[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 142 (Saturday, October 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10356-H10365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 4(B) OF RULE XI WITH RESPECT TO 
 CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 589, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 589

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported from that 
     committee for the remainder of the second session of the One 
     Hundred Fifth Congress providing for consideration or 
     disposition of any of the following:
       (1) A bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 
     any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any 
     amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
       (2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions 
     making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1999, any 
     amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any 
     amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the remainder 
     of the second session of the One Hundred Fifth Congress for 
     the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules, 
     provided that the object of any such motion is announced from 
     the floor at least two hours before the motion is offered. In 
     scheduling the consideration of legislation under this 
     authority, the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the 
     Minority Leader or his designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
half our time to my great friend, the gentleman from South Boston, 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley); pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a standard management tool for the 
end of Congress, and similar tools have been employed under previous 
Republican control of the House as well as Democrat control of this 
institution. It will allow us to expedite our business and adjourn the 
second session of the 105th Congress so that Members can go home and at 
least have a couple of weeks to campaign.
  This resolution waives clause 4(b) of Rule XI, which requires a two-
thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the 
Committee on Rules, against certain resolutions reported from that 
Committee on Rules. I know that sounds confusing, but it is technical.
  The resolution applies this waiver to special rules reported from the 
Committee on Rules for the remainder of the second session of the 105th 
Congress, which provide for consideration

[[Page H10357]]

or disposition of a bill or joint resolution, and, this is the key part 
of my statement here this morning, making general appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, any amendment thereto and 
conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement 
from a conference thereon.
  What we are talking about, in layman's language, is perhaps the 
omnibus bill that will be coming before us as probably the last bill to 
pass this House and this Congress, or, for instance, a new agriculture 
appropriation bill that would replace the one recently vetoed by the 
President, or any conference report on any other appropriation bills 
that would come before the House.
  This resolution would allow the House to expeditiously consider any 
appropriation bill or conference report from now until the end of the 
session on the same day that it is brought to the floor.
  The resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, also applies the waiver to 
special rules reported from the remainder of the second session of the 
105th Congress which provide for consideration or disposition of a bill 
or joint resolution making continuing appropriations--and to Members 
back in their offices that means a CR--for fiscal year 1999, any 
amendment thereto and conference report thereon. This will allow us to 
rapidly consider any measure making continuing appropriations which may 
be necessary for us to conclude our work.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House today allows, 
during the remainder of the second session of this Congress, for the 
Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules, provided that the 
object of any motion is announced from the floor at least 2 hours 
before the motion is offered, and that in the scheduling of legislation 
the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or 
his designee, just as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) did a 
few minutes ago when he announced the consideration of special 
suspension bills, of which the minority has been given 2 hours' notice.
  Mr. Speaker, this will allow us to consider important and meaningful 
bills under the suspension of the rules procedure for the remainder of 
this session. Mr. Speaker, it is the intention, and if Members are 
listening again, it is the intention of the majority leadership to 
conclude the business of the 105th Congress as quickly as possible. The 
provisions of this rule are consistent with several precedents from 
recent Congresses under leadership of both Democrats and Republicans. 
And I would just say one more time that it is the intent of the 
majority leadership to conclude this business as quickly as possible 
and, hopefully, by no later than Sunday or Monday night.
  So, I think with cooperation from all of the Members, we can 
accomplish that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the 
retiring chairman of the Committee on Rules, who is retiring only 
because he is not going to be here any longer, not because he is 
retiring in effect, for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third martial law rule we have done in the 
last 10 days, and this one is totally open-ended. This will last until 
the end of the session, instead of a date certain, which is a very, 
very dangerous way to legislate.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not as if my Republican colleagues have not had 
time to get things done. They have had months and months and months to 
pass any bills they wanted. But instead of working on legislation to 
help the American people, my Republican colleagues have spent time 
raiding the Social Security fund to pay for tax cuts.
  This Republican Congress has worked fewer days and enacted fewer 
bills than any Congress in decades. And those are not my words, that is 
from the Congressional Quarterly. It says that as long as the records 
go back, this Congress has worked fewer days and accomplished less. 
That is not me talking, that is not our leader talking. That is the 
Congressional Quarterly.
  So, as I said, the Congress has worked fewer days, enacted fewer 
bills than any Congress in decades, and the Congress has come up with 
no budget for the first time since the budget process was created. This 
Congress has passed no bills to improve public education. This Congress 
has passed no bills to reform managed care. This Congress has passed no 
bills to increase the minimum wage.
  So here we are, Mr. Speaker, nearly at the end of the session with 
practically no substantive legislation to show for 2 years of 
Republican-controlled Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans want decent health care and they believe their 
insurance companies may put good profits before good health.

                              {time}  1010

  We have heard far too many stories of people who have suffered very 
serious health problems, in some cases even death, because their health 
insurance company would not authorize the procedures they needed.
  The American people should be protected against not getting the care 
they need. They should be assured that their doctor is allowed to put 
every bit of medical training to use when they treat them. And they 
should be able to appeal decisions made by the health insurance 
company, and even sue their health plan, if the situation warrants. But 
my Republican colleagues just did not get around to it.
  The American people also deserve to have their Social Security 
protected. The most recent Republican tax plan will rob future Social 
Security recipients of their benefits. Mr. Speaker, these people have 
worked as hard as anybody else for their Social Security and they 
deserve to know that it will be there when they need it. But this is 
just another issue my Republican colleagues did not get around to.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the American schools need our attention. One 
out of every three schools in the United States needs extensive repair 
or replacement. If American children are going to compete in today's 
high-tech world, we need classrooms that are outfitted with the most 
modern technologies and conveniences, and we need class sizes that are 
not impossibly huge and hard to manage. But my Republican colleagues 
did not get around to it.
  Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues were so inclined, they could 
have passed some bills that would have made a great difference in the 
American people's lives. But, unfortunately, they did not. So we can 
give them that opportunity right now. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the previous question and, if the previous question is defeated, we can 
bring up bills that the American people really care about; bills 
dealing with reforming managed care, reducing class size, and 
protecting Social Security.
  Otherwise, we stand here, Mr. Speaker, on the day this Congress was 
scheduled to adjourn, passing another martial law resolution, passing 
number three martial law resolution, in order to allow other bills to 
come up to the floor without giving Democrats much of a chance to read 
what is in them. Since passing an endless martial law means that the 
Democrats will not have a real lot of time to look at these bills, and 
since we should be taking care of other issues, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill and defeat the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I was not going to seek time for myself and, instead, yield to others, 
but I am just inspired to get up here and respond to my good friend 
from Boston.
  The gentleman talks about this Congress not having done anything. 
Well, let me tell my colleagues what it has not done. It has not 
increased spending. And, hopefully, when we get through negotiating 
with the President, we will not have increased spending at the end of 
this Congress. But from all that I am getting feedback on, this 
President is demanding that we increase spending, and that is why we 
have not adjourned yet.
  Let me tell my colleagues what this Congress has done, though. We 
have passed and enacted into law the first major tax cut in 16 years. 
And that is what my constituents sent me here to do, to cut taxes and 
put money back into the pockets of American citizens

[[Page H10358]]

so that they could either spend it on what they want to spend it on, 
not what we want to spend it on, or they can save it. And either way 
that is what has stimulated this economy, and that is why things are as 
good around the country as they are.
  Let me tell my colleagues what that tax cut did. To anybody 
listening, wherever they are, I want them to just think about what was 
done last year. The tax cut provided for $250 billion in net tax relief 
over the next 10 years. Over 72 percent of the tax relief went to 
middle income families earning incomes between $20,000 and $70,000. And 
if my colleagues think my constituents were happy about that, they sure 
were.
  Forty-one million parents were given a $500 tax credit to help 
working families offset the cost of raising and caring for children. I 
just finished raising five children; now I have six grandchildren. And 
let me tell my colleagues, my kids appreciate that, because now they 
have a few dollars back in their pockets so they can spend it to 
educate their children, rather than big brother government telling them 
how to do it.
  Families with educational expenses were helped by the provision of 
the HOPE scholarships. Remember that? And penalty free withdrawals from 
the IRAs for college and other educational expenses. If some of the 
younger Members have not been through it yet, let me tell them what it 
costs to educate five kids. We had five kids within 7 years, so they 
were all in college at the same time. I am just about broke, but we got 
them through. Let me tell my colleagues that that means something to 
those families.
  Family farms and small businesses were provided with death tax 
relief. In other words, when a person dies, this Federal Government was 
taking 50, 60, 70 percent of the money, the money they had saved for 
their children. Farmers could not even sell their farms or let their 
kids inherit it, and now they can.
  First-time home buyers were provided with the creation of America's 
Dream IRAs, from which they can now make tax-free withdrawals for 
buying a home and fulfilling every American's dream. We have new 
families now starting up where they can actually save a little money 
and not have to pay taxes on it if they are going to put it down on 
buying a house.
  This Congress has provided, and this is so terribly important, this 
Congress has provided broad-based permanent capital gains tax relief to 
spur investment, create jobs, and increase the economic growth in this 
country. The top rate was reduced from 28 percent.
  This really affects an individual who had saved a few dollars and 
invested it. I point to, let us say, a couple who had worked for Sears 
Roebuck and I have said this before on the floor, they do not pay the 
highest salaries in the world, but they give stock options to their 
employees to buy. And I know a couple that did that. They worked all 
their life at not great salaries, but when they retired the Federal 
Government took 28 percent when they had to sell that stock. That was 
outrageous. That was their income for retirement and the Federal 
Government took a third of it, almost.
  We reduced that to 20 percent for those with middle incomes. But with 
lower incomes, real senior citizens, who had not been able to save that 
much, we reduced it down to 10 percent. And that means if they had held 
on to some stock that they purchased 30 years ago, and now they were 
going to sell that stock, they only had to pay 10 percent back to this 
government. It is a shame they had to pay any. We are the only 
industrialized Nation in the world that has any capital gains tax. So, 
anyway, we got it down to something that was within reason.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on here with a litany of things of what 
this Congress has done, but I am going to save some of this so my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), can tell of some 
of the other things we have done in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just comment that, as usual, my chairman has been great representing 
his party.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this martial law rule.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House Republican leadership at a press 
conference boasted about the Republicans' imaginary legislative 
accomplishments in the field of education. What folly, what gall, what 
audacity. Their refusal to tackle critical educational problems and 
priorities is the shame of this Congress. It is the shame of their 
party.
  The Republican policy toward education is based on the contemptuous 
premise that education is not the province of the Federal Government. 
So, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans will do as little as possible to 
improve our educational system, and then only when forced to do it. 
Their sorry, sordid record on education issues is one of complete 
failure.
  They fail to invest in the expansion of after-school programs, they 
fail to reduce classroom sizes, they fail to bring new technology to 
our schools, they fail to replace dilapidated school houses and replace 
them with new buildings.

                              {time}  1020

  They failed to hire 100,000 new public school teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans have failed our school children, failed 
their parents, failed our public school teachers and failed their 
responsibility to give leadership in the area of critical national 
concern. Their scheme to enact school vouchers would have diverted 
hundreds of millions of Federal dollars earmarked for public schools 
and school reform to private and parochial schools.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority tried to repeal affirmative 
action programs for disadvantaged youth and tried to destroy bilingual 
education. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Republicans' most sinister, most 
cynical, perversion was the attempt to kill the Head Start program by 
loading it down with nongermane killer amendments like Head Start 
vouchers.
  In the past few days, we have seen a flurry of activity on measures 
that have languished for the past 2 years, but the record of this do-
nothing Congress in the field of education is clear.
  Thus far, only three education bills have become law during this 
Congress: job training, higher education renewal and the IDEA program.
  Mr. Speaker, we demand, the American public demands, that the 
Republican leadership take immediate action to enact legislation to 
modernize our decrepit, run-down public schools and to reduce our 
classrooms to manageable and teachable sizes.
  Mr. Speaker, we should vote this rule down. This proposal is bad for 
this country and we should stay here until we finish the business of 
government, the business of the American people. I say vote ``no'' on 
this resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining between the two 
sides here, just to see where we balance out?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he might consume to 
the brilliant gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I am not just 
referring to his tie, either.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the magnanimity of my very kind 
friend from Glens Falls.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly ironic debate that we have 
embarked upon. I sat there listening to the comments of my very good 
friend from South Boston, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) rising 
in opposition to this rule, and he went through all of his complaints 
as to why he considers this to be a do-nothing Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule that we are considering is designed so that we 
can do something. We are trying very much to move legislation through 
and consider appropriations so that we can keep the government going, 
so that we can bring about the spending cuts to which the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) referred, and so that we can get out of 
here and go home.
  Then they say that we have done nothing and all we want to do with 
this

[[Page H10359]]

rule is to make sure that we can do something.
  Let us look at some of the things that we have, in fact, done. I will 
say that as I listened again to the litany of my friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), I was struck with the fact that the 
United States Congress is not an automobile manufacturing plant. One is 
not graded based on the number of cars that they put out or the number 
of bills that they pass.
  We are today at a point where I think based on, and I do not believe 
in all of these polls because, Lord knows, they are just a little 
picture at one point in time, but we all look at polls, and guess what? 
The 105th Congress has the highest approval rating of any Congress in 
recent history, and so it seems to me that we may be doing some things 
right.
  What are some of the things that we have actually done? Well, we have 
passed the first balanced budget in 29 years, and I think that in 
itself is tremendous. The President of the United States on October 1, 
the first day of the fiscal year, was very proud to hold a ceremony in 
the Rose Garden and proclaim the fact that we had a $60 billion budget 
surplus.
  That all came about not because of what was done there, not because 
of the largest increase that was passed under the Democratic Congress 
and Democratic President back in 1993, but because a Republican 
Congress that took over following the 1994 election got us on the road 
towards fiscal responsibility. We dragged him, kicking and screaming, 
but we are very pleased that ultimately President Clinton embraced our 
themes of balancing the budget and cutting taxes.
  We also, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has mentioned, 
have had a tremendous tax cut for working families, and what has that 
brought us? It has brought us a lot of things. One of them has been an 
increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) mentioned, that working 
couple at Sears & Roebuck that has been able to realize some capital 
gain from their pension and other investments that they might have had, 
what has happened? Well, we have seen an increase in the flow of 
revenues to the Federal Treasury. That is what has helped us balance 
the Federal budget.
  So it has been the first time in 16 years that we have been able to 
bring about a tax cut for working families.
  I am also very proud of the fact that we have been able to reform 
Medicare to keep the seniors' health care structure solvent. Something 
else that was a major concern that came to the forefront, passed in a 
bipartisan way, but I am very pleased that it is a Republican Congress 
that did it, I do not have too many constituents who call me and say, 
Mr. Dreier, we are very, very happy with the work of the Internal 
Revenue Service. What I do get is I get complaints from people who for 
years have talked about the fact that the Internal Revenue Service has 
more power than the CIA or the FBI. They have the ability to go in and 
close down a business and harass people.

  What is it that this Congress has done? We are very proud that we 
have been able to reform the Internal Revenue Service so that we can 
make sure that rather than having to prove that you are not guilty, a 
taxpayer is innocent until proven guilty, which seems to me part of the 
American ideal.
  I am very proud of the fact that we have been able to reform the 
Internal Revenue Service. We have much more to do, much further to go, 
but we have been able to do that.
  My friend from St. Louis, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), for 
whom I have the highest regard, has gone through a great many concerns 
that he has raised in the area of education, but we are very proud of 
our education record here in the Congress.
  The chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) just reminded 
me that we, of course, want to empower local school districts and 
States to deal with these education issues rather than having so many 
of them centered right here in Washington, but as we move in that 
direction there are a number of very positive things that we have been 
able to do.
  The A-Plus Education Savings Accounts Act, Merit Pay and Teacher 
Testing, Higher Education Act amendments, loan forgiveness for new 
teachers, Dollars to the Classroom Act, which we just recently passed, 
the Reading Excellence Act, the Charter Schools amendments, ban on new 
Federal school tests, low-income D.C. Scholarships, expanded prepaid 
college tuition plans, quality Head Start, creating safer schools, 
bilingual education reform, these are things that are designed to 
increase the level of competition so that we can have young people 
educated, so that they will be able to compete in this global economy.
  Mr. Speaker, as we consider this rule that will allow us to continue 
to do more good things to help struggling American families, to help us 
keep some kind of restraint on the spiraling growth of the Federal 
Government, it seems to me that passage of this rule to allow us to 
consider those things helps us continue in our quest to do something.
  Then when I hear this argument about doing nothing, I hate to stand 
here Saturday morning at 10:30 pointing the finger, but I am reminded 
that there have only been two Cabinet meetings that have been held this 
year, one in January and one just a few weeks ago, and that seems to be 
the record of the executive branch.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my very dear friend from California (Mr. Dreier) 
mentioned that we were not a car manufacturing organization. He is 
exactly right, but if we were, we would probably be producing the 
Edsel.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I 
listened very carefully to what the previous Republican speaker said, 
and basically what I understood him to say was that the reason we need 
this rule is because we have to get out of here as quickly as possible.

                              {time}  1020

  Let me say that I disagree with that completely. We should not be 
getting out of here as quickly as possible. We should be staying and 
getting things done that need to be done for the American people. Then 
I heard the previous Speaker say, ``Well, it doesn't really matter if 
we haven't done much, maybe we haven't done much, but that's okay 
because the American people don't want us to do much.''
  Again if you want to take credit and say it is great that you have a 
do-nothing Congress, that is fine, but I do not think that is a good 
thing. I think a do-nothing Congress is a bad thing, and I want to say 
very emphatically that we have to accomplish a lot of things here 
before we leave, because the American people demand it.
  Then I listened to the gentleman from New York on the other side. He 
started talking about all these great things that he claimed came out 
of the Balanced Budget Act. I would remind him that the Balanced Budget 
Act was passed and signed into law over a year ago. So basically for 
the last year and more, nothing has been accomplished here.
  I would also point out that those middle-class tax credits or the 
things that helped the middle class that were in that Balanced Budget 
Act only came about because the Democrats kept insisting on it, kept 
insisting that the middle class be the priority in terms of what that 
Balanced Budget Act accomplished. For many months we had to deal here 
with Republican proposals that would help only the wealthy and the 
well-to-do in this country, but we kept insisting over and over again 
that the concentration had to be on the middle class and the average 
American.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to stay here. Let us defeat this rule, let us 
stay here and let us get accomplished the things that need to be 
accomplished. Let us come up with some funding to modernize our 
schools, to hire the additional 100,000 teachers so we can reduce class 
size. Let us address HMOs and the need for HMO reform.
  We went over to the other body yesterday to try to bring it up, Mr. 
Daschle, the Democratic leader, tried to bring it up and the 
Republicans basically banged the gavel and said, ``No, we're not going 
to deal with it.'' We need to address these issues.

[[Page H10360]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose the 
martial-law rule.
  Almost every week for almost 10 months this Congress has come to 
Washington, held a few committee hearings, done a little bit of work, 
cast a few votes and then recessed for a long weekend. Now, the 
Republican majority with its work still unfinished wants to leave town 
as quickly as possible to go campaign.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to stay here and we need to do some work. This 
do-nothing Republican Congress has failed to strengthen Social 
Security. This do-nothing Republican Congress has failed to pass or 
even consider, hold hearings or even discuss the President's plan to 
modernize schools. This do-nothing Republican Congress has failed to 
reduce class size in America's schools. This do-nothing Republican 
Congress has failed to curb HMO or insurance company abuses.
  Mr. Speaker, to be fair, this Republican Congress has done a few 
things. This Congress has renamed National Airport. Give them credit 
for that. This Congress has allowed tobacco companies to kill tobacco 
legislation. Give them credit for that. This Republican Congress has 
allowed the big insurance companies to kill serious HMO reform. Give 
them credit for that. But, Mr. Speaker, this Republican do-nothing 
Congress has failed in the issues that matter to America, to strengthen 
Social Security, to pass the patients' bill of rights, to work on 
education reforms by reducing class size and modernizing schools.
  Mr. Speaker, we should stay here until we finish the people's 
business.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is in a big hurry to go home and 
spend the piles of campaign cash that they have raked in from special 
interests as a reward for all the legislation they have killed in this 
Congress.
  First they killed campaign finance reform, essential if they could 
rake in the money and spend it. They killed tobacco legislation. A lot 
of money coming there. And then they killed, outrageously, patients' 
rights, something that millions of Americans are demanding, are being 
oppressed by HMOs, they killed that. Guess what? A lot of money coming 
in from the insurance industry. Then a couple of environmental laws, 
the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and others. Yes, they are 
in a big hurry to go home. It is a lot of work killing legislation that 
would benefit millions of Americans, at the behest of a few wealthy 
special interests, while pretending to serve the majority of people in 
this country. They are in such a hurry after 107 days of work. As of 
today the average American has worked 200 days. Congress has worked 
107. They have not got their job done.
  Now they want to pass legislation funding the majority of Federal 
programs and not allow Members of Congress time to read it. They say it 
is so essential we get done and we get home. Why? Why can we not have 
one or two extra days to read the thousands of pages of legislation 
they are about to try and jam down our throats?
  I think it is going to be because of what is in there, all sorts of 
special pork. We know they are going to stuff it full of pork, and what 
is not in there? There is not going to be funding, if they have their 
way, for education. They are not going to fulfill the President's 
program on school construction, new teachers, smaller class sizes. 
There is not going to be patient protection. There is not going to be a 
summer youth program. There is not even going to be low-income heating 
assistance for senior citizens.
  No, that is right. They do not want us to read it. They do not want 
us to debate it. They want to jam it down, go home and then start 
running all their ads with the huge amount of money they have raked in 
from the few special interests they represent.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me just point out something to the membership. The last three 
speakers we heard from, as a matter of fact all of the Democrat 
speakers today, appear on the National Taxpayer Union's big spender 
list, the biggest spenders in the Congress. We have heard them stand up 
here and want to spend more, spend more, spend more, spend more. That 
is the difference between the Republican and the Democratic Party.
  Now, they say do-nothing. What do you think we did just in the last 
couple of weeks? Let me tell you what we did in the taxpayer bill. We 
passed a provision providing marriage tax relief for 48 million 
Americans.
  How many Americans are there in this country? I think it is 250, 260 
million. Forty-eight million of them are being penalized right now for 
being married. We correct that. But President Clinton will not sign it. 
Six million married taxpayers who are currently itemizing deductions on 
their returns will no longer need to do so. What do you think? 
President Clinton will not even sign that. We provided 68 million more 
Americans tax relief by excluding from taxation a portion of interest 
and dividend income. Can you imagine the President will not sign that?
  All of you are always pontificating and using a lot of rhetoric about 
senior citizens, of which I am one, and I may be drawing Social 
Security next month. We included my bill which increased the Social 
Security earnings limit, thereby raising the amount of money senior 
citizens can earn without losing Social Security benefits, something 
that I have been trying to do in this body for years now.
  There is a limitation of $14,500 and for income above that level 
senior citizens have to start paying a penalty. We raise that limit to 
$16,500 the first year, $18,500 the second year, and then the third 
year every senior citizen in America on Social Security can earn up to 
$26,000 without paying any penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) one of the outstanding members of this body. He is going 
to tell you what we have done for education.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, for anybody to come down to this House and indicate that 
we have a do-nothing Congress when it comes to education has to have 
been sleeping for the last 2 years. We just had a love-in down at the 
White House a couple of days ago, what a love-in about education and 
all the things we have done.
  We have passed 21 pieces of legislation that deal with education and 
job training. Let me tell you about some of the most important ones, a 
lot of them done in a bipartisan fashion. We passed Head Start. We did 
not just pass the usual same old Head Start. We said we are going to 
have quality Head Start. We are going to make sure that every child in 
this country has an equal opportunity to become reading ready before 
they get to first grade and before they get stuck into special 
education.

                              {time}  1040

  We passed a special education bill, we passed a job training bill; 
not Washington knows all and Washington can do everything. We said the 
local level knows what is important and what has to be done to train 
people for the 21st century.
  We passed a vocational education bill, not again one that talks about 
the 19th century, but what it is we do if we are going to be 
competitive in the 21st century.
  We passed a child nutrition bill.
  We passed a higher education bill that gives the lowest interest 
rates in 17 years. It gives the highest Pell grants. It gives quality 
teaching. It does not matter whether there are two people in a 
classroom or one person in a classroom or 32 people in a classroom, if 
there is not a quality teacher in that classroom, it really does not 
matter.
  What the President is arguing about now is one simple thing: We want 
to, from Washington, D.C., control elementary-secondary education. 
There is not a poll that has ever been taken that says anybody in the 
United States wants this Federal Government to do that, and as long as 
I am in charge of that committee, I will guarantee we are not going to 
have any legislation that allows the Federal Government to

[[Page H10361]]

take over elementary-secondary education. But that is what it is all 
about.
  That is what that tobacco tax was all about. They wanted not a tax to 
try to do something to keep children from smoking. I have been involved 
with children for 22 years. One does not tell a teenager, do not smoke; 
teenagers tell teenagers do not smoke. It is the power, the pressure, 
of teenagers that causes them to smoke, and it is only that same 
pressure that will stop them from smoking. So do not give that facade 
that, somehow or other, if we can do this, we somehow or other will 
stop them smoking. That whole deal was, I want $20 billion so I can 
control elementary-secondary education in this country. That is not 
going to happen, Mr. President.
  So he had better get used to that. It will not happen. The local 
government will determine what happens in elementary-secondary 
education, not the Federal Government.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee on Education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again talk about the 
imaginary educational program of the Republican Party, this phantom 
program that I keep hearing from the chairman of our committee, who 
just stated once again that they have passed 21 bills dealing with 
education. And I repeat what I said in my opening remarks. There are 
only three educational bills that came out of that committee that are 
the law of the land; one is the IDEA, another is the higher education 
reauthorization, and the third is the Workforce Investment Act.
  Now, they did pass some bills; they are not the law. But the skill of 
legislators is to get legislation into law. One bill, the Help 
Scholarship Private School Voucher bill, that passed this House, it 
died here in the House, he takes credit for that. The Dollars to the 
Classroom Block Grant bill passed this House, but it died in the 
Senate. The bill terminating bilingual education died in the Senate. 
The Juvenile Justice bill died in conference. He is listing these bills 
as accomplishments in the field of education.
  His own bill, he will not bring to this floor. He has got a bill in 
education that he is blocking right now that he will not bring to this 
floor, the Reading Excellence Act. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) will not allow his own bill to be brought to the floor 
because there is a little provision in there about national testing, 
and he is so concerned about testing that he refuses to bring his own 
bill to this floor. That is an imaginary list of accomplishments that 
the Republicans keep referring to.
  Three education bills have passed this Congress in this session, not 
21, and I wish the gentleman from Pennsylvania would correct the 
record.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an 
article titled ``Significant Education Accomplishments? Not This 
Congress.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.

       Significant Education Accomplishments?--Not This Congress


                         bills signed into law

     IDEA--signed into law in June 1997
     Higher Education--signed into law in October 1998
     Workforce Investment Act--signed into law in September 1998


                          Passed both chambers

     Vocational Education--passed both chambers
     Head Start Reauthorization--passed both chambers
     Child Nutrition Reauthorization--passed both chambers
     Charter School Bill--about to pass both chambers
     Child Care Resolution--passed the House--a resolution not a 
         solution


                   republican agenda bills which died

     HELP Scholarship Private School Voucher Bill--died in House
     Dollars to the Classroom Block Grant bill--died in the Senate
     Bill terminating Bilingual Education--died in the Senate
     Juvenile Justice bill--died in conference


                             mystery bills

       Reading Excellence Act--Chairman Goodling won't allow his 
     own bill to be brought up because he is blocking national 
     testing.
     Bipartisan bills which included Democratic priorities
     3 major bills signed into law
     4 bills being sent to the President
     Partisan bills which are a part of the Republican agenda 
         against public schools
     3 bills died in the Senate
     1 died in the House
     Partisan politics being played with bipartisan bills
       Chairman is refusing to bring his own reading bill to the 
     floor, despite it being passed by the Senate with bipartisan 
     support.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the two Congresses before we Republicans took 
control, I recall no education bill that became law. We have passed 
three.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, obviously the gentleman does not listen 
any more than he listens in committee. I did not say we passed 21 bills 
into law. I made it very clear that we passed 21 bills out of the 
committee.
  I also mentioned that we passed Head Start, Higher Ed, Job Training, 
Special Ed, Voc Ed, Child Nutrition. If the President wants to sign 
them, they are there on his desk; let him sign them, they are there.
  And let me also tell my colleagues about Reading Excellence. I re-
wrote the Reading Excellence bill. The trash that came up from downtown 
was ridiculous. It had nothing to do with preparing teachers in order 
to be better teachers of reading. It had nothing to with helping 
parents become reading ready. I rewrote it, it is there, it is in the 
omnibus, it will be part of the law when the President decides to sign 
it.
  Let me also mention that if my colleagues want to fix school 
buildings, if they want to reduce class size, they should put their 
money where their mouth is. For 30 years they have had a bill here, 
they had 100 percent mandate back to the district on special ed. They 
said, ``We'll send you 40 percent of the excess costs,'' the most 
expensive piece of legislation ever passed, the most extensive, and 
what did they do? When I became chairman, they were sending 6 percent 
or at least up to 11 or 12 percent at the present time. If they send 
that back, every person in this building, every Member, will have 
millions of dollars to spend on class size, millions of dollars to fix 
buildings.
  Just talk about York City, a small city alone would get an extra 
million dollars a year if they put their money where their mouth was.
  I was told, ``Hey, you're doing something about Pell grants now.'' 
But it did not keep up with inflation. I was not in charge. They had 
all those years to do something about inflation in relationship to Pell 
grants.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding this time to me.
  I wanted my friends on the other side of the aisle to know that 
before I came to this Congress I was a State Superintendent of Schools 
for 8 years, prior to that I spent 19 years in business, and I want 
them to also understand that I received the Chamber of Commerce award 
this year, and fourthly, I want them to understand that I voted for the 
balanced budget last year. That will set the tone for what I am about 
to say about this do-nothing Congress for education, because let me say 
to my colleagues the day I am here to speak for special interests, I 
make no bones about it; the children of America are not being spoken 
for.
  I ran for this Congress because I was appalled when I was a 
superintendent at the sorry education legislation that I saw coming 
through, cuts in doing away with child nutrition programs, cuts in 
every education program that made a difference for poor children in 
this country.
  And my colleagues can argue about all the issues they want to argue 
about, but I am here to tell them if a child does not have a decent 
classroom to go to, they understand that education is not important. 
And they really do not care whether the money comes from the Federal 
Government, whether it comes from the State government, if it comes 
from the local government or from private sources; they just know that 
someone does not care. And there is a big slip between the cup and the 
lip.
  Congress must not abandon our schools. Over the next 5 years in this

[[Page H10362]]

country, we will have the fastest growing population at the high school 
age in the history of this country, and my State will be the fifth 
fastest growing State. We have just passed a $1.8 billion bond issue.
  I was on the telephone yesterday with a superintendent. He gets 3,500 
students every year. We must help them, we can help them, and we should 
not go home until we do.

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, good morning. How are my colleagues this 
morning? I am glad everybody had their extra cup of coffee this 
morning.
  Mr. Speaker, reality is that, over the last month and a half, my 
friends on this side of the aisle have tried to raid the Social 
Security Trust Fund, taking out billions of dollars. That cannot be 
denied.
  We are on an education debate here this morning. The reality is that 
the leader of their party introduced legislation to eliminate the 
Department of Education. Just get rid of it. Just get rid of it. That 
kind of sets the tone for where they have been going on educational 
issues.
  If you look at the budget this year on child literacy, the President 
requested $260 million so our children could learn to read. Republicans 
have zero dollars for that program. They cut $160 million out of a 
proven program that has worked year after year, decade after decade, 
the Head Start program.
  Class size, trying to get those numbers down to a reasonable level so 
teachers can teach and children can learn and we can have more 
discipline in the classroom, we cannot get the bill up. We asked for 
one day to discuss education on this floor. They will not give it to 
us.
  After-school program. Everyone knows that the juvenile crime problem 
in this country occurs between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00. That is when 
we have our teen pregnancies, we have our drinking, and we have our 
drug abuse and all those problems that plague our young people.
  An after-school program, a safe haven for students and children, a 
mix of intergenerational people, older people, young people at our 
schools using our libraries and gyms and our labs and our crafts rooms, 
a $40 million cut from the Republicans.
  School modernization, they will not bring it up.
  On program after program, the deals with the education of our young 
people in this country, we have been shut out. All we ask before we go 
home is that this Congress give us one day, just one day to deal with 
the modernization program so that kids do not have to go to schools in 
trailers, so that kids do not have to go to school where plaster is 
coming down, so that we do not send them the wrong signal that they do 
not matter, one day so that we can pass legislation to reduce class 
size, so we can get a better product. But, no, they will not do it.
  Somebody suggested the other day that we do it on Wednesday, and they 
said, no, it would ruin both weekends. I think that is a good note to 
end on.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we are representatives in the Congress of 
the United States of America. I have traveled all across the 
metropolitan region. My district, as the Speaker knows, goes from 
Westchester through the Bronx to Queens County.
  The schools are crumbling. They are crumbling all across America. 
Classrooms are literally overflowing. Students are learning in the 
hallways. But we are just sitting idly by. That is wrong.
  Last year, 120 Members of Congress showed their commitment to 
America's children by cosponsoring a bill, the Partnership to Rebuild 
America Schools. This session, we have a similar proposal which I 
introduced with my good colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  I say to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), 
we are not talking about taking over the schools. We are talking about 
a partnership. If we can be partners in rebuilding our highways, if we 
can be partners in rebuilding our roads and bridges and building 
prisons, then it seems to me we can be partners in modernizing our 
schools.
  We have visited schools where computers cannot be installed because 
they do not have the wiring necessary. One school in lower New York, 
there were wires hanging out of the windows, and the vandals were 
clipping them because the school infrastructure could not hold those 
computer systems, the wires. That is wrong. We are not a Third World 
nation.
  Our program will make interest-free loans available to school 
districts, they are going to be in control, across the country through 
the tax code. Under the bill, school districts will be able to issue 
special bonds at no interest to fund the construction or renovation of 
school building.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot ignore the poor physical conditions of 
our schools any longer. Nationally there is a $112 billion problem. 
That is what is needed in school construction. Mr. Speaker, let us 
modernize our schools. We have that responsibility.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey), comes from one of the nicest areas in the world, Westchester 
County and New York City. But do my colleagues know the State of New 
York, under the great leadership of Governor George Pataki, pumps 
millions of millions of dollars into the school system?
  But do my colleagues know what? They do not tell them how to spend 
it. The state does not have any category programs. They give it to 
localities in block grants. They say, you know how to educate your 
children; your school board knows how to develop the curriculum for 
those children. We want to give them the autonomy to do that.
  The New York State's School Board Association wants to abolish the 
Federal Department of Education because they want all that bureaucratic 
waste to be put into the school districts themselves, so they can spend 
it the way they want to.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the outstanding gentleman from 
Pensacola, Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on a few statements 
that have been made on the floor today.
  First of all, we hear again how Republicans wanted to raid the Social 
Security Trust Fund. I find this to be a bit humorous and ironic 
considering the President is now asking for $18 billion more than what 
we have budgeted. I suppose it is acceptable to raid the Social 
Security trust fund of $18 billion if we want to waste it on more 
Washington spending, but it is not acceptable if we want to give a 
little more money back to the American people, the money they earn.
  We hear Democrats complain about education. And yet under the 
Democrats watch, from 1954 to 1994, the education system in America 
crumbled at an alarming, unprecedented rate. Now they come to us, and 
they tell us that we have a do-nothing Congress because we have failed 
to follow their failed approach to education.
  I suspect each Democratic critic of our policies opposed the Dollars 
To The Classroom Act, where we guaranteed 95 percent of the money 
targeted for education would go into the classrooms and get out of 
Washington, D.C. bureaucracies. Of course this is a dangerous idea for 
statists because such an approach puts more trust in parents, in 
teachers, in principals that educate my children in public schools, 
than in bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, D.C.
  Finally we hear calls of a do-nothing Congress. Such complaints come 
from a party that is led by a President who has held only two cabinet 
meetings this year. The purpose of the first cabinet meeting was to 
create a forum for the President to lie to his cabinet. The second 
cabinet meeting was for the President to apologize for lying at the 
first meeting. Now is this really a record that this democratic 
Congress is proud of? Do they really wish to cast the first stone?
  On tobacco, we hear how Republicans want to get home and spend the 
tobacco money. Give me a break. In 1996,

[[Page H10363]]

we learned that the Democratic Party got tobacco money through the 
States. Then they funneled it back up to Federal candidates. All the 
while their candidates rallied against big tobacco.
  Stop being self-righteous. This Democratic Party has done little more 
this session of Congress than obstruct and delay for the 
administration.
  On the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, when we tried to 
uncover the Chinese fundraising scandal on campaign finance schemes 
that funded their campaigns in 1996, they obstructed and delayed our 
investigation. In fact, the ranking member of the Senate investigation 
said obstruction of the investigation was the Republicans' problem.
  Mr. Speaker, such obstruction and delay is not the Republicans' 
problem. It is America's problem. We will continue to fight for 
education reform, for dollars in the classrooms, and to insure that 
American democracy is not subverted by foreign interests.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) has 7 minutes remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chief deputy whip, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side protest too much. The 
reason they want martial law, that they want to place martial law upon 
the House, is because they have not done their job. They have failed 
the country, and in doing so, they have failed our children.
  Every time I hear about their education initiatives, everything is a 
block grant. But why do they want to do that? Because they want to take 
the entitlement, the legal right that our children have in this country 
to receive this assistance, move it and abolish that right, and then 
ultimately cut it, and that is their plan.
  This Republican martial law allows the Congress to consider a bill 
naming a post office in an expedited manner, but it does not allow us 
to consider getting the classrooms in America in shape for the next 
century.
  What kind of priorities do they have?
  We Democrats have had a plan to hold HMOs accountable for their 
actions and to preserve the doctor-patient relationships. My Republican 
colleagues sided with the HMO industry and rejected real patient 
protection.
  We have a plan to keep our children from smoking. My Republican 
colleagues sided with big tobacco and rejected it.
  We have a plan to clean up the campaign finance system, and in the 
other House it was rejected, as well, by the majority. We have a plan 
to put 100,000 new teachers in our schools, and help reduce class size 
and let the local school district determine how they are going to use 
it, help them in getting that assistance, and for the taxpayers of 
those communities as well. Republicans side against our children and 
reject it.
  So other than spending most of this Congress and millions of dollars 
on one investigation after another, what have they been doing all year 
that they have to declare martial law?
  Frankly, it is hard to tell. My Republican colleagues cannot even 
pass a budget. With a balanced budget and a Federal surplus, they are 
10 days into the budget year and they still cannot get a budget for 
America. American families cannot do that. They would not be able to 
get that way.
  Vote against this martial law resolution, so we can have a martial 
law resolution that brings America's needs onto this floor, a real 
martial law for the right reasons.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I think 
this is a Congress of missed opportunities. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I first thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really quite simple. The Republicans want to go 
home. The Democrats want to go to work.
  This has been a do-nothing Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, Americans want a couple of 
simple things. They want more teachers; Americans understand that we 
need more teachers in our early-year classrooms in order to reduce 
class size. Take it wherever you want, north, south, east or west, 
people will tell us they need smaller classes, more teachers, better 
trained teachers. The Democrats want to do that; the Republicans want 
to go home.
  Talk to Americans and they will also tell us we need school 
modernization. We have overcrowded classrooms, we have classrooms that 
are not wired to have Internet access. We need modernization. We need 
technological upgrades. We would like to do that. We would like to 
invest in education; the Republicans want to go home.
  Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, actions speak louder than words. 
They want to talk about then, there, what not and what how. The fact of 
the matter is, they have failed. They have not delivered on education. 
We need to go to work; we do not need to go home.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chief deputy 
whip, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this martial law rule.
  We have had an entire session to pass legislation which would have 
improved the lives of the people in this country, and the majority 
party has ignored, ignored that opportunity. Instead of doing the 
people's work, they frittered away your time and our time.
  What have we spent our time doing here? What have they accomplished 
this year?
  Let us take a look at the Record. We have no budget. We have not 
finished appropriations. We have not protected Social Security. We have 
not reformed HMOs to ensure that healthy patients are more important 
than healthy profits of the insurance companies in this country, and we 
have not stopped the tobacco companies from targeting and killing our 
children. We have not reduced class size to provide individual 
attention for our kids in classrooms. We have not modernized a single 
school. We have not raised education standards for a single child, we 
have not provided training for a single teacher, we have not hooked up 
a single classroom to the Internet.
  Let me just say this to my colleagues, that what the Republican 
majority would do with regard to education is reduce the dollars to 
States. What they would do is take money out of our school system and 
put education once more in the hands of the rich and of the few.
  Let me just say, we have a few days before this Congress adjourns. 
Let us do what the American people want.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, defeat the previous question. Let 
us debate education. Let us do something for American families and for 
American kids in this country. Stop frittering away the American 
public's time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say, I 
cannot think of anybody other than this Speaker of the House that I 
would less like to yield martial law to. The way this House has been 
managed, if we give him martial law authority, God knows what might 
could happen.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 days ago, the Republican National Committee decided it 
would start running $150,000 worth of ads in my congressional district 
to try to put me on the defensive for not raiding the Social Security 
Trust Fund to pay for $90 billion worth of taxes for rich people. They 
can find $90 billion in trust fund monies to give for tax cuts, but 
they cannot find any money to do a reduction in class sizes for our 
children in this country. They can find $90 billion in money in the 
Social Security Trust Fund to give tax cuts to the wealthy people, but 
they cannot modernize our schools.

[[Page H10364]]

  We need to stay here until we get our schools modernized, our class 
sizes reduced. Reject this martial law. Vote against this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the outstanding chairman of our Committee 
on Education and the Workforce which has done so much for the children 
of this Nation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I will not come here and say I was a superintendent in the State for 
a couple of years after being a businessperson, I was an educator all 
of my life.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we have people on the floor today 
crying out for education. Where were you for 20 years when you were in 
the majority and I am standing in that well saying, please, please.
  You mandated Special Ed. Very, very expensive mandate. You said you 
would send them 40 percent of the excess cost, and you sent them 
peanuts. And I asked you year after year after year, because to every 
school district it meant millions of dollars, millions of dollars to 
reduce class size, millions of dollars to maintain their buildings, 
millions of dollars to build new buildings. I could not get a penny. I 
could not get a penny.
  And you know what the President did this year? The President sent a 
Special Ed budget up here that cuts Special Ed.

                              {time}  1110

  He does not allow for inflation. He does not allow for additional 
students in special ed., and there are hundreds and thousands of them 
every year. He cut special education, the one curriculum mandate that 
comes from the Federal level.
  Now, what have we done in order to get more teachers? First of all, 
the GAO says there is no shortage of teachers now. There is none in the 
foreseeable future. But what did we do on the higher ed. bill? We said, 
okay, all of the teachers that are out there that are not teaching, we 
will let them reduce the amount that it costs them in their loan if 
they will go to the local school district that needs them, the center 
city, rural America. That is where they need them. They are out there 
doing other jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we increased impact aid, 31-plus billion dollars for 
education in the budget this year. We took care of some of the problems 
after school in the nutrition bill, because we said we are going to 
give schools food to feed and keep those youngsters there after school 
so they do not get into trouble.
  We upgraded technology. All of these things that I have heard about, 
we have done. But most of all, we increased special ed. by $500 
million.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, last night the host of ``Crossfire'' quoted 
Edward Crane, President of the Cato Institute; we know that the Cato 
Institute is not a liberal organization. Edward Crane was quoted as 
saying, ``The record of the 105th Congress, Republican-controlled in 
both Houses, is an abomination. Spending is up, and the Tax Code is 
more complex than ever.''
  Even the Congressional Quarterly says that as long as the records go 
back, no Congress has worked fewer days or accomplished less.
  Since the American people deserve more from their Congress, I urge my 
colleagues to defeat this previous question. If the previous question 
is defeated, Democrats will be able to bring initiatives to the floor 
before this Congress adjourns. An initiative to modernize schools that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) talked about; reduce 
class size by hiring 100,000 new teachers; an initiative to implement 
true HMO reform that protects patients and lets the doctors and nurses 
make the decisions, and not accountants and insurance companies; an 
initiative that saves 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and 
keeps it in the trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question to speed 
up consideration of school modernization, HMO reform, and legislation 
to save Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
       The amendment to be offered if the previous question is 
     defeated.
       Amendment offered by Mr. Moakley of Massachusetts:
       In the resolution, on page 2, line 12, after ``thereon.'' 
     insert:
       ``(3) a bill or joint resolution pursuant to section 3 of 
     this resolution, any amendment thereto, any conference report 
     thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a 
     conference thereon.''
       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       ``Sec. 3. Before the consideration of any motions to 
     suspend the rules pursuant to section 2 of this resolution, 
     it shall be in order to consider:
       ``(a) A bill or joint resolution that will reduce class 
     size in kindergarten through 3rd grade to a nationwide 
     average of 18 students per class and will help local school 
     districts hire an additional 100,000 well-prepared teachers, 
     any amendment thereto, any conference report, or any 
     amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
       ``(b) A bill or joint resolution that will provide local 
     school districts with interest-free financing to modernize 
     existing classrooms and build new school buildings, any 
     amendment therto, any conference report thereon, or any 
     amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
       ``(c) A bill or joint resolution to remove 100% of the 
     social security surplus from the spending control of 
     Congress, any amendment thereto, any conference report 
     thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a 
     conference thereon.
       ``(d) A bill or joint resolution to provide for a patients' 
     bill of rights, any amendment thereto, any conference report 
     thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a 
     conference thereon.''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on 
     a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

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

[[Page H10365]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker quoted Cato and their 
philosophy. The Cato Institute wants to slash the military budget of 
our country in half. They want to legalize marijuana. So much for the 
Cato Institute.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following to emphasize Republican 
accomplishments on education, dealing with illegal drugs in our 
schools:
  Illegal drug use is behind most of the violence in this country. Over 
50% of all men arrested for homicide test positive for illicit drugs at 
the time of arrest and illegal drugs are a factor in half of all family 
violence, most of it directed against women and children.
  Illegal drugs are also the single most serious problem facing 
America's educational system. It has always bewildered me how President 
Clinton can claim to be the education President when drug use by school 
age children has doubled since he was elected President.
  There is an obvious connection between the increase in illegal drug 
use which has occurred since President Clinton first took office and 
the educational problems facing our nation.
  Illegal drug use has doubled since this President took office and 
according to the most recent reports drug use is still on the rise 
among eighth graders.
  A person who uses illegal drugs is five times more likely to drop out 
of school than a non-drug user. Scientific studies show that illegal 
drugs--including marijuana--rob students of their motivation and self-
esteem, leaving them unable to concentrate and indifferent to learning.
  A recent study of 11th graders in our major cities showed that over 
half of the heavy drug users dropped out--twice the rate of those who 
are drug-free.
  During the Reagan/Bush years drug use dropped, from 24 million users 
in 1979 to 11 million users in 1992. These hard fought gains were 
wasted by President Clinton.
  There is not a parent in America who sends their children off to 
school without worrying that they will become exposed to illegal drugs. 
And it is not just teenagers anymore. Parents now need to be very 
concerned about 7th and 8th grade children getting involved with 
illegal drugs.
  Toady in America one third of all high school kids smoke marijuana.
  Today, more than half of all high school seniors have admitted to 
using illegal drugs. Since President Clinton was first elected. The 
trends of casual drug use for high school students have increased for 
virtually every illegal drug, including heroin, crack, cocaine, LSD and 
marijuana. This rise in teenage drug use also correlates closely with 
rising violence in our schools.
  A recent study has also shown that students with the lowest grades 
were four times more likely to have used marijuana in the past month 
than those with the highest grade point average.
  Since 1992, marijuana use has jumped 150% among 12 and 13 year old 
students and 200% among high school students. Nearly 1.5 million more 
middle school and high schools students use illegal drugs than when 
President Clinton was first elected.
  I repeat, you cannot claim to be a President who cares about the 
education of our youth and not care abut the illegal drug problem in 
this country. And President Clinton has demonstrated by his words--or 
lack of words--and by his deeds that he is not serious about winning 
the war on drugs. And our school systems have the casualties to prove 
it.
  I urge support of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the American people, at least the massive 
numbers who tuned into C-SPAN this morning, have been lucky enough to 
see the vision of the real Democratic Party. Fifteen out-of-touch 
liberal extremists and one pretending to be a conservative.
  The Democratic vision is of a do-everything, big government, 
micromanaging, high taxes, big spending, deficit-creating, liberal, 
bureaucratic, getting-into-every-aspect-of-family-life Congress.
  The Republicans propose a limited Federal Government that cuts taxes, 
balances the budget, strengthens national defense, empowers local and 
State governments to solve local problems, and make sure government 
works.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the American people have rejected the 
liberal do-everything-badly vision of government. They support a 
Congress that is focused on doing some things well and helping families 
and communities solve local problems.
  We are trying to get things done here by passing this rule. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule so that we can get things done and do 
the work that this Congress wants to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement from the Committee on 
Rules which explains the previous question vote:

               The Previous Question Vote: What It Means

       House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that: ``There shall be a motion for the previous question, 
     which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if 
     a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all 
     debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or 
     ordered.''
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) will be postponed.

                          ____________________