Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8114-H8123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 591,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 109) making continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of H.J. Res. 109 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 109

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and
other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2000 for continuing
projects or activities including the costs of direct loans
and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for
in this joint resolution) which were conducted in the fiscal
year 2000 and for which appropriations, funds, or other
authority would be available in the following appropriations
Acts:
(1) the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001;
(2) the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001,
notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956 and, section 313 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995
(Public Law 103-236);
(3) the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001;
(4) the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
2001;
(5) the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2001, notwithstanding section 10
of Public Law 91-672 and section 15 of the State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956;
(6) the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001;
(7) the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001;
(8) the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001;
(9) the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001;
(10) the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001; and
(11) the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001:
Provided, That whenever the amount which would be made
available or the authority which would be granted in these
Acts as passed by the House and Senate as of October 1, 2000,
is different than that which would be available or granted
under current operations, the pertinent project or activity
shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the
current rate: Provided further, That whenever there is no
amount made available under any of these appropriations Acts
as passed by the House and Senate as of October 1, 2000, for
a continuing project or activity which was conducted in
fiscal year 2000 and for which there is fiscal year 2001

[[Page H8115]]

funding included in the budget request, the pertinent
project or activity shall be continued at the rate for
current operations under the authority and conditions
provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the
fiscal year 2000.
(b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or
the authority which would be granted under an Act listed in
this section as passed by the House as of October 1, 2000, is
different from that which would be available or granted under
such Act as passed by the Senate as of October 1, 2000, the
pertinent project or activity shall be continued at a rate
for operations not exceeding the current rate under the
appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2001 and under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2000.
(c) Whenever an Act listed in this section has been passed
by only the House or only the Senate as of October 1, 2000,
the pertinent project or activity shall be continued under
the appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the one
House at a rate for operations not exceeding the current rate
and under the authority and conditions provided in the
applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2000:
Provided, That whenever there is no amount made available
under any of these appropriations Acts as passed by the House
or the Senate as of October 1, 2000, for a continuing project
or activity which was conducted in fiscal year 2000 and for
which there is fiscal year 2001 funding included in the
budget requested, the pertinent project or activity shall be
continued at the rate for current operations under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 102. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be
available to the extent and in the manner which would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. 103. No appropriation or funds made available or
authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to
initiate or resume any project or activity for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available
during the fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 104. No provision which is included in an
appropriations Act enumerated in section 101 but which was
not included in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2000 and which by its terms is applicable to more than
one appropriation, fund, or authority shall be applicable to
any appropriation, fund, or authority provided in this joint
resolution.
Sec. 105. Appropriations made and authority granted
pursuant to this joint resolution shall cover all obligations
or expenditures incurred for any program, project, or
activity during the period for which funds or authority for
such project or activity are available under this joint
resolution.
Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint
resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act,
appropriations and funds made available and authority granted
pursuant to this joint resolution shall be available until
(a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this joint resolution, or (b) the
enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by
both Houses without any provision for such project or
activity, or (c) October 6, 2000, whichever first occurs.
Sec. 107. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint
resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation,
fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such
applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained
is enacted into law.
Sec. 108. No provision in the appropriations Act for the
fiscal year 2001 referred to in section 101 of this Act that
makes the availability of any appropriation provided therein
dependent upon the enactment of additional authorizing or
other legislation shall be effective before the date set
forth in section 106(c) of this joint resolution.
Sec. 109. Appropriations and funds made available by or
authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution may be
used without regard to the time limitations for submission
and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of
title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be
construed to waive any other provision of law governing the
apportionment of funds.
Sec. 110. This joint resolution shall be implemented so
that only the most limited funding action of that permitted
in the joint resolution shall be taken in order to provide
for continuation of projects and activities.
Sec. 111. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, for those programs that had
high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of
fiscal year 2000 appropriations at the beginning of that
fiscal year because of distributions of funding to States,
foreign countries, grantees or others, similar distributions
of funds for fiscal year 2001 shall not be made and no grants
shall be awarded for such programs funded by this resolution
that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.
Sec. 112. Amounts provided by section 101 of this joint
resolution, for projects and activities in the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, affected by the
termination of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, shall
be distributed into the accounts established in the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, as passed by
the House.
Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations for
projects and activities that would be funded under the
heading ``International Organizations and Conferences,
Contributions to International Organizations'' in the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, shall be the
amount provided by the provisions of section 101 multiplied
by the ratio of the number of days covered by this resolution
to 365.
Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, only the following activities
funded with Federal Funds for the District of Columbia, may
be continued under this joint resolution at a rate for
operations not exceeding the current rate, multiplied by the
ratio of the number of days covered by this joint resolution
to 365: Resident Tuition Support, Corrections Trustee
Operations, Court Services and Offender Supervision, District
of Columbia Courts, and Defender Services in District of
Columbia Courts.
Sec. 115. Activities authorized by sections 1309(a)(2), as
amended by Public Law 104-208, and 1376(c) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), may continue through the date specified in section
106(c) of this joint resolution.
Sec. 116. Notwithstanding subsections (a)(2) and (h)(1)(B)
of section 3011 of Public Law 106-31, activities authorized
for fiscal year 2000 by such section may continue during the
period covered by this joint resolution.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, the rate for operations for projects and
activities for decennial census programs that would be funded
under the heading ``Bureau of the Census, Periodic Censuses
and Programs'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001, shall be the budget request.
Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution except section 106, the United States Geological
Survey may sign a contract to maintain Landsat-7 flight
operations consistent with the President's Budget proposal to
transfer Landsat-7 flight operations responsibility from the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the United
States Geological Survey beginning in fiscal year 2001.
Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, funds previously appropriated to the American
Section of the International Joint Commission in Public Law
106-246 may be obligated and expended in fiscal year 2001
without regard to section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, as amended.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 591, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House, H.J. Res. 109, is a
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2001. Legislation is needed
because even though the House has passed all of the 13 appropriations
bills, all 13 appropriations bills have not completed conference or
been approved by the President and will not be so by October 1, the
beginning of the fiscal year. So in order to keep the government
operating and open the first day of the new fiscal year, we need to
enact this continuing resolution.
I do not think there is any controversy relative to the continuing
resolution itself. The duration of the continuing resolution that is
before the House is until October 6.
Let me briefly describe the terms and conditions of this continuing
resolution. It will continue all ongoing activities at current rates
under the same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2000. Its remaining
terms and conditions are the same as we have used in recent years. It
does not allow new starts. It restricts obligations on high initial
spendout programs so that final funding decisions will not be impacted.
It includes eight funding or authorizing anomalies; four of them were
in last year's continuing resolution or have been modified slightly
from last year; four are new, and six from last year have been deleted.
Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is noncontroversial. I am
aware that the President has agreed to sign at least several short-term
continuing resolutions, so I urge the House to move this legislation to
the other body so that we can be sure that the government will operate
smoothly and efficiently and so we can continue our regular work to
finish our regular appropriations bills quickly.

[[Page H8116]]

Before I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, I compliment
all of our colleagues in the House. While some of the debates took a
long time, some of the amendments were difficult to deal with and some
of them were hard political votes, despite all of this, the House has
passed all 13 of the appropriations bills.
I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker: the House has passed all of its
appropriations bills. So now we wait for conferences that cannot be
scheduled because the other body has not passed all of the bills. We
have outstanding differences with the President that we are trying
diligently to work through. Hopefully, before too many more days have
passed, we will have reached agreement and be able to say that all 13
bills have been passed by the House and the Senate and have been
approved by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, after we pass this continuing resolution today, only
seven legislative days will remain before the Republican leadership's
target adjournment date for this Congress.
When it comes to addressing the most pressing concerns of families
across the country, the record of this Republican Congress is just as
abysmal as it was when we convened nearly 2 years ago. Republicans
spent all of last year trying to spend nearly $1 trillion of the
people's surplus on a massive package of tax breaks for the wealthiest
few; and they wasted this year on a series of tax breaks that,
surprise, surprise, would have cost nearly $1 trillion and
overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest few.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the people's agenda has been shelved. Too
many of America's children have returned to school this fall in
crumbling classrooms, but Republican leaders are still blocking school
modernization. Teachers in overcrowded classrooms still face the nearly
impossible task of maintaining discipline and giving their students the
individual attention they deserve. But the Republican Congress still
refuses to help hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size.
Mr. Speaker, almost a year has gone by since the House passed the
bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, but Republican leaders in the
House, as well as the Senate, have kept it from becoming law. Nearly 18
million Americans have been denied or delayed medical care since then.
Mr. Speaker, millions of American seniors, including middle-class
seniors, are still being forced to choose between buying groceries and
buying needed prescriptions, and it is getting worse. A new Kaiser
Family Foundation study found that skyrocketing prescription prices are
driving premiums up and increasing the likelihood that people will lose
their health coverage altogether. But just this weekend, Republican
leaders in the House and Senate declared dead for the year our plan to
provide Medicare prescription coverage for all seniors.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats have not given up on helping middle-class
families. This Congress can still address priorities, like smaller
class size, the Patients' Bill of Rights and prescription drugs. We can
still do it, Mr. Speaker, but only if Republican leaders will put aside
their partisanship, tell their special interest friends that the people
come first and work with us.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 109. For 30
years before we became a Republican majority, the idea was that we
could change everything in education if we just had one more program
from Washington, DC., if we had $1 billion more to spend on one more
program, if we could cover 100,000 more students. Nobody said anything
about quality. It was just if we could just have one more program, and
it was well meaning and well intentioned. The problem is, we did not
close the achievement gap for the disadvantaged. In fact, it has
widened.
So when I became the chairman, we said, let us talk about quality
instead of quantity. Let us talk about results instead of process. That
was the guiding light during the reauthorization of IDEA, the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act; the Higher Education Act;
the Vocational Education Act; the Workforce Development Act; the
reauthorization of Head Start; the child nutrition program; and the
Reading Excellence Act, just to mention a few.

{time} 1530

We changed the whole idea and we talked about quality and we talked
about results. And we are beginning to see results, because we are now
beginning to see quality programs.
Well, in relationship to this continuing resolution, I am very proud
of what we have been able to do as a Committee on Education and the
Workforce. I am very proud of what we have been able to do in the House
in relationship to education and workforce development.
The Education Flexibility Act passed the House. And what we said is
that we want to give local schools an opportunity to make decisions
that affect their students as long as they can show us that every
child's academic achievement has improved.
I was thrown a bone of six States when I was not a member of the
majority, and then it became 12. And a couple of those States just did
an outstanding job and so it became easy on a bipartisan way in this
session of Congress to say, okay, all 50 States will have the
flexibility if they will sign the contract to show us that, as a matter
of fact, they will improve the academic achievement of all students. It
is working. We have lost so many years and so many students because we
did not use that approach.
We passed the Teacher Empowerment Act out of committee and on the
floor of the House. See, it does not matter what the pupil-teacher
ratio is if we cannot put a quality teacher in the classroom. It does
not matter if there are 50 there or whether there are two there. The
only difference is we have saved 40-some others from having a lack of a
quality teacher in their classroom.
So, again, the very first 30 percent of the 100,000 teachers had no
qualifications whatsoever. No qualifications whatsoever. What we did is
reduce class size and put them in with a totally inadequate teacher;
destroyed their opportunity to ever get a piece of the American dream.
What have we said? In the Teacher Empowerment Act it should be a
guidepost for whatever is done next year to ensure that we have a
quality teacher in every classroom.
Mr. Speaker, when we were negotiating this last year with the White
House, that very day an article in a New York newspaper, big headlines,
a whole front page said, ``Parents do you realize that 50 percent of
your teachers have no qualifications whatsoever to be teaching your
children?'' What a tragedy.
So, again, the pupil-teacher ratio is not important. What is
important is having a quality teacher in each classroom. That is why we
passed the Teacher Empowerment Act. That is why we passed the Student
Results Act. That is why we passed the Academic Achievement for All
Act, and 2 weeks ago we passed the Literacy Involves Family Together
Act. It makes several quality improvements in Even Start family
literacy programs. We know that if we do not deal with the entire
family, we cannot break the cycle. So I am very proud of that
reauthorization.
And, yes, we made great strides in doing what we should have done a
long time ago before I ever became a part of the majority, and that was
deal with the 40 percent that we said many years ago, many years ago,
that we would supply from the Federal level 40 percent of the average
per pupil expenditure to assist States in educating children with
disabilities. They would be getting $2,600 instead of $750 or $780. But
I am pretty proud of the fact that we have seen dramatic increases in
the last couple years, $2.6 billion as a matter of fact.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we could have done this from day one, we take
care of maintenance of school buildings. We take care of school
construction. If all

[[Page H8117]]

of these years, Los Angeles would have been getting the $95.5 million
more. If they would have gotten the 40 percent, they would have no
problem with buildings. If New York would have gotten $170 million each
year, New York City, they would have had no problems with maintenance
and school construction. Chicago, $76 million more each year. Think of
that over 25 years. And D.C., $12.5 million more.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud in the area of higher education, Pell
Grants which enable youngsters who could otherwise not pursue higher
education to do so. Pell Grants are an exception to my rule, because
quantity does matter in this case. Since 1995, under our leadership we
now have an increase, an annual rate of 7.1 percent. For fiscal year
2001, our appropriators are going to break their own records and
provide an increase of at least $350 more per student maximum, making
it the largest increase in the history.
The naysayers in this Congress are to be expected. November 7 is not
far off. But we have a record and we have a record that we could be
proud to stand on and I am proud to stand on that record.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this continuing resolution, as I
presume most of us will. But let us recognize what we are doing for
what it really is. It is the budgetary cap stone to 6 years of the
Republican's Perfectionist Caucus.
I do not remember how many remember Speaker Gingrich's speech to the
Perfectionist Caucus in 1998, but it was a compelling and accurate
speech as to why we are here right now.
Now, my very close friend for whom I have great respect, and I
emphasize that because I want the public to know that in a bipartisan
way, I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of
our committee, does an excellent job. And, frankly, had his caucus
listened to him and the other appropriators as to what we should be
doing, we would not be here now.
But the Perfectionist Caucus moniker was born 2 years ago when then
Speaker Gingrich walked on to this floor and chastised his Republican
colleagues, the Perfectionist Caucus, not all of these Republican
colleagues, for urging the defeat of an omnibus spending measure.
Perhaps they would do so again this year.
After 4 years in the majority, it seems Mr. Gingrich had finally seen
the light. But not before these things had happened:
The GOP failed to pass a budget at all in 1998. The first time we had
not passed a budget since the adoption of the Budget Act in 1974.
And not before the GOP dared the President to veto a disaster relief
bill in 1997 to which Republicans had attached controversial policy
riders.
And not before the GOP provoked two Federal Government shutdowns in
1995 and 1996.
Pleading for compromise 2 years ago, Mr. Gingrich who was pleading
for compromise, Mr. Gingrich stated and I quote: ``Surely,'' this is
Mr. Gingrich's quote, in case anybody missed it. ``Surely those of us
who have grown up and matured in this process understand after the last
4 years that we have to work together on the big issues. If we do not
work together on big issues, nothing gets done.'' So said Mr. Gingrich,
the Speaker of the House.
Well, now we know that common sense advice went in one ear and out
the other. With all due respect to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) who gets on the floor and says we have passed all 13
appropriations bills, the gentleman is absolutely right. And we knew at
that time that at least 11 of those appropriation bills were not real
and could not pass, and would bring us to an impasse. The gentleman
knew that. I do not expect him to get up on the floor and say he knew
that. But I know that in his heart, he knew we were right.
Mr. Speaker, today we are living with those results. With only 5 days
left before the start of the fiscal year in 2001, we have failed to
complete our work on 11 of the 13 must-pass appropriation bills.
Continuing resolutions, of course, are not unusual. Since 1977, we
have completed our work on all 13 spending bills on only four times in
that period of time.
But in the 6 years under this majority, we have completed our work on
two or fewer appropriation bills by October 1 four separate times. That
is 4 out of 6 years, less than two. In 1995, none were completed in
time. Not one. In 1997 and 1998, we completed one bill each. So my
colleagues on the Republican side are 100 percent ahead of where they
were in 1995 and 1996. I suppose that is some sort of progress.
And this year we finished just two. The die for this end-of-the-year
budget debacle was cast 6 months ago. It was inevitable. It was
predictable and we all knew, at least on the Committee on
Appropriations, on both sides of the aisle, that we were going to be
here today doing exactly what we are doing. As the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend, the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget, correctly predicted in April when the GOP
passed its budget resolution, and I quote, ``This resolution puts us on
a track for another budgetary train wreck in September.''
Mr. Speaker, he said that in April. He predicted then we would have a
train wreck in September. He said that their budget ``calls for deep
cuts in domestic programs to make room for very large tax cuts.'' Let
me be precise. The GOP's budget resolution calls for $175 billion tax
cuts over 5 years. That is 12 percent more than the Congress passed and
the President vetoed the year before. Nobody was surprised at what the
outcome of these proposals was going to be. They just did not care.
Inevitably, we are here.
Yet in urging passage of the budget resolution conference report on
April 13, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) stated, and I quote, ``I am disappointed that we
do not have four times as much tax relief in this bill.''
I do not know where he thought he was going to get the votes to pass
appropriation bills under that circumstance. It is one thing to hail
huge tax cuts. We all like to say that. It is something all together
different to explain how one would actually pay for them, how we would
get there.
The huge tax cuts in this year's budget resolution would have
necessitated cuts in non-defense discretionary of $121.5 billion over 5
years, in education, in health care, in law enforcement, in all of the
work that the Federal Government does. There were not the votes on that
side of the aisle to accomplish those cuts. Period. And certainly not
in the Senate on that side of the aisle.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a soul in this body
who thought for a minute that such Draconian cuts would ever happen.
Notwithstanding that, we passed these bills knowing that we would be
here in this situation 5 days before the end of the fiscal year. Thus,
this ill-conceived budget resolution which made a shambles of our
appropriations process this year put us in this predicament.
As The Washington Post observed, and I quote, ``The appropriation
process is again a charade in which the Republicans pretend to be
making cuts in domestic spending that in the end they know they will
lack the votes to sustain, and with good reason; some of the cuts would
do real harm. The first round of appropriation bills,'' they went on to
say, ``is mainly for show.''
The distinguished gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), my friend,
knew that. He characterized that as: Well, we are in the second or
third inning. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what inning we are in now, but
it is obviously getting late in the ball game.
The gentleman said then that: ``We will get real then. We will fix
these bills.'' I think he was right and hopefully we are going to.
Mr. Speaker, the blame for this budget mess lies squarely with
Members of the Republican's Perfectionist Caucus, so coined by your
predecessor, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, who failed to heed
the advice of their Speaker 2 years ago and instead adopted an
unrealistic budget this year that disrupted the entire appropriations
process.
After 6 years in the majority, I really have to wonder just how long,
in the words of the former Speaker, it takes to grow up and mature in
this process.

[[Page H8118]]

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support
this continuing resolution.

{time} 1545

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I wanted to thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
for the history lesson on continuing resolutions and who did what and
when did they do it.
I would say to my friend who asked about what inning are we in, I
would say we are in the 9th inning and probably the bottom of the 9th.
And in 4 days, I suggest that we are going to go into overtime because
of a tie, a 3-way tie.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I did not know that you had overtime in baseball games.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to have
overtime here.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) meant extra innings, we know what the gentleman meant.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We are going to go into overtime, that overtime
will soon start. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has just gone
through the history of the 6 years of the Republican control of the
House, so I thought I would come back with the last 6 years of the
Democratic control of the House.
Let us go back starting in fiscal year 1990, because that would be 6
years back. Under the Democratic leadership in the House, they had 51
days of continuing resolution. The one we present today asks for only 6
days.
In fiscal year 1991, they had 36 days; in fiscal year 1992, they had
57 days of overtime under CRs; in fiscal year 1993, they did a little
better, because they only had 5 days; in fiscal year 1994, they had 41
days. In fiscal year 1995, and I give my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) credit, that was the year that he chaired the committee, the
bills were all completed on time.
During the 6 years of the Republican control, during one year no CR
was needed. But the truth is we have had CRs, except for 2 years, in
the last 12 years. The 1 year that our friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chaired the committee, he had the bills done on
time; but, the gentleman had 81 more Democrats in the House than there
were Republicans, and that makes the job a little bit easier.
Mr. Speaker, with our breakdown today, the way I read it, there are
222 Republicans, 210 Democrats and two independents. Now, that makes
our job a little bit tougher, and that is why it even took longer to
get the bills through the House. I am glad my friend, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), repeated it again. We have passed all 13
bills in the House. That is the first thing that has to be done, and
then we confer with our colleagues in the Senate, then we relate it to
the White House and finally try to get a package.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I wish the
gentleman would not take down the chart, because I want to read from
his very beautiful chart. He read 1990, 51; 1991, 36 days; 1992, 57
days; 1993, 5 days; 1994, 41 days, then came 1995 which, of course, we
passed in 1994, the last year the Democrats were in charge. And he gave
correctly the credit to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for
having 0 days, but then he stopped.
As I read the gentleman's chart, the next year, which was the first
year that the Republicans were in charge, the gentleman, of course, was
not chairman of the Committee on Appropriations at that point in time,
we were at 208 days, which was more than all the other years combined
that the gentleman read. I wondered why the gentleman stopped at that.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I would remind the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that was the year that there were a
few items that were held over until April of the following year, and
the majority of basic fundamental appropriations for the government
were completed prior to that; but those few items that we had agreed to
hold over until the next spring caused the 208 days.
But the gentleman covered the Republican history well enough, I
thought, that I should cover the Democratic history, to point out that
there is a problem in our process, to point out, if I had my big chart
here, which the gentleman has seen, how many days the Committee on
Appropriations loses in a fiscal year before we ever get a budget
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very telling chart, because the actual
workdays available to appropriators after we receive the budget
resolution are very limited.
Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, to make a serious point, I have commended
every time I have stood on this floor the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for his
leadership. The gentleman, I think, on our side of the aisle is
perceived to be one of the fairest, kindest, most responsible Members
of this House. I share that view in great measure; and I think the
serious point here is, as we will hopefully pass this CR, is that we
really ought to get away from first innings, second innings, and third
innings; and we ought to start, and that is my real point, Mr. Speaker,
sitting down together, as we are now.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I sat down on the
Treasury-Postal bill. I think we have agreement on where we ought to
be. I think we need to start that process earlier and be real earlier
and stop making political points as to who is saving money or who is
not saving money when we know the inevitable result will be we will
attempt to fund appropriation bills at levels that are consistent with
what we think our responsibilities are.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), because I think the chairman's leadership has been
for that proposition, and I admired him for that. He has not always
prevailed.
And I think what Mr. Gingrich was really trying to say and I said it
somewhat facetiously tried to do it lightly, but it was a serious point
that we can on each side posture and say, well, we want it our way. But
if we all go forward saying we want it our way, we end up as we are
today and, that is, having at the last minute to try to come to
agreement.
I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Florida,
because I think that is what he has tried to do, wants to do and is
leading in a direction of doing right now; and I thank him for
yielding.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
comments, and that is why I like him. I would be happy to yield him
more time if he wants to compliment the Chair any more. But that is the
process. There are 435 Members of this House and 100 Members of the
other body, and that means there are 535 different opinions on almost
any issue.
It takes a while to resolve those differences because each House is
equal to the other, and then when the President gets to the point that
he can either accept or veto a bill, he becomes as powerful, understand
this, he becomes as powerful as two thirds of us, because if he does
not agree with something that we have done, it takes two thirds of us
to override that veto. And so it is a process that is full of obstacles
and pitfalls along the way. We do the best we can to work through them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my
good friend, indicated that the year that I was chairman we were able
to pass all of our bills on time because we had 80 more Democrats. That
sounds like a pretty good recommendation to me. I hope that he is
willing to endorse it.

[[Page H8119]]

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Give us 81 more Republicans than there are
Democrats, and we will show you a real whirlwind of activity here.
Mr. OBEY. God help us all if that were to happen. Let me simply say,
Mr. Speaker, you know, the President has not vetoed any of these bills.
The last time I looked, our Republican friends were in control of both
Houses; and yet they have been able to pass only two appropriations
bills through both Houses and both of those have been signed.
They all relate to the funding of one department, the Defense
Department, but four of the bills that have yet to be passed have not
even yet passed the other body, in the real world known as the Senate;
and that means that the main problem has been that the majority party
has not been able to reach agreement with itself.
As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) indicated earlier, every
time an appropriations bill came to the floor, we were told, ``Well, we
know it has problems, we know that this cannot be passed until it is
fixed, but pass it on. This is only the first inning, we will fix it
later.'' And now, because of that, we have all of those runners piled
up on second base, and none of them are going home. That is why the
government is again off the track, or the train is off the track.
I repeat what I said earlier, the reason we are in this position is
because early on, the majority party leadership decided that above all
else, they were going to keep their party together and they were going
to pass each of these bills on their side of the aisle alone, if
necessary. And they fashioned them in such a way that they were
acceptable to the most rigid elements within their caucus, and that
meant that those bills were not acceptable, either to us or to a lot of
their fellow Republicans in the other body.
Mr. Speaker, now we are facing the logical consequences of the
majority party pretending for the last 10 months that they could cut
education, they could cut health, they could cut environmental cleanup,
they could cut job protection programs all deeply below the President's
budget and still find the votes to pass these appropriation bills on
time and leave a lot of room for very large tax cuts. Now, that has all
been demonstrated to be untrue; and we all knew it was untrue from the
beginning, including many of my friends on the majority side of the
aisle who would privately admit that it was not true.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the numbers, the problem is that the
budget resolution, which the majority passed at the beginning of the
year, was $20 billion below the amount needed to simply stay even with
inflation, and $28 billion or nearly 10 percent below the amounts
requested by the President, and it called for even deeper reductions in
each of the next 5 years to finance the ever-escalating outyear costs
of their tax package. Most of it was aimed at providing the relief for
folks at the very top of the economic ladder.
Mr. Speaker, so now reality has caught up with us; and we are here
just a few weeks before the election still stuck on second base, still
trying to wave some of those runners home. And I have to come to the
conclusion that, from time to time, I look around, and I do not see
anybody in the batter's box. I cannot figure out what signals are
coming from the bench from whoever is coaching today, because we
started with one strategy and now, all of a sudden, 2 weeks before we
are supposed to be adjourned, we are told, ``Oh, we have this new
approach, this 90-10 approach.'' We are going to use 90 percent for
deficit reduction and use the other 10 percent for tax cuts and for
other appropriations and other financial expenditures.''
But when you look at it that way, that puts $80 billion of new money
on the table, a huge amount; and all of a sudden, we have subcommittees
meeting in each separate room all working out their own deals. And we
have no idea how they relate to each other, no idea what the spending
level is going to be in the end, no idea what the rules are, no idea
what the discipline is. So we wind up seeing a process which has no
discipline.
It has no order. It does not even have priorities; and, to me, that
is an incompetent way to try to put together a Federal budget or any
other piece of legislation. I do not blame the majority party members
on the Committee on Appropriations, because most of them warned early
in the game that this would be the case if we followed this course. And
so I guess we will have to continue to try to do the best we can under
these circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I, for the life of me, cannot figure out what the
strategy is to either finish these bills or to get signable bills down
to the White House. I think maybe we have a shot at Interior. I am
hoping that we can close on Interior very, very soon; but beyond that,
I am mystified about how we intend to proceed.

{time} 1600

All I can say is that I hope that sooner or later we can get everyone
in the same room so that we know what is happening with respect to all
of the pieces. Because until we know that, all of these pieces are
going to be spinning, all of these pieces are going to be going in
circles rather than going in any discernible direction; and that serves
no one's interest. All it does is bring further discredit to the
institution and make people think that chaos is the norm around here.
Having served in this place a long time, that was not my impression
until recently.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for yielding me 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in the talk that goes around this
time of year. We have just heard that we are now in the ninth inning,
and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have actually
called out their relief pitcher, Newt Gingrich. They are bringing up
Newt Gingrich. I cannot believe I am hearing my ears.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is saying we need to follow
the advice of Newt Gingrich and not be members of the Perfectionist
Caucus. He goes on to say, as do so many others, that, if we were not
just such perfectionists, and if we had listened to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young), perhaps we would have gotten our business
done.
Well, we have gone 13 for 13. We listened to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young). We listened to the appropriators on the
Republican and the Democratic side. We have gotten all 13 bills passed.
I think we have done a great job.
While we are talking about history lessons, why do we not talk about
the fact that the House and the Senate are two completely different
animals. Why, I remember my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle
passing a BTU tax in 1993 that they thought was a great idea. Well,
their colleagues in the Senate did not agree. Well, that is the way
this process works. We hope that our friends in the Senate will agree
with us and come together and pass the bills.
I think the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has done a great
job. I disagree with the statement that this process has brought
disorder to the House and shown chaos. I think he has done a fantastic
job from the very beginning.
But we have a challenge even beyond the Senate. Even if we pass these
bills in the Senate, the New York Times has reported that the President
of the United States is considering a government shutdown strategy. We
cannot control that either.
Just like back in 1995, I do not know how many people remember, but
the President of the United States vetoed nine appropriation bills. One
of those bills which was a Legislative Branch bill, when he got it, he
said, ``Well, I am going to veto it.'' He vetoed it. They asked him
why. He said, ``I agreed with the bill, I just wanted to send a
message.'' Then he sent a message on eight other bills, and then we had
a government shutdown. He did it before, and he did it back then in
1995 because he said our plan to balance a budget in 7 years would
wreck the economy.

[[Page H8120]]

Now we went through the appropriation process. The gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young), then the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich), several others
said it was the right thing to do. We had a very ordered process.
Unfortunately, at the end, the President and our friends on the left
decided to get involved and in a destructive way vetoed nine
appropriation bills.
Again, according to the New York Times, the President is considering
doing that again. We cannot do anything about that. If the President
wants to operate under a shutdown strategy in the year 2000, that is
the President's prerogative. As the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) said, he has got the power of two-thirds of us. I certainly hope
he does not do that. I think we have to continue doing the people's
business.
Talking about working for the middle class, I have got to tell my
colleagues, when we came here in 1995, we were mired under debt, we
were mired under deficit. The appropriations approach taken by the
Committee on Appropriations back then and this House, it was to get rid
of the deficit. It was to pay down the debt. We were told it would
destroy the economy. It did not do it.
Chairman Greenspan came and testified before the Committee on the
Budget back in 1995. He said, ``If you follow this blueprint, you will
see unprecedented economic growth.'' We followed the blueprint. Because
of it, the President vetoed nine bills. We continued to fight then.
What happened? History shows that by forcing the President to continue
down the path of fiscal responsibility and to balance the budget in 7
years that the economy exploded because of it. I think it is great
news.
As far as these charges that somehow we have been held hostage to
extreme tax cuts, which I have got to give you guys credit, you sure
stay on message and have for 6 years, the extreme tax cuts were
approved by over 260 people. You call the marriage penalty relief tax
extreme. I do not. Over 260 Members of the House, both Republicans and
Democrats agree with me. Same thing with death tax relief. It is called
extreme tax relief at the end of the session. But I have got to tell my
colleagues, during the middle of this session, over 260 Republicans and
Democrats agreed with it. The majority of Americans agreed with it. So
the only reason those were not enacted into law was because you all
were able to hide behind a President's veto, which, again, he can do.
But let us look at who is really being extreme here. We are doing
what polls show the American people want, but more importantly what we
said we would do when we got elected in 1994. I am proud of the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his work. I disagree with
the fact that anything that has happened here has brought discredit to
this House. I think he has done a great time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Scarborough) that is a very interesting and a very amusing and not
very relevant rewrite of history.
But I would simply ask him, he raises this great specter of the
President following a veto strategy. Which appropriations bills has the
President vetoed this year? To my knowledge, he has not vetoed any
appropriations bills this year. My colleagues have not been able to get
four bills through their own party in the other body, and they have got
the gall to claim that the President is the reason that the Congress
has not done its work. Grow up.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Surely I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Well, again, I am just saying the President is
laying in wait, waiting to veto these bills. Second, as I mentioned on
the Btu issue, sometimes one cannot control what Senators do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time is controlled by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman can go back
to 1993, ancient history, if he desires. That still does nothing to
change the fact that the President has vetoed no bills.
The reason this continuing resolution is here is not because he has
not done his work; it is because this body has not done its work in
reconciling its differences with the Senate so that you can lay bills
on the President's desk. It was not the President who blew up the
Treasury-Postal bill, it was the United States Senate. It was not the
President who designed a strategy which produced appropriation bills
you could not get past your own party in the other body, it was your
own leadership. Accept the consequences of your own actions. That is
what adults are supposed to do.

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members it is not
in order to cast reflections on the United States Senate.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I share the amusement of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my ranking member, at the recitation of history.
First of all, CBO, your CBO that you appointed the chair of 2 years ago
came down and said the reason we have cut the deficit is not because of
anything that was done on the Republican leadership, it was because of
the 1993 economic program that was adopted by Democrats only, not one
Republican voted for it, and the 1990 program signed by President Bush,
which was excoriated by that same Speaker Gingrich and a number of the
rest of the Members of his party.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) also has a selective
memory, I suggest to my colleagues, about what Mr. Greenspan said
before the Committee on the Budget, the Joint Economic Committee, and
every other committee before which he has testified about the tax cuts.
Then you take out each individual item. You were smarter this year. You
said people like this, people like that, so we will take it in small
bites, and maybe they will not notice that the total is more than the
one they did not like a year ago August when you thought you were going
to go to the American public and say, ``Do you believe the President of
the United States is going to veto this bill?'' And, guess what, the
American public said, ``Yeah, not only do we believe he is going to, we
think he ought to because we think it puts Social Security and Medicare
at risk.''
Now, this year you cut it up in little pieces and thought maybe you
could nibble it through. But it would have had the same consequence.
Mr. Greenspan whom you quote said, ``Uh-uh, you ought not to do that.''
Let us go back a little more in history in the 1993 bill. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said that, if we passed the 1993 bill,
the economy would fall off the precipice. Mr. Gingrich said, if we
enacted the 1993 bill, the economy would go in the tank. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey) said that it would create high deficits, high
inflation, and economic disaster. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
said that it would create unbelievable unemployment and unbelievable
deficits.
Now what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is exactly 180 degrees opposite
of what every Republican leader said in 1993 would happen as a
consequence of the adoption of the President's economic program. In
fact, we have the best economy in the lifetimes of anybody in this
room, low inflation, more employment than we have ever had, and the
fastest creation of jobs at any time. Healthy, robust economic growth.
Most houses owned by American citizens ever in history. Every indicator
is positive as a direct result.
Now, going back to what CBO said. CBO said that, not only did you not
bring down the deficit, but in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, the net
effect of those 4 years was to increase by $12 billion the deficit. So
the net reduction was approximately 140 if you put those two bills
together.
So let us tell it like it is. I would repeat the gentleman from
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) admonition when you say veto strategy. The
President has not vetoed anything this year.
Now, we are going to pass the CR. It is the responsible and right
thing to do. I am for it. We have done it in the past because we have
not reached agreement. But I tell the gentleman from

[[Page H8121]]

Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the reason we have not reached agreement is
because the budget resolution was a resolution for political sake, not
for substance sake.
Nobody on the Committee on Appropriations, I tell my friend the
gentleman from Florida, nobody on either side of the aisle in the
Committee on Appropriations thought for one minute that the Committee
on the Budget's resolution was going to be carried out in appropriation
bills, not because of the President, but because you cannot get it
through the Congress of the United States. We said that in April. The
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said that in April. That is
why I quoted the gentleman from South Carolina. In fact that is what
has happened.
Let us work together. Let us not have the Perfectionist Caucus
prevail.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the subject of Presidential vetoes has been raised here
several times by my two friends who have just spoken. During the
Committee on Appropriations work, we were told time after time after
time by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) ``If you do it this
way, the bill is going to be vetoed.'' How many times on the floor when
we were considering the appropriations bills did the gentleman from
Wisconsin say, ``If you do this, the bill is going to be vetoed,'' or
``If you do not do that, the bill is going to be vetoed.'' He is
speaking for the administration. But we have had veto threats on almost
every appropriations bill that we have considered here.
When the gentleman tells us that a bill is going to be vetoed, then
we will take the time to try to work with the White House and work
together, as the gentleman suggested, and see if we can find a way to
make that bill signable by the President rather than vetoed. But we
take the gentleman from Wisconsin at his word. The gentleman tells us
the bill is going to be vetoed. We are going to try to find a way to
make that bill acceptable to the President if we can.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am relieved that order has been returned to the
universe. They have now benched Newt Gingrich again and going back to
1993 and say maybe we should not follow his strategy.
I do not know if my colleagues were listening, though, to the same
testimony that I heard Greenspan give before the Committee on the
Budget in 1995, but what Alan Greenspan said very specifically, not
talking about the tax cuts that we have enacted this year, he said, if
we would enact our plan to balance the budget in 7 years, specifically,
he said starting in 1995, if we enacted that, we would see interest
rates drop by 2 percent. And he predicted in 1995, if the Republican
plan was followed, that we would see unprecedented economic growth not
seen in peacetime. Do my colleagues know what? He is exactly right.
Mr. Speaker, we stuck to our guns. We followed the advice of the
voters we heard in 1994. We followed what Alan Greenspan said. I am
glad we are having this debate.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

{time} 1615

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations for yielding me this time.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations, I have to say that although we are, in a
way, forced to vote for this continuing resolution for the sake of the
American people, what has happened inside this institution really is
not healthy.
I can tell my colleagues that all day I have been in my office
fielding calls from Members in this Chamber asking me where our bill
is, where the different provisions are. Whether it is biomass
provisions relating to switchgrass in Iowa or whether it is water-
related projects in the West, it really does not matter. I, as a
Member, cannot tell them because our conference committee has not met.
We have been getting calls from the other body. We had reached
agreement on certain amendments which we now understand are pulled. For
example, on prescription drugs. We had passed different measures here
to allow reimportation of prescription drugs so our people could get
the same price as if they go over the border into Canada. We had
reached agreement that we would put $23 million in this year's bill to
ensure the public safety on those drugs. Now we are told this provision
has been lifted from the agriculture appropriation bill, wherever it is
in the institution, and the leadership is going to be handling that.
The same is true with the provisions dealing with Cuba, which,
granted, are very controversial, but we wanted to be able to move
product into Cuba; allow our businesses to sell there; allow our
farmers to move product. Now we are told that is lifted out of our
bill. We are receiving phone calls in our office; and we have to tell
Members, sorry, we are not being called as conferees.
I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the full committee. I
know if it were only up to him, our subcommittees would be allowed to
meet. But this is really not the way to run the Congress of the United
States nor the government of the United States.
As a related issue, Mr. Speaker, and as a Member from Ohio who has
workers dying from exposure to beryllium, we were told today that the
Subcommittee on Defense has not allowed, because of the leadership, any
provision in any bill that would take care of people dying of exposure
to beryllium, nuclear-related radiation or gaseous diffusion. I think
that is absolutely wrong when we have it within our power to meet the
needs of the American people.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I particularly thank him for the education he has given a new
Member in a short period of time on this process.
Mr. Speaker, I respect both the gentlemen and the debate they are
having today. But to be honest, hearing politicians argue about how
they have revised history makes little difference at all in the 9th
inning of any baseball game. And with all due respect, my interest and
my knowledge in this budget process is pretty much limited to
education, which has taken a beating from the minority side today.
So I want to forget about history, forget about who introduced what,
forget about who created what program. I think it is fair for us to
know what the tentative agreement on the Labor-HHS budget, for this
year in this Congress today, is in the United States of America.
It is not a cut, but it is a $562 million increase over President
Clinton's budget. And that is a fact. It is not a cut, but it is a $1
billion increase in special education over the President's
recommendation. And amazingly, it is a $3.1 billion title VI
improvement offering the opportunity for flexibility for school
construction at the local level. We would never know in a million
years, by listening to the other side, that everything priority-wise
that they debated for local schools to have the opportunity to do
within good fiscal sound policy exists.
Sure, other recommendations were made in the past, but the past is
history. I appreciate the gentleman's mentioning my predecessor, Mr.
Gingrich. The only history I remember that is lasting is that we as a
majority are, fortunately, because of him, debating from a position of
balanced budgets today and not deficits. A lot of people deserve credit
for it, but he certainly deserves a lot.
Mr. Speaker, it is not right for the American people on September 26,
2000, to believe that this Congress is doing anything other than the
following: increasing education by $562 million; special education by
$1 billion; and offering local schools the opportunity for

[[Page H8122]]

school construction and other programs at their choice. And stating
anything else to the contrary is wrong.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is correct, that what
is present is the most important. But it is also important to
understand, I tell my friend from Georgia, how we got to the present.
Because the bill that I believe he initially voted for was $3.5 billion
under the President's budget.
Now, hear me. Originally, when we passed the bill through this House,
it was $3.5 billion on education under the President's request. So
that, yes, we are here; but the reason we are here is a little bit of
what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said. The President said he
was not going to sign that kind of bill.
The gentleman is right. He has not vetoed it because my colleague has
not sent it to him. He said, I am not going to sanction that kind of
cut in education. So, yes, we do readily admit that we have a budget
that is now presumably going to come out of the Labor-Health conference
much better, but it is much better because the President of the United
States said he was not going to sanction that House product.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the aisle have
repeatedly stated that it is time to get past politics, yet as we
consider a continuing resolution to keep the government functioning,
debates become more political and perhaps less substantive.
Today's vote is not about partisan rhetoric, it is about results.
This Congress has tried to work in a bipartisan way, and on a number of
issues that matter to every-day Americans it has been able to. It has
certainly done this under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) in trying to get our bills passed on time.
One shining example is the fact that we repealed the 60-year-old
earnings limit imposed on working seniors. We worked together because
it was the right thing to do. It made sense. It mattered to Americans.
That should be our standard every time we come into this Chamber, what
is the right thing to do, what makes sense, and what matters to
Americans. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to each of
these questions is one in the same.
We must pass the continuing resolution to keep the government
functioning and get to work on issues that matter to our families,
issues like paying down the debt and providing prescription drugs to
our seniors. The practice of passing continuing resolutions is not
unusual. It has taken place under Democrat and Republican control both.
It is what we need to do today.
The issues we are addressing in the final days of this Congress are
important and complex. Completing our work will require cooperation. We
need good-faith efforts at results, not roadblocks. We need every
Member of the Congress, every Senator, and the White House to do the
right thing, to do what makes sense and address the issues that matter
to Americans.
Let us stop playing politics, pass this resolution, and get back to
the business of addressing our Nation's problems.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 3\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The issue is not what has happened in the past; the issue is what
ought to happen now. I am amused by our friends on the other side of
the aisle who claim that all of a sudden the Republicans are the new-
found friend of education. Over the last 6 years, since they have taken
control of this House, they have tried to cut, in 4 different years,
they have tried to cut education funding below the previous year--not
below the request, but below the previous year funding--by about $5.5
billion.
Now they are discovering that that is not so popular. And so,
belatedly, they are beginning to grudgingly give ground; and instead of
calling for the abolition of the Department of Education and
eliminating Federal influence in education, they are now grudgingly
recognizing that there needs to be a Federal role. Yet it is very
grudgingly given ground indeed.
If my colleagues want to see our support for the Labor, Health, and
Education bill, for instance, all they need to do is to get rid of the
anti-worker riders; get rid of the anti-environmental riders in the
Interior bill; get rid of the anti-education riders in the Labor-
Health-Education bill, get rid of the anti-health riders that they
have. And what they need to do is to recognize that if we are going to
fund education programs fairly, we ought to fund Republican priorities
as well as Democratic priorities.
So we welcome the fact that our friends on the other side of the
aisle have decided they want to increase funding for special education.
We are asking them to also do what they said they would do in May and
raise that amount by another $700 million to meet the amount they
promised the American people in May.
The Republican presidential candidate, Mr. Bush, claims that he is
now belatedly for an increase in the Pell Grants, after he pooh-poohed
that very idea in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, just a month ago. What we are
asking is this: If he is for that, then why do you not vote for that
additional increase in Pell Grants that we put on the table in the
conference?
We are asking that our colleagues recognize that there is a crying
need in this country to repair dilapidated school buildings and to keep
the President's dedicate funding. We are asking our colleagues to
recognize the need to reduce class size. We are asking that the
Republicans recognize that 93 percent of education funds in this
country are spent the way local school districts want them to be spent.
We are asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to use the
other 7 percent that the Federal Government provides in order to target
issues of national importance and national need in the interest of
quality of education and social justice. That is what we need.
We need to fund both Republican and Democratic priorities in the area
of education if we are to have the kind of bipartisan support for that
bill that it ought to have under any Congress, no matter who is
controlling the Congress.
So I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a vote for this
resolution, because we have no choice if we want to keep the government
open, and we do. But I would ask the majority, instead of continuing to
insist that they please the most rigid elements of their caucus on all
of their appropriation conferences, I would ask that they recognize we
need a bipartisan approach to all of these bills, or we will need
another continuing resolution and yet another one; and we will indeed
be stuck here until the cows come home.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has
mentioned education; and this has been an ongoing debate and argument
in the Congress. We believe that we have been more generous to the
educational appropriation than the President requested. But the major
difference has not been so much the numbers and the dollars. The major
difference is how is the educational money going to be spent: Is some
guru here in Washington going to sit down here and determine what is
best for the school districts and the schools in every one of our
counties and cities throughout America; or are the people elected at
the local level going to make the decision on how they should use the
money available to them?
For example, in some case we need more buildings. In other cases we
need more schoolteachers. In other cases we need computers. In other
cases we need special education. There are so many, many different
needs in education. And I think that it is far wiser to allow the
people elected in the local school systems to make the decisions on
what their needs really are to best educate the children in those
schools. We are not arguing about the money; we are arguing about who
makes the decision on how that money is used.
And now, Mr. Speaker, after having nearly 2 hours of good political
debate,

[[Page H8123]]

many of the topics not having anything to do with this resolution
before us, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), for his support of this resolution and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). We would all prefer not to have to do this. I
agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, that it would be better if all
13 bills were signed by the President. But we find ourselves today
needing this continuing resolution until the 6th day of October in
order to make certain of the smooth continuity of our Federal
Government.

{time} 1630

So just let me ask the Members to support this continuing resolution.
And then we will get back to the bargaining tables, negotiate, and find
the solutions that are acceptable to the House, to the Senate, and to
the President and then get on about the business of the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate is
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 591, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415,
nays 2, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 493]

YEAS--415

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--2

DeFazio
Stark

NOT VOTING--16

Campbell
Clay
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Gutierrez
Horn
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
Paul
Rogan
Smith (MI)
Vento
Watkins

{time} 1652

Mr. KANJORSKI and Mr. CAPUANO changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________