 
been in charge.

                              {time}  1730

  We believe this Congress has been productive on the important matters 
for all of the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, listening to my friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller), it reminds me of Harry Truman's 
statement. Some complained that Harry Truman was giving them hell; he 
says, ``No, I just tell them the truth, and it sounds like hell.'' 
Harry Truman also coined the do-nothing Congress.
  Now the bad news here is that the extreme right has taken control of 
the agenda here. We find ourselves through this session not dealing 
with the budgetary matters, health care, education. We spent half a day 
on the floor trying to take away health care from people in California. 
We go after ethnic groups and try to divide this country based on their 
national origin or their heritage. When it comes to education, we 
ignore it. Pension reform; we will not deal with it here.
  Chris Dodd and I sat in a meeting in Norwich, Connecticut, where a 
gentleman died of a heart attack because he was so frightened about the 
situation of his family because the HMO was in the process of dropping 
them. Can his family, can other families turn to this Congress? No. 
This Congress is too busy, too busy to take care of people's health 
needs.
  In my district and across this country there are a quarter of a 
million seniors who are losing their health care and million others 
that are frightened. We are here sitting around taking up pieces of 
legislation that have no life-and-death significance, but not HMO 
reform. Our colleagues might get somebody with a big corporate 
contribution angry, so there is no HMO reform, there is no help for 
seniors who are losing their health care.
  What I saw what government did as a kid: Members came to Congress so 
they could be an advocate for those without power, not the insurance 
companies, not the major corporations. Members were there to make sure 
the average person had a voice for their troubles.
  And then, of course, campaign finance reform. Our colleagues control 
the House and the Senate. They have always been the reason that 
campaign finance reform has not passed, filibustered in the Senate, 
vetoed by President Bush. Now, they could have written any bill that 
they choose to. They killed campaign finance reform along with health 
care and pensions and education.
  Madam Speaker, our colleagues ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for 
yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I would say the debate is somewhat enlightening, 
except there seems to be far more heat of that aforementioned four-
letter definition that my friend from Connecticut mentioned a second 
ago than any light. We could sit here and retrace history. We could ask 
why during 40 years of liberal control campaign finance reform to deal 
with so many problems was never really taken up. We could talk about 
the fact that true health care reform to protect the doctor-patient 
relationship rather than the patient-trial lawyer relationship has been 
championed in this body. We could talk about the fact that for the 
first time in 16 long years, this common-sense conservative Congress 
offered tax relief to working Americans.
  Indeed, Madam Speaker, I am struck by the irony of the other side who 
always would cast themselves as defenders of working Americans, and yet 
time and time and time again reached into the pockets of those working 
Americans to take their wages and send them here to Washington.
  Madam Speaker, our common-sense policies have drawn a clear choice 
and contrast because we are intent on transferring money, power and 
influence out of the hands of the bureaucrats. We are intent on making 
sure that working Americans hang onto more of their wages so they have 
more to spend on their own families rather than sending those wages 
here to Washington. That is the real change, and to the extent that we 
continue this proven record of success with a balanced budget, with tax 
relief for Americans, with a bold plan to ensure the sanctity of the 
patient-doctor relationship, we are proud to take our time to debate 
our differences and to achieve that balanced budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman would not yield. 
I asked him several times. Perhaps he would answer this question for 
me.
  The gentleman talked about wages and standing up for working people. 
Is the gentleman in support of increasing the minimum wage, the minimum 
wage bill that we have? Or is the gentleman opposed to it?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

[[Page H10320]]

  Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman is in support of cutting taxes for 
working Americans.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, the gentleman will not answer that 
question, so he obviously is not in support of raising the minimum wage 
for people who work for less than poverty wages, and that ought to be 
recorded and understood by the people who he represents.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would also remind the gentleman from Arizona, he says that when the 
Democrats controlled Congress, we did not take up campaign finance 
reform. The fact is we passed campaign finance reform three times in 
this House. I was the sponsor of it on two occasions. He says that we 
did not do much to help senior citizens. All we did under the Democrat 
watch was to pass Social Security, to pass Medicare, two programs that 
the gentleman's Speaker has spent a lifetime trying to destroy.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and 
reserve the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I listened to what the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said, and the problem I have is not only with 
the substance of what he talked about, but the fact that effectively 
what he has proposed and what the Republican leadership has done is to 
just waste time, and that is why we are here in this dilemma tonight 
where they have to pass continuing resolutions, and they cannot get the 
budget done, and they cannot get the appropriation bills passed because 
basically they just wasted the Congress' and the American public's 
time.
  The gentleman from Arizona talked about HMO reform. They had no 
intention of passing HMO reform. Democrats in committee, in the 
Committee on Commerce and other committees, on the floor, constantly 
asked that the Patient Bill Of Rights be brought up for a vote and be 
considered, the Democratic proposal. It was never considered. They just 
took 1 day, they passed an HMO bill that basically reformed nothing, 
that was worse than the status quo, and they knew it was not going to 
go anywhere. They sent it over to the Senate. The Senate never took it 
up. The Democratic leadership in the Senate tried to take it up today 
and was denied. There was no intention to pass HMO reform, just to 
waste time.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) talked about tax cuts. 
There was no intention to pass a tax cut. This was just an exercise in 
futility. They were taking the money from the Social Security Trust 
Fund. They knew it was never going to pass. It passed the House, it 
went over to the Senate, they knew the Senate would never take it up. 
The President vowed he would never sign it. They did not even intend to 
pass a tax cut really. They were just wasting time.
  And we have seen this over and over again, wasting time on 
appropriations bills, all these antienvironmental riders that will 
wreck our natural resources that eventually most of them they had to 
take out.
  This whole debate over education, they did not care about public 
education. They spent days, weeks talking about vouchers, taking money 
from public schools to give it to private schools. But they did not 
even intend to really pass that either. They were just wasting time.
  That is why we are here today, because this Congress essentially does 
nothing under the Republican leadership but waste time. They do not 
want to do anything to help the American public. Just some benchmarks: 
The least number of days that this Congress has worked in decades, the 
least number of bills enacted in decades, and, finally, the failure to 
pass a budget for the first time since the budget process was created.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I am absolutely astounded at the comments that just 
preceded me. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) obviously is 
engaged in a tough political race back home, and he has brought 
rhetoric to the floor of the House. Unfortunately it is only that, has 
no bearing, no relationship to the truth whatsoever.
  The fact is if he would have checked the record, if he had been 
around here in that campaign, perhaps he would know that we passed the 
Higher Education Act, the Reading Excellence Act, the school nutrition 
bill, the vocational technical education bill, a quality Head Start 
bill, a charter schools bill and legislation to provide new technology 
to the people with disabilities.

                              {time}  1740

  The fact is that he would know that in the Labor-Health bill now 
being discussed with the President's people today, the Congress has 
approved roughly $32 billion.
  The differences between the President's position and our position is 
less than $600 million, maybe as low as $300 million. In many 
instances, the Congress, the Republican Congress has appropriated more 
than the President asked for, specifically on the issue with respect to 
the special education where the President did not ask for the 
sufficient amount of money that was already authorized by Congress in 
previous years.
  Just about an hour and a half ago, the President's people came to us 
with what we thought was a good faith negotiation to resolve all our 
differences and get Congress out of session by the end of the 
continuing resolution tonight, which we are now trying to extend till 
Monday.
  As late as today, October 9, they came to us with no paper, no 
spreadsheets, no documentation for what they were asking for, and they 
have been saying to us since July that they were going to provide 
offsets, that they were going to provide for legislative cuts to offset 
the additional spending that the President has requested throughout the 
last several months, and that they have still to this moment, to this 
moment not given us the first sheet of paper or the first indication of 
what those offsets in some black box happen to be.
  The fact is if we are dealing in a good faith effort with the 
opposing party, both sides, at a late date like this, the last days of 
the legislative session, should put their cards on the table and stop 
jockeying politically.
  But as it was noted by the speaker that just proceeded, all they are 
interested in is politics and in posturing. They are not interested in 
actually sitting down and getting the people's business done. I regret 
that. I regret that.
  I am prepared to stay here as long as it takes to get this business 
done, to get these bills appropriated, to make sure that the money is 
available for the people that really need it, but make sure that we 
live within the budget caps that the President himself agreed to last 
year when he came up with an historic balanced budget agreement with 
the Congress that led to the first surplus in the American treasury in 
30 years, 30 years, Madam Speaker.
  I think it's very, very important that we separate the wheat from the 
chaff, that we separate the political posturing like the speaker that 
preceded me. Understand, we are going to finish the people's business.
  But in order for us to reach a good faith agreement with the 
administration, with the President of the United States so that we can 
resolve all of our differences, we have to know what their position is. 
We have to see their paper. We have to see their request. We have to 
see the extra money that they want to spend it on, and we have to know 
where that money is coming from. Until we get it, we are just talking 
in the dark.
  I think it is time to stop talking in the dark. Get real. Put the 
politics behind us and get the people's business done.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I want the 
gentleman to know I have been watching the debate; and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is coming across as reasonable. I do not know 
what is going on.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of touting over there about the 
fact the administration is not offsetting some of the items it is 
asking for us provide.

[[Page H10321]]

  I see in the National Journal's Congress Daily the fact that the 
Senate majority leader is asking us to spend $385 million in so-called 
emergency funding to bail out ConAgra and Tyson's and other big chicken 
exporters who, on the private market, ship chickens to Russia and now 
cannot find a buyer.
  So when we start talking about declaring something as an emergency, I 
did not realize it was an emergency that we would bail out big business 
when they make a bad detail.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very patient 
and hard-working, intelligent, dynamic gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, I had no intention of coming to the floor and engaging 
in this debate, but I really believe it is important from time to time 
for people to come maybe to the center of this institution and put 
things in somewhat of a perspective as we prepare to go home at the end 
of the 105th Congress.
  I have been here 4 years and have grown to deeply and passionately, 
not only love this institution, but love people on both sides of the 
aisle.
  When I hear people like the gentleman from California come here and 
make statements about people not doing their job and not working hard, 
I want the people to know, everybody in this institution that I know 
have works their tails off.
  When my 11-year-old son and my 9 year-old-daughter watch these 
proceedings and know how much time I spend away from them and how busy 
I am and everybody in this institution, this institution means more 
than either one of our political parties. It must be held up. If not, 
the cynicism in this country is going to grow.
  I strongly encourage Members on both sides to say what they mean and 
mean what they say and quit using words that demean this institution. 
It is not in our best interest. It is not to our children's best 
interest.
  What is in their best interest is to know that we all work hard and 
do our very best for the people that we represent. We should debate the 
issues, but to use shallow rhetoric about this body not having done its 
job last year or this year, I have been here 4 years. I have seen 
people work around the clock from both sides of the aisle. Four hundred 
thirty-five people work, from my perspective, as hard as they possibly 
could.
  I worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle on campaign 
finance reform. I tried not to come down here and run my mouth if I did 
not have something to say that was a value to this process.
  Please, for the sake of this government, for civil government, for 
decency, for cooperation, for the next Congress and the next Congress 
and Congresses 100 years from now, quit using shallow rhetoric.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I wish we had heard that same speech yesterday.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, let me paraphrase Admiral Stockdale, a 
former vice presidential candidate: ``Who are we, and why are we 
here?''
  It is clear that the Republican leadership of this House has no idea 
who they are and certainly do not know why they are here. They do not 
know why the people of this country sent them to represent their 
interests. This Republican-led Congress has failed the American people.
  We have passed the end of the fiscal year, and what have they 
accomplished? The Republican leadership has not passed the budget. They 
have not completed appropriations. We only have a few days left before 
this Congress adjourns, and they refuse to address the issue that the 
American people care about.
  Let us talk about the missed opportunities. Social Security reform. 
Instead of doing that, they would raid the Social Security Trust Fund 
and not preserve and protect Social Security for the future.
  Tobacco legislation. Three thousand kids in this country start to 
smoke every single day, and 1,000 will die. But, no, we could not do 
something about tobacco legislation.
  Real managed care reform. About getting doctors and patients to make 
the decisions, the medical decisions in their lives instead of 
insurance companies. No. We had bipartisan support in this body. We 
could have passed it in a heartbeat. If the Speaker of this House 
wanted to get it passed, we could have done it at a moment's notice.
  Let us talk about minimum wage and raising the living standards of 
working families in this country. No, we could not do that.
  Campaign finance reform. Certainly let us not reform this House. Let 
us not do that.
  They have failed to take any action to strengthen our public schools, 
reduce class size, make sure we have 100,000 new teachers in the 
classroom, modernize our schools so that our kids get wired up to the 
Internet and they can succeed in their future.

                              {time}  1750

  No, none of these we could do.
  Let me just say, the American people deserve to know why we are here. 
We are here to represent their interests. We have a few short hours in 
this session of the Congress. Let us do something about our school 
system; let us pass legislation that is meaningful to the people of 
this country.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and 
I reserve the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
has 4 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Louisiana has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, this Republican Congress has been a 
failure. We have spent a lot of time, yes, on investigations and 
millions of dollars on investigations, but not making a meaningful 
difference in people's lives.
  Madam Speaker, we have a balanced budget and a Federal surplus 
because of the Democratic deficit reduction program, yet my colleagues 
are 9 days overdue on a budget for America. No mayor, no Governor, no 
American family could do the same. My colleagues have failed families 
in this country in giving them protection from HMO abuses. My 
Republican colleagues have failed seniors by making sure that Social 
Security comes first in the context of the budget surplus.
  Madam Speaker, we Democrats do not want to let you go home and fail 
our children. We want to put 100,000 teachers back in the classrooms of 
this country to help educate our children and modernize our schools. If 
we have billions of dollars for tax cuts, we can have some money for 
the Nation's children that are going to make us competitive in the next 
century.
  Democrats will not let you leave and go home and campaign; we will 
stay here and work and make sure, we are going to ensure, that you do 
not commit the final failure, which would be failing our children.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I was prepared to close, but evidently we are going to have continue 
to have rhetoric that sometimes compels me to answer.
  I left the floor a little while ago to take care of some very 
important business, and when I returned I was advised that one of the 
speakers on the other side took this political rhetoric to such an 
extent that he talked about a campaign rally, or a town meeting at 
which he was present, and an elderly gentleman talked about HMOs and 
got so excited that he fell down and died, and for some reason that was 
supposed to be our fault.
  I heard the last speaker say that we have deprived America of all of 
the good that the President wishes to bestow upon them, and I just get 
concerned about the rhetoric. I just asked my friend from Arizona 
there, does he have any thoughts about how heated this rhetoric gets?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I think we could do with a lot more

[[Page H10322]]

light, and a lot less heat. I think it is unfortunate when members of 
the minority, and we can understand that different people have 
different philosophies and that we should exchange those, but to have 
reason and, to a certain degree, passion replaced by a sad rhetorical 
device to imply that anyone's policies on this floor led to the death 
of an individual I think is highly regrettable.
  I would hope that those on both sides of the aisle would rethink that 
type of rhetoric, because again, it has no place in this Chamber. 
Indeed, given the standards that many have applied to the conservative 
side of the aisle, I would hope that they would offer the same scrutiny 
to such unfortunate statements that come from the other side.
  The bottom line is this: We can work together in the framework of 
what we did last year, balancing the budget for the first time in a 
generation; offering tax cuts to working folks for the first time in 16 
years; and I would hope that all of the poll-driven rhetoric and all of 
the passion-driven examples that are highly regrettable would be left 
outside the Chamber.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. Because of our efforts, we now have a balanced 
budget, $70 billion in surplus. Because of our efforts, we have the 
lowest interest rates in a generation. Because of our efforts, our 
children have a future which, hopefully, if we can get our way, will be 
free of undue taxation and free of undue interference from Washington, 
D.C. That is our goal. That is our hope. That is our platform. We are 
prepared to run on that at any time.
  But to be accused of inciting conditions that caused the death of an 
American citizen frankly goes beyond the pale. I am really surprised 
that that was used in the rhetoric here on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I hope to close 
this debate soon.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the suddenly 
moderate gentleman from Arizona for his pieties, and I would simply 
like to say that I love this institution, and I respect many, many 
Members in it. And I revere what this institution is supposed to mean 
to each and every citizen of the country. But in the last analysis, I 
think they are going to be impressed much less by our pieties and by 
our rhetoric than they are by our actions.
  It seems to me if we really want to inspire the American people, we 
will take action in the next week, as we make our final decisions on 
the budget, a budget which, after all, does define what our values are, 
and as we make those choices, I hope that the choices that we make will 
indeed help to make a difference for struggling working families who 
need every bit of help they can to make education affordable, to 
provide decent classrooms for kids, to provide decent teacher-student 
ratios so that kids have a chance to learn in the poor school districts 
as well as the wealthy school districts in this country.
  I hope that in the area of health we will recognize that every 
American has a right to full access to health care, just by virtue of 
the fact that they were born one of God's creatures; and I hope that we 
will recognize our obligation to strengthen people's retirement 
security, and I hope we will recognize our obligation to drop the 
innumerable attacks on the environment that we see in appropriation 
bills that threaten the future environmental health and safety of this 
country.
  So I would urge Members to vote for this simple extension of time so 
that this very tardy Congress can get its work done.
  I make no criticism of the gentleman from Louisiana in this. I think 
we have said many times, if all of these issues were left to us to work 
out between the two of us, I do not think there is an issue that we 
could not solve. But unfortunately, there are many pressures above our 
pay grade which have often interposed themselves and made it very, very 
difficult for our committee to reach the same kind of accommodation 
that we were able to reach last year, and that is why we stand here 
tonight with still so much work to be done, and with still so many 
public needs to be met.
  I would hope that in the time that we have remaining and the time 
that is provided by this resolution will help us indeed to put people 
first.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his comments. I do agree with them. I think if 
he and I were left to work out all of the problems that divide us, we 
could be through and be out of here tonight. However, unfortunately, 
there are others involved in the process. It has been a long calendar, 
both in the calendar year 1998 and in 1997, that comprised the 
legislative agenda for the 105th Congress.
  I happen to think we have accomplished a great deal. I know my friend 
might quarrel with that, but we have managed to roll back taxes, we 
have cut regulation, we have passed a balanced budget agreement, in 
conjunction with the President.
  We have expected the President to adhere to the requirements of that 
balanced budget agreement, and I think one of the reasons we stand here 
tonight is because the balanced budget agreement has not been adhered 
to by the President. As I noted earlier, the President signed that 
budget agreement.
  We have set caps for the discretionary spending, that which goes 
through the appropriations process for departments, agencies, and 
programs. Last year we knew that we were on a glide path that would be 
difficult to meet, and the President in fact did not meet it, but he 
expected the Congress would pass tobacco taxes and all sorts of 
additional taxes and user fees to meet his additional agenda that he 
proposed in February when he addressed us in the State of the Union 
speech.
  We do not have that extra money. We would expect the President to 
come to us early in the process and say, if we do not have that extra 
money, here is how I expect to get some of my other initiatives 
fulfilled. Certainly that is a negotiating process. We would never 
expect the President to get all of his initiatives fulfilled, any more 
than we would expect to get all of ours imposed upon him in an equal 
negotiation, but we have not had an equal negotiation.
  We have had our cards on the table for days, weeks, months. The 
President knows, his people know where we are on appropriations bills, 
and just only 2 hours ago came to us and said they are still not going 
to give us their offsets, and they are going to parcel out the extra 
items for spending that he has targeted. That puts us in a tough 
position.
  I would say that it is time to put the politics behind us. I would 
rely on our accomplishments. My friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) has given me a long list of fiscal accomplishments which 
I think is so good I would like to include them in the Record at this 
point.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                     Top Ten Fiscal Accomplishments

       (1) Most families with children will save $400 in taxes per 
     child in 1998 and $500 thereafter. That amounts to over $100 
     million dollars in each congressional district that the 
     taxpayers get to keep.
       (2) Most families with children in the first two years of 
     college will be able to use money for college expenses that 
     otherwise would have gone for taxes and can now set up 
     educational savings accounts whose profits are tax free.
       (3) Most Americans who buy and sell stocks, or who sell a 
     piece of real estate, will save considerably on their taxes.
       (4) Most Americans who bell their principal residence won't 
     have to pay one dime of capital gains taxes.
       (5) Many children of farmers and small business owners who 
     want to inherit their parents' property and businesses will 
     pay less or no death taxes.
       (6) Small business owners will be able to deduct a greater 
     share of health and accident insurance premiums, and be able 
     to write off a greater amount of money for new equipment.
       (7) Young people will be able to save easier for a down 
     payment on their first home by our creating a new IRA.
       (8) Stay at home spouses will no longer be discriminated 
     against because we changed the IRA laws to allow them to 
     participate.

[[Page H10323]]

       (9) People can save $2,000 a year in retirement IRAs paid 
     for by after tax dollars so that every cent earned is tax 
     free at retirement.
       (10) In 1993 President Clinton gave us the biggest tax 
     increase in history, but now most Americans have received a 
     tax cut and a Balanced Budget Act that will stop deficit 
     spending and pay off the national debt.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members understand that it is 
important that we complete our business, that it is important that we 
finish the appropriations process, that we work out a mutually 
agreeable negotiation with the President and his representatives, that 
he sign the appropriations bills, either within their individual 
context or within an omnibus bill, gathering those bills left 
unattended, and that once signed, we can complete the work of this 
Congress and go back and campaign for reelection.
  I do not have an opponent this year. I am happy to tell the Members 
that if we cannot get the President to give us his numbers and show us 
his cards and enter into a negotiation, I am prepared to stay here.
  I know that is going to inconvenience a lot of Members, Republican 
and Democrat. I do not think that the vast majority of Members want to 
stay here past tonight, let alone Monday or next Friday or next month, 
but if necessary, it will not bother me. I will just be here. I will 
just plug along.
  I hope that one day, whether it is today or tomorrow or Sunday or 
Monday or next week, one day, that the representatives of the Office of 
Management and Budget will say, okay, here is what we want and here are 
our offsets, and here is how we are going to pay for it. We will take 
this, they will take that, we will wrap it all up, get the President to 
sign it, and we will go home.
  If not, I will just stay here. We will not close the government. We 
are not going to have any shutdowns. We are just going to keep on 
plugging and do our business. If the President wants to posture in the 
Rose Garden, I will go run upstairs into the press gallery and I will 
answer his posturing. If he wants to get down to business, we will roll 
up our sleeves and we will get down to business. Hopefully, that is 
what we will opt for. We will in fact complete the people's business. 
We will do it soon. That demands that we first vote for this continuing 
resolution.
  We are not going to be able to complete our business tonight, 
unfortunately, but we might, we might successfully complete our 
business by Sunday or Monday, at the latest. That is why we are asking 
for this continuing resolution to be passed and signed into law, to 
give us the time that we need to do our job, working with the White 
House and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. That is why I ask 
for a yes vote on this three-day continuing resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The joint resolution is 
considered as read for amendment, and pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  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. LaHOOD. Madam 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 421, 
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 511]

                               YEAS--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Frank (MA)
     Inglis
     John
     Kennelly
     Manton
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Smith (MI)
     Tierney
     Yates

                              {time}  1824

  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.




                          ____________________