[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10861-H10868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 135) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes; and
that it be in order at any time to consider the joint resolution in the
House; and that the joint resolution be considered as having been read
for amendment; that the joint resolution be debatable for not to exceed
1 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. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the
House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 135) making further
continued appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 135
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 further amended by striking
``October 14, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October
16, 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).
General Leave
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on House Joint Resolution 135, 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, the current continuing resolution for
fiscal year 1999 expires tonight. We have been here before saying this
same thing, but the White House negotiators and congressional
negotiators have been working day and night on some very important
decisions. We are doing the people's work.
Not only are these issues important, but they are very complicated.
We are dealing with wrapping up the eight regular bills plus emergency
supplemental appropriations, and various authorizing pieces of
legislation which we believe must pass before we adjourn Congress for
the 105th Congress.
{time} 1230
All parties are working in good faith, but we have just not yet
completed our negotiations. We will need another day or two to complete
our work and get it to the floor. An extension of a further continuing
resolution is, therefore, needed. Adoption of H.J. Res. 135, which runs
through Friday, October 16, will give us time to complete our remaining
work, I hope.
Again, I wish I did not have to bring this joint resolution to the
floor, but more time is needed. Unfortunately, we have not completed
our work, and we need that time to do it. I do not think we need to
debate this issue extensively or take a lot of time today. We all know
that we need to take this action to keep the government open. It is our
intention to keep the government open, and it is our intention to stay
as long as it takes to get our business done so that the government
remains open and that the final bill be passed.
Adoption of this continuing resolution will give us the time needed
to complete our work and keep the government running, and so I urge its
adoption.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
Madam Speaker, well, I guess I would say that this debate, as did the
debate
[[Page H10862]]
2 days ago, also reminds me of Yogi Berra's statement, ``This is deja
vu all over again,'' and again and again and again.
We are in a situation in which we are now 14 days past the beginning
of the fiscal year. This is certainly not the first time this has ever
happened in the Congress. We have often seen the Congress not complete
its budget work on time. But I think we are in a unique position in
terms of why and a unique position in terms of what it is that still
divides us.
Madam Speaker, in my discussions this morning with the White House
and with leadership, as I understand the situation, we are essentially
down to a number of issues. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston) and I have been able, along with our Senate counterparts,
to wade through many, many dollar issues. But at this point, we are
still divided because the President and the Democratic membership of
this House still wants to see movement on the President's proposal for
school construction so that we can help some of the poorest districts
in the country who simply do not have the bonding resources to
modernize their school buildings with Federal help. There are literally
some schools, as the President said the other day, that are in such
falling-down shape that if they were a prison, they would be condemned
by a Federal judge. We cannot allow that disgrace to continue in our
view.
We also have the division between us on the issue whether or not we
are going to provide Federal assistance to lower class size in the
first three grades, when early intervention is crucial in getting kids
off to the right start in life. And we are at this point still divided
on that issue and whether or not funding that would be provided would,
indeed, be targeted to reducing class size or would, in fact, be
dissipated on other items.
In addition to that, we still have some environmental issues which
divide us. In my view, especially important are the administration's
efforts to begin to deal with the problem of global warming, which
could be the most catastrophic problem that any of us have faced in our
lifetimes. It could be as catastrophic as war itself if the natural
environment which protects us all begins to change significantly. And
the scientific evidence certainly seems to suggest that it is.
We need more resources in that area. Not to enforce the Kyoto Treaty,
about which I have strong objections, but simply to support research
and education efforts which are going to be necessary in order for us
to deal with that problem of global warming. We also have some other
environment issues there.
Then we have the issue of what I call Viagra versus the pill. The
budget so far has provided millions and millions of dollars to provide
for coverage of Viagra at the Pentagon, and yet women who work for the
Federal Government are being told that their insurance policies may not
be required to cover basic contraceptive services for women. To me,
that is a ludicrous position. And the President and those of us on this
side of the aisle are working very hard to see to it that that changes
before we go home.
Next, we have a huge problem on the census where we have really a
three-cornered debate going on about how that issue is going to be
resolved. And I respect the views of people of both sides. On this one
I am in a peculiar position. I do not happen to agree fully with the
position of my party or the Republican party. But this institution must
find a way to deal with that problem.
Then we have the problem of the United Nations. We owe the United
Nations some $900 million or so in back funding. If we are going to
entertain going to war in places like Kosovo and other places, we need
to arm ourselves so that we have all of the possible tools available in
order to shape the United Nations response to that and other problems,
and we do not have those tools so long as that money is being withheld
because of the Mexico City impasse. The Mexico City impasse, in plain
language, involves questions of policy with respect to family planning
issues abroad.
Then lastly, we have the very legitimate issue of what we are going
to do to respond to the fact that the market has collapsed for many
farmers in this country, and also with respect to the kind of farmers
that I represent, the fact that dairy farmers have an income which in
real terms is about 50 percent of what it was in 1980, over a year's
time.
So those are the real issues that still divide us and we are going to
have to come to a resolution on them, but we are not there yet and that
is why we need this additional time.
Now, I would like to also explain why it is that I believe why we are
here. And as I said 2 days ago, this is not the responsibility of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). He is a first-rate chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, and the committee itself has not
created this problem. But the committee has not been allowed to do its
work because of external realities. Let me cite the main reality. There
are two, as far as I see.
First of all, if we take a look at the schedule which the leadership
of this House put together, in January, we were in session 2 days. In
February, the month that we got the budget from the President, Congress
was in session 8 days. In March, when we normally have a very heavy
hearing schedule, Congress was in session 15 days and there was very
little floor action at the same time.
In April, Congress was in session for 8 days. And then in April, we
had a 19-day Easter district work period, one of the longest in
history.
On the day that the budget resolution was due, supposed to be
finished in this House, this Congress was in recess. Then in May, this
Congress was in session a total of 13 days, and then we recessed. We
recessed for an 11-day Memorial Day district work period.
In June, Congress was in session 15 days. We did, on June 16 pass the
committee allocation to each of the subcommittees so the committee
could begin its work. But that was 2 months late, because of the delay
on the part of the Committee on the Budget and the House leadership in
not bringing that budget debate to a full completion. And when the
committee did make its allocation, it did so at the direction of the
leadership, absent a budget for the government.
We then went on recess for 18 days over the July 4th district work
period. That was one of the longest July 4th recesses in history.
Congress was in session a total of 14 days in July and 5 days in
August. We had a 31-day August district work period. In September,
Congress was in session 15 days.
So the timetable created by the leadership's schedule made it
impossible for the Committee on Appropriations to get its work done on
time. And that is why, as of this date, the Congress has still not
completed action on 9 of the 13 appropriation bills which we are
supposed to finish.
That has been complicated by the fact that the majority party
leadership has apparently come to the conclusion that not only do we
have to reach agreements which can get majority support in the House,
but that in many cases those agreements also have to satisfy the most
conservative and the most confrontational elements in their own caucus.
The example of that that I would use is the issue of contraception,
where this House on a bipartisan basis passed the Lowey amendment. I
think we had some 50 Republican votes for that, along with most
Democrats. We then had an even larger margin in favor of that in the
Senate, so that women would have the full availability of contraceptive
services.
But because a good many Members in the caucus of the Republican
Majority have very strong feelings against the pill and the IUD, we are
now told that we have to overturn the judgment of both houses in order
to reach a compromise on this budget.
Madam Speaker, I think that the way that contraceptive issue has
blown up the budget is an example of what has happened across the
budget on many of these other items. And then we also have the problem
compounded by the fact that on the Labor-HHS bill, the majority party
brought a bill to the floor which was so extreme, it cut $2 billion out
of the President's education budget. It was so extreme that the Senate
Republicans would not even accept it. And our friends, our Republican
friends in the House could not even pass it on this floor because of
opposition in their own caucus by moderate Members.
[[Page H10863]]
So, if my colleagues want to know why we are here, I do not want to
hear any more of this baloney about the fact that the President has
been out of town, because as I pointed out the last time, the last time
I looked, William Clinton is not a Member of the House. He is not a
Member of the Senate. He does not get to vote, and he only gets to sign
or veto bills after we send them to him, and so far we have not sent
him 9 out of 13 bills.
So, if the Congress wants to know why we are at this impasse, all we
have to do as an institution is look in the mirror. So that is why we
are here. I did not want to take that much time, but I think it is
important for us to understand why we are at this impasse as we try to
get out of it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
I had not really intended to get into a prolonged debate, but I see
the cast of thousands over there on the other side ready to pounce on
me so I thought I might make some preemptive remarks and responsive
remarks to the gentleman that just preceded me.
My friend from Wisconsin has criticized the schedule. Let me take a
second to note that in all but 5 of the last 15 years, we are actually
ahead of schedule. We actually have done better in some 10 years out of
the last 15 years in terms of getting our work done and closing out the
legislative year.
Just taking, for example, the year 1990 and comparing it with this
year on the matter on which the gentleman criticized the number of
working days. The fact is in 1990, there were only 134 legislative days
for the entire legislative session which is actually less than what we
have done this year. And in that same year, I am counting, one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve
appropriations bills, all passed on November 5 of 1990. That is three
or four weeks after we will be through here in this session of the
105th Congress.
The point is, one can criticize the number of days we have been in
session or not. The fact is, we are doing much better than we have done
in other years, doing better than we have done in all but 5 of the last
15 years.
What about the record of achievement for this legislative term? I
think that a balanced budget, the first balanced budget in 30 years is
worth crowing about. I think the first tax cut in 16 years is worth
crowing about. We have gotten both of those. My friends in the
minority, when they were in the majority, projected that we would have
$200 to $300 billion in deficits every year as far as the eye could
see. Under our leadership, that has ceased to become the case. In fact
we have reversed it. We have restored some fiscal integrity to this
massive Federal Government of ours so that we do not mortgage the
future of our children and our grandchildren.
In the process, we have passed a Higher Education Act, a Reading
Excellence Act, a Dollars to the Classroom Block Grant Act. We passed
scholarships for youngsters so that they are not forced and compelled
to go to drug-ridden schools or crime-ridden schools or inferior
schools for the District of Columbia, but unfortunately that was vetoed
by the President.
We did pass prepaid college tuition plans and job training reform and
emergency student loans and quality Head Start funding. We provided
bills to provide for school nutrition and charter schools and drug
education initiatives. We also passed an opportunity for people to save
for their children's education called the A-plus savings accounts, but
again President Clinton did not think that was worth allowing people to
save for the future of their children and save for their children's
education so he vetoed that one.
But we also passed and enacted into law $500 million more for special
education, loan forgiveness for new teachers, teachers testing
provisions, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the high tech
job skills vocational education. We have implemented bilingual
education reform. Prohibition on new Federal school tests, equitable
child care resolution and juvenile justice programs all have been done
this year just in the field of education.
You hear the President standing up for education these last few days.
I am glad to see that he has awaken to a critical need for this
country. But one thing we should note when we start talking about the
application of Federal dollars, remember, Federal dollars are nothing
more than taxpayers' dollars.
We should understand that we are spending taxpayers' dollars every
time we talk about creating a new program, with Federal strings
attached. In effect, we are employing Federal bureaucrats to tell
people back home how they should better their lives.
The President says he wants more money for school construction, but
he wants Federal bureaucrats to dictate how that money should be spent.
The President says he wants more money for teachers, but he wants
Federal bureaucrats to dictate which teachers get funded. That is not
our approach. It is a source of controversy. It is not a matter of
money. We have provided, throughout the discussions that are going on
between our leadership and the representatives of the White House. We
have fundamentally agreed on the amount of money. We are just trying to
get the money back to the localities without interference from the
Federal bureaucracies.
Remember, States and localities already pay for 95 percent of all
dollars on education. The other 5 percent is spent by the Federal
Government with taxpayers' dollars. It has only been in the last 30 to
35 years that the Federal Government has been involved in education at
all.
The gentleman says that we have differences on global warming. The
fact is that there is some very real credible science to say that
actually the climate in the last 40 years has cooled rather than
warmed. Did we have a hot summer this last summer? Yes. We had some
severely cold winters a couple years ago though. The idea advanced
primarily by the Vice President and a lot of people who believe as he
does that we should run out and spend billions upon billions upon
billions of taxpayers' dollars crying that the sky is falling and call
Chicken Little just in anticipation of the possibility that the world
is warming up by an iota of a degree is insanity. Let us get the facts.
Let us find out what the facts are. Scientific information says that
probably in the last 2- or 300 years maybe the world has warmed a
little bit in some stages, but that it has cooled in others. In the
last 40 years it may actually have cooled.
Why should we spend billions upon billions of dollars from the
taxpayers' pockets in anticipation of a theory that may be totally
flawed and totally inaccurate? Why should we tell our American citizens
who are working so hard for their children to keep their families and
their communities together that we should take their money and at the
same time promote programs which put them out of work to the advantage
of the emerging countries, which is exactly what the Kyoto Treaty is
all about? It says to America, you have consumed too much energy so
close your businesses down, send all the jobs overseas. I do not think
that that is what we should be doing, Madam Speaker. So we have some
legitimate debate on issues of that sort.
The gentleman also raises funding for the census. My goodness, the
Constitution of the United States says that every citizen should be
counted. That means counted. But, no, they want to use their thumb and
estimate whole communities. They want to sample. They want to sample
how many people are out there in this neighborhood and that
neighborhood and develop the representation of the United States
Congress on these estimates.
My goodness, there must be some sort of hidden social agenda, Madam
Speaker. What are they trying to do when they do not want to count
everybody? When we say that we will spend every dollar that is
necessary to count everybody, they say, no, we want to be scientific in
this age of science. We want to estimate how many people are in America
rather than count them.
Madam Speaker, we have heard them. They estimated the number of
immigrants into the United States just before the last election and let
about 100,000 illegal aliens in, and a bunch of them were criminals and
murderers. So they want us to take them at their
[[Page H10864]]
word that they are going to estimate them correctly.
I am concerned about this estimation. The Constitution calls for no
sampling, for counting every individual. I think that we ought to take
the Constitution at face value. We ought to enumerate. But they
disagree with us. Two courts of appeal have ruled with us in our favor
saying that you have to count every citizen and still they want to
ignore the wishes of the courts that have ruled in our favor and still
estimate the number of people in America.
Well, the gentleman from Wisconsin has indicated that there are other
issues about how much to bail out the farmer because of the recent
disasters. If the money is well spent, if it is going to people that
truly need it because of real disasters, we agree, the money should be
spent. But let us just not throw money at a problem simply because it
is the right political season. I am afraid that issue is becoming very
much involved in whether or not we properly spend taxpayers funds, and
we are the stewards of the taxpayer. We should understand that the
money should be well spent.
The gentleman has questioned why we are here at this late date. I
would simply agree with him when he says that we should have gotten our
business done earlier. We should have. But we are not inconsistent with
the vast majority of Congress in the last 15 years when they were
mostly in control, and we were in the minority. This happens. Sometimes
we push our business off until we have to handle it in one lump sum at
the very end.
That is not an efficient way to do business. We have spent too much
time on the budget. We have spent too much time on things when we
should have been spending more time on the appropriations bills. But we
are where we are. We are not going to close the government. We are
going to stay here as long as we absolutely have to to get our business
done. It is my hope, my genuine and sincere hope that we will conclude
our business in the next few hours and that we will be able to submit a
very large bill comprising the untended business to the Members of
Congress, to our colleagues so that they can vote finally and
completely and go home to election time.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
It is simply false to say that the difference between the President
and the Republican majority on the issue of class size is that the
administration wants to run this program through Federal bureaucracy
and the Republicans want to make sure that it is run through State and
local bureaucracy. That is not what is at stake.
What we want to do is assure that if we are going to spend over $1
billion that that money is used for the purpose for which it is
appropriated, which is to reduce class size. It has nothing to do with
which bureaucracy it runs through.
We do not want that money to be used for noninstructional purposes.
If you run that money through title VI, as the Republicans want, that
means there will be at least 1 percent available for Federal
administration. It means there will be up to 15 percent available for
State administration. And there is no limit whatsoever on
administrative cost at the local level. That is why we are insisting on
this principle. It is not a question of which bureaucracy it goes
through. It is a question of whether this is going to be used for a
national priority to reduce class size or whether it is going to be
frittered away on a dozen other things. We want to follow the same
process that we followed on Cops on the Beat, where the Republicans
also opposed having 100,000 cops on the beat.
{time} 1300
The fact is that, today, that is one of the most popular programs at
the local level; and certainly in my hometown it has been a very
effective program.
We do not want to do in education what was done in the 1970s when
money was simply thrown out in a block grant, and it was used to make
Motorola rich and used to make a lot of other contractors rich in
selling a lot of equipment to local communities without having any
appreciable improvement on law enforcement, under the Law Enforcement
Assistance Act.
What we are trying to do is very simply to make certain that money
appropriated for reducing class size is used for that purpose, and that
is the issue that divides us.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, how much time do both sides have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each have
16 minutes remaining.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this very
responsible resolution, which is simply a resolution to keep the
government moving and not shut down, in order that we can resolve the
several remaining issues.
But in listening to the gentleman from Wisconsin's explanation of why
we are where we are, I just thought I might come and explain to my
colleagues and to the Speaker what really happened with respect to that
area of jurisdiction that I have; and that is passing a bill that has
to do with the foreign operations, monies for foreign countries.
To put it simply, last spring, the President requested that this
Congress give him $13.5 billion, plus $18 billion for the International
Monetary Fund. As responsible appropriators, we did exactly what we
were supposed to do. We passed a bill, but we did not give the
President everything he wanted. We cut his request by $1 billion,
because we thought we ought to use the money in other areas of
government.
Even back in the spring, Mrs. Albright told me that if I did not give
her the entire $13.5 billion, she was going to recommend a veto.
It was not left to Sonny Callahan to make that determination, but,
rather, it was left to this body. We brought a bill through
subcommittee. We brought a bill through full committee. We brought a
bill to the floor of the House, and the House rejected the President's
request.
Now in the waning moments of this session, the President is coming
back and saying, ``Look, I have you now in a position that I want you
in, and I am going to insist that, regardless of what a majority of the
Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats alike, regardless of
what you think, you are going to give me my extra billion dollars.''
So that is where we are. It is not a question, as the gentleman from
Wisconsin fully understands, of whether we acted responsibly, because
we did. We passed the bill through the House. We passed the bill
through the Senate. It was not what the President wanted.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, today, we are considering our fourth
continuing resolution to keep the government open, because the
Republican majority failed to get a budget done in time, as is
exhibited by this chart, failed to give us a strong HMO Patient
Protection Act for our families, failed to ensure that the budget
surplus would be used to protect Social Security before all else, and
failed to protect our kids from tobacco.
We Democrats simply do not want my colleagues to go back home and
fail our children. That is why we are still here fighting to reduce
class size and modernize our aging schools.
With our 100,000 teachers initiatives, Democrats are trying to ensure
that local taxpayers supporting public school systems across the
country get a break by guaranteeing that the new Federal dollars are
used to help local school districts reach a specific goal that everyone
supports, reducing class size in early grades.
Under the Republican proposal, the dollars could be used for all
sorts of other purposes that have nothing to do with helping our
children. In essence, we Democrats want to accomplish what we did with
100,000 Cops on the Beat, local control with Federal support to hire
100,000 new teachers.
This is a battle about whether we want more money for educators or
[[Page H10865]]
more investigators, whether we want to spend more time investigating
the past or more time investing in our future. Our schools, our
teachers, and our children, that is what we Democrats are fighting
about.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my
good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State
and Judiciary of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. ROGERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, we passed the Commerce, Justice appropriations for the
State Department, the Commerce Department, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies through this body, through the Senate, for the full year.
We fenced in the last half of the year's funding for the decennial
census until the Federal courts could decide whether or not it is legal
to do sampling.
I will tell my colleagues what is going on in that room right back
there where they are negotiating this budget deal. The President is
insisting that we not fund all of these agencies in the bill for the
last half of the year. In March, all of these agencies would shutdown
if the President prevails.
What does that mean? It means that the Bureau of Prisons will shut
down. Do we turn the prisoners loose? It means the National Weather
Service will go out of business. Do we want to know what our weather
will be tomorrow? Do not watch television. National Weather Service is
shut down.
It means the Justice Department would be shut down. The FBI would be
closed. The laboratories that test bullets from all over the country
for local police departments shut down, closed by the President's
decree. It means the State Department and all of the embassies
worldwide keeping the peace in the world would be shut down by the
President's decree on March 15 if he prevails back there in that room.
That is what is going on.
Why are they insisting upon this? So they can have their way on the
frivolous idea of sampling the census for the decennial census.
Yesterday, I received a letter from the Federal Judicial Conference,
over which the Chief Justice presides. In the letter, it says that this
has a dangerous incursion into perhaps intimidation of the Judicial
Branch of government, of the very Court that will eventually decide
sampling and its constitutionality.
The Supreme Court itself would be shut down in March if the President
has his way. All of the Federal courts would be shut down. The U.S.
Marshals would be shut down. The drug war would be shut down if the
President had his way back there in that room this very minute.
I say that is outrageous. It is unconscionable. It is
unconstitutional, in my judgment, and it is an attempt to intimidate
the United States Supreme Court on the very makeup of this body. I say
that is outrageous. It is unacceptable and should be whisked away like
the dirt on the floor.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, the gentleman had an alternative to
this terrible policy. Would the gentleman please explain that
alternative?
Mr. ROGERS. What we should do is fund the entire year of this bill
for all of these agencies, keep them going, not hold them hostage to
this fight over the census; fund the decennial census only for the half
year, until the courts have time to decide the constitutionality of
sampling, until the test projects that are going on around the country
right now on sampling can take place and we will see the results by
March; until the advisory committee this Congress set up to supervise
the census has time to report to us in February.
By March, the courts will have decided, the advisory committee will
have reported and the pilot projects will be completed and we will know
whether or not sampling is a good idea, constitutional and so forth.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I take it that that plan was in the House bill when
it left here?
Mr. ROGERS. That was the plan, the gentleman is correct, that this
House passed, and now we hit this brick wall of the White House saying,
no, siree, we are going to shut the government down until we get our
way on the census.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Madam Speaker, what I have just heard is absolute total nonsense. The
administration does not want to shut down the government. The
administration is asking for one thing, full funding of the census. You
are holding those programs hostage. They are not. Let us keep the facts
straight.
Secondly, what is outrageous is not the administration conduct but
the expression of opinion of the Republican representative on this
issue last night, who told Democratic representatives that regardless
of whether we won or lost the Supreme Court case they did not have any
intention of following the court case if we won. That is what is
outrageous.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Democratic
whip, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, if I could amplify upon the remarks of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on this census issue, I think my
colleague, the gentleman from Texas, said it very well in our caucus
this morning. He said, for 100 years in this country, we did not treat
them as human beings and now we do not even want to recognize that they
exist.
That is what is going on here. They do not want to recognize
literally millions of people who are out there and who have a right to
be counted so that they and their communities can reap the benefits
therein from the governments that represent them.
As we approach the end of this session, I think it is important to
once again review, as my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) just did, about really what is going on here. The scorecard for
the Republican Congress is pretty meager. Bills to improve public
education, zero; managed care reform, killed in the Senate, zero;
campaign finance reform, after they tried to talk it to death week
after week, month after month in this body, killed again, zero; bills
to reduce teenage smoking, zero; bills to protect the environment,
zero; minimum wage increase so people can have some sense of dignity,
so they can earn a wage that will get them above the poverty level, and
that is where they are now with the minimum wage, below the poverty
level, zero.
On the things that count for people who are talking amongst
themselves around the kitchen table, we have not done the work of the
people in this country.
If we look at the budget, I would think we would at least get our
budget done. For first time in 24 years since the Budget Act was
established in 1974, we do not have a Federal budget; two bills signed
into law, one bill vetoed, a couple of bills on the President's desk.
So we have got 4 out of the 13 essential bills, that are necessary to
do the budget, completed; 9 of the 13 are hung up and cannot get done.
Why is that? The reason is, we spent the whole 2 years investigating.
We investigated anybody we could find around here and we did not do the
work on health and we did not do our education stuff and we did not do
a decent minimum wage for people and we did not do campaign finance
reform and we did not do teen smoking but, boy, did we investigate.
Now we are at the end of the session and there is nothing to show for
it. My colleagues are going to go home and they are going to tout their
accomplishments. That makes about as much sense as an American league
pitcher bragging about his batting average. There is nothing there to
brag about.
Let us look at education for just a second. Nearly a year ago, the
President stood right there, during his State of the Union address, and
he called on us to hire 100,000 new teachers, to reduce class size so
we can improve discipline and help our children get the most out of
their education. They would not do a thing on that until we got to the
end of the session where we actually had some leverage with the
President and now we are in this battle.
[[Page H10866]]
What do they want to do with the $1.1 billion so we can hire the
teachers? They want to move it under Title VI, and as the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) correctly states, it will go to bureaucracy.
One percent of that money under Title VI can go to the Federal
bureaucracy; 15 percent can go to the State bureaucracy, and the rest,
if they want, can be spent at the local level.
We want to take the money and hire teachers so they get into the
school, kids get more discipline, kids get more attention and we get a
better product on education.
The other issue on education that is out there, of course, is the
modernization effort so that American children can go to school in a
safe, well-equipped environment, so they can prepare themselves for the
next century. We are talking about leveraging roughly $3.6 billion for
5,000 school districts to help them subsidize their bonds so that they
can raise the money locally to get their things done on education.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution
because we need it to pass, but to understand that we really have not
done the work of the people in this Congress.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I have but one speaker, and I reserve
the right to close.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
{time} 1315
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. Here we go again. We are here for the fourth time to pass a
continuing resolution. Why are we here? Because this Republican-
controlled House has still not completed the work that the American
people sent us here to do. The fact of the matter is that they are in
the majority. They are in charge.
Let us take this opportunity to look at the many accomplishments
Republicans take such pleasure in touting. Have we put more teachers in
the classroom to make sure children get the attention that they need to
learn? No. Have we modernized schools and hooked classrooms up to the
Internet so that children will have access to the technology they need
for a successful future? No. Have we invested in teacher training to
make sure that students have talented, enthusiastic and creative
teachers to learn from? No. Have we reformed the managed care system?
No. Have we reformed the campaign finance system? No. Have we reformed
the Social Security system? No. Let us work together. Let us work
together to try to improve our schools.
I am distressed to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
raise the bureaucratic bogeyman. Teachers are not bureaucrats. Teachers
are our best hope for the future. The Democratic plan would add 100,000
teachers to our classrooms. It is modeled after the successful COPS
program. Democrats passed a bill to add 100,000 new police officers to
our streets. That program has helped to make our streets safer. One
hundred thousand new teachers in our classrooms will help to make our
schools better. The COPS program works. Do not listen to me, it is what
chiefs of police are saying around this country, because it is about
Federal dollars and the local, local control. Just ask your local
police. The police chief of Miami has said that he has seen a 30
percent drop in crime since the bill was passed. He said that the drop
was made possible because of the crime bill. Police chiefs all over the
country thank us for adding 100,000 new cops to our streets. Our
parents and our youngsters will thank us for 100,000 new teachers.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that once
again we yet have to again extend the time for the budget to be
completed for this country. It is unfortunate because we come down to
an item that is so terribly important to America's families and to
America's children, and, that is, the issue of school construction,
whether or not we are going to try to end the process by which children
are being educated in storage rooms, in split-up gymnasiums, on the
stage of the school auditorium, in the janitor's change rooms as they
try to reduce class sizes and as they try to avoid those parts of
schools in many cases that are unsafe for children to go. We think that
the Federal Government ought to help these school districts. They can
do it by providing no-interest loans or low-interest loans to help
those school districts that are struggling to provide for safe and
healthy schools for our children. The other one is class size
reduction. Here we have an opportunity to take a program modeled after
Cops on the Beat, a program that has been incredibly successful. If you
go around your congressional district and you talk to the police
officers, if you talk to the chiefs of police, they will tell you this
has made a remarkable difference in their police department's ability
to talk to the business community, to talk to young kids on the street,
to interact with the schools and has made the police department much
more accessible, much more effective on the streets of our communities,
and we have watched as the crime rate has continued to come down in
most American communities. So now we want to take and have the Federal
Government provide help to school districts that want to add additional
teachers to reduce class size, recognizing that teachers are far more
effective with 18 students than they are with 30 students. Again, do
not trust us; trust the parents, trust the teachers, trust the students
who if you go to your schools and you talk where this has been done,
parents are excited about the chance that teachers are spending more
time with their students, helping them with reading, helping them with
mathematics. The teachers feel better that they are able to spend
better time with these students in helping those students who may be
having a little bit of extra problem. But we are right back to where we
were before Cops on the Beat. Just before we voted for Cops on the
Beat, the Republicans came up with a plan to spread that money all over
the community, to spread it all over the community. They said they were
going to call it Cops on the Beat but it could be spent anywhere. But
the chiefs of police, the law enforcement agencies came here and said,
``Don't do that. Put it into police officers that can be out in the
community.''
Now the education establishment is saying the same thing: ``Don't
spread this all over. Don't spread this across the bureaucratic cost of
State Departments of Education. Put it in the classroom where it can
make a difference, where it can make a difference to the ability of our
children to read, to compute, to critically think. These teachers can
make a difference in our children's lives.''
But we are back here. The State Department of Education in California
funds almost 70 percent of its bureaucracy off of Federal dollars. Why
are those Federal dollars not going into the classroom? This
legislation that the President is proposing for classroom reduction,
school construction is about sending the money to where it belongs, not
spreading it across the community like the Republicans want us to do.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his extraordinary leadership in explaining the differences
between the Democrats and the Republicans in the priorities that we set
for our great country.
Madam Speaker, this is a Congress of missed opportunities, missed
opportunities to modernize education for our children, missed
opportunities to reform HMOs for the health care for all Americans,
missed opportunities to save Social Security as a top priority, and a
missed opportunity to protect the environment after we look at some of
the proposals that have been put before us.
We send this very mixed message from this Congress to the children of
America. We tell them that education is important, it is for their
self-enrichment, for their economic security and for the
competitiveness of our country. Yet we send them to schools that are
below par, that are leaking, that are asbestos-laden, are lead-filled,
that are not wired for the future. How can we
[[Page H10867]]
tell children that education is important and yet not value it by
having small classes, adequate facilities and have them be in places
where children can learn and teachers can teach and parents can
participate?
We tell children that their health is important, they should not
smoke because it is harmful to their health. Yet we do not provide them
with access to quality education. Children are smart. They get the
mixed message. Reforming HMOs would have been one clear message to the
people of America that health is important to us. Then as far as work,
the work ethic, how important that is, we tell that to young people and
yet we do not value work adequately. That is one of the missed
opportunities of this Congress, to have us have a living wage in this
country. Also, we threaten the pension security of America's children.
Their health, their education, the economic security of their families
are very, very important to our children and to the future of our
country. How sad for us that this Congress has missed the opportunity
to send a clear message and take the action necessary to make their
future brighter.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, one of the key differences between the
United States is that we have made education universally available. As
we compete in this modern economy, it is clear that we cannot compete
at the bottom of the economic ladder. Countries will always hopefully
have lower hourly wages for their employees than we do in this country.
In China right now it is 2 cents on the dollar. In Mexico it is about
15 cents on the dollar. The only way we are able to stay competitive
internationally is by investing in education to make sure the next
generation is ready for an even more economic battlefront that is
internationally based. If we underfund education as a country, we will
end up being a second-rate power economically and we will be a second-
rate power militarily as well. The future of this country is dependent
on the investment in education, so that we have the brightest workers,
the most patents as we have today, the Nobel prize winners in arts and
sciences. That is what moves this country forward.
There is a debate. The Republicans generally do not feel there is a
Federal role for education. I think whether you live in Bozrah,
Connecticut or Baltimore or Selma, Alabama you ought to expect the very
best education that we can provide because every American benefits from
this investment in education.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, we are here as the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated
living up to the words of Yogi Berra when he said he felt like deja vu
all over again. This is the third or fourth time that we have had this
confrontation involving an extension of funding authorization for
another couple of days to complete our business. Unfortunately the
negotiators on all sides, between the House and the Senate, Republicans
and Democrats, and the Congress versus the administration have not put
a final ribbon on their package of these eight bills plus a
supplemental package, and so as a result we are forced to take a little
bit more time.
But let us be very sure why we are here engaged in this debate. This
is not a momentous, historical debate on issues of great moment other
than to espouse our respective political philosophies with 3 weeks left
in the election cycle. The fact is this is nothing more than a C-SPAN
moment. It should be interpreted as nothing more than that. We are
having an opportunity to make great speeches on our respective
positions. Should they be dismissed as being too casual or too light
and nonconsequential? No, of course not. The fact is that the
Republican majority of Congress believes that we should be frugal with
the tax dollar, that we should be proud that we have finally brought
about conditions that reap us a surplus this year, the first balanced
budget or first surplus in 30 years; and we should be proud of that
accomplishment. We should likewise be proud that we have in the last
year provided the first tax cut in 16 years. We believe that we are
stewards for the American taxpayer and that we should not waste their
money. We should not spend it unwisely. We should not create unneeded
bureaucracies to tell people what is good for them.
The other side says, no. They have got good programs, well-
intentioned, that are going to do great things for the American people.
All the American people have to do is keep sending money, and they will
keep coming up with programs. That is understandable. We had that for
some 40 years, from the New Deal, through the Great Society, through
the War on Poverty, through Vietnam and up through the point where
finally the American people had had enough and put Republicans in
charge of the Congress. The other side of the aisle does not like that.
They do not like being disenfranchised and not being able to jam
through all their new programs.
They have a President in the White House who even though about a year
and a half ago said the era of big government is now over is attempting
to spend billions upon billions of dollars more than he agreed to in
the balanced budget agreement of last year.
{time} 1330
But, we are not really here today debating how much money to spend on
education. We pretty well agreed to that. The amount of money is in
agreement. They say it is never enough. We say $32 billion; that is
what we will spend on education from the Federal Government; we say
that is a pretty good number. It is still only 5 percent of what
America spends on education because States and localities spend 95
percent of the cost of education. But the Federal taxpayer puts in $32
billion, and it will never be enough according to my friends on the
other side of the aisle.
But, we are not really debating whether or not what we are spending
in this last fiscal year is sufficient. What we are really debating is
how it should be spent. They believe creating new narrow programs,
narrowly-focused programs run by bureaucrats in Washington, not
teachers. The Department of Education is not comprised of teachers, it
is comprised of bureaucrats. They think that by giving those
bureaucrats more money to dole out, the money for their little favorite
programs, that they are going to do great things for America, and
certainly some good will be done; we have to admit that. We think that
by giving the greatest amount of flexibility to the teachers, and to
the school faculties and the school boards around America, the school
districts, that they can decide for themselves where they want to best
apply those Federal dollars. We think that the flexibility inherent in
block grants is a much better idea.
So that is what is going on here. We are not debating amounts of
dollars, we are debating philosophies, we are debating ideas on how
best to get the job done. Either we give the money to the States and
localities, like we want to, or we give it to the bureaucracies like
the President wants to. That is essentially the debate.
On foreign aid, they want to throw more money, another billion
dollars here and there. We happen to believe that a few extra dollars
in foreign aid is not going to make any difference. We think that
basically what the President needs to put forth for the American people
and the world is a coherent, cogent, understandable foreign policy,
which unfortunately has been sorely lacking.
The fact is a few more extra dollars will not give us a better
Russian policy. A few more extra dollars will not stop the slaughter in
Kosovo. A few more extra dollars will not restart, regenerate the
moribund peace talks in the Mideast or manage the problems presented by
Saddam Hussein, who is pointing weapons of mass destruction at the
civilized world. A few more dollars will not invigorate our policy with
respect to North Korea or stop India or Pakistan from proliferating
weapons of mass destruction. No, a few more dollars or even a few
billion dollars will not give us a coherent foreign policy if this
President and this administration do not work together towards trying
to bring some common sense to their foreign policy, more than they have
done in recent months.
[[Page H10868]]
Madam Speaker, we could send everyone home today if only we in the
majority, we Republicans, would bow down and accept every plan, every
program every hair brain scheme to spend tax dollars that the Democrats
have thrown at us. That is easy. We could finish our business if we
would just simply mindlessly say, ``Okay, you have got lots of new
ideas on how to spend taxpayers' dollars, we'll accept those, all in
their entirety, and then we'll go home.'' But we are not going home
without some debate.
The President proposes, the Congress disposes. Right now the
Democrats are in the minority in the House and in the minority in the
Senate. But, as long as we are in the majority, we have to use our best
judgment to deal with the President as we see fit, as we firmly believe
our constituents and the American people that sent us here really want
us to do. They did not send us here to cave in to the President. They
did send us here to ignore the problems that he has encouraged in the
last several months. They did not send us here simply to worry that we
will be accused of being mean and heartless and thereby fold our cards
and go home. They sent us here to use our good judgment and to be those
stewards of the Federal Treasury to make sure that the person who is
working so hard to feed his family, go to work, be good citizens
throughout the community all around America, does not send his or her
money to Washington just simply to see it wasted on another well-
intentioned program or another run-wild bureaucracy. That is not
exactly why the people put us in the position of the majority.
We are against his profligate ways, we are against the wasteful ways
of the former majority and now the minority who have said, ``We've got
another great new program for you, another great new bureaucracy,
another great way to spend your money; just give us all your cash and
we'll tell you what to do with it.'' We think that is not the way to
approach government. We are standing up for what we believe.
It is taking longer than we wanted it to take, but sooner or later we
will end this soap opera. Sooner or later we will tell the American
people we are tired of debating philosophy and programs, and we will
put a ribbon on this package. It may not be the prettiest or the
neatest package, but it will in fact still, after all the dust is
settled, result in the first surplus in 30 years, and we will go home
with a proud record of accomplishment.
I urge all Members to vote for this continuing resolution.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth Continuing Resolution
that has come before us--four times we have delayed the important
business of keeping the government running.
Perhaps when we conclude this business, we can get on with the
business of the American people.
This Congress has done nothing to help working families, but, while
it is too late for some issues, it is not too late for others.
It is too late to pass health reform.
It is too late to reduce teen smoking and reform our campaign finance
system.
And, it is too late to enact laws to protect the environment and to
truly safeguard the surplus for social security.
But, it is not too late to make responsible budget decisions.
It is not too late to enact laws to hire new teachers, reduce class
sizes and modernize schools.
It is not too late to help our small farmers by giving them
reasonable access to credit.
And, it is not too late, Mr. Speaker, for voters to note what
Congress has done and what it has not done.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
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 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. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on H.J. Res. 135 will
be postponed.
____________________