[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10393-H10402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 637 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 637
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
{time} 1415
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 637 is a closed rule providing for the
consideration of H.J. Res. 114, a resolution making further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2001. H.J. Res. 637 provides for 1 hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit
as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of
the day and a further continuing resolution is necessary to keep the
government operating while Congress completes consideration of the
remaining appropriations bills.
H.J. Res. 114 is a clean continuing resolution that simply extends
the provisions included in H.J. Res. 109 through October 25.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it takes a lot of hard work and
tough decision-making to fund the Federal Government. While I share the
regret of many of my colleagues that the negotiations have stretched on
this long, we are now very close to completing the appropriations
process. We have successfully resolved many of the hurdles in our path
with hours of hard work. As we enter the final stretch, we remain
dedicated to passing sensible and fiscally responsible appropriations
bills. I am confident that this fair, clean and continuing resolution
will give us the time we need to fulfill our obligations to the
American people and complete the appropriations process in an even-
handed and conscientious manner.
This rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules on
yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with
the general debate and consideration of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume;
and I thank my colleague and my dear friend, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder), for yielding me the customary half-hour.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is the fourth continuing
resolution to come before the House this year. Apparently number three
was not the lucky charm. This is the fourth time that we have had to
extend the appropriations deadline and this time through October 25,
because my Republican colleagues just have not finished their work; and
I do not think it is going to be the last time.
Despite the promises to finish all 13 appropriation bills on time, my
Republican colleagues are still very far behind.
Mr. Speaker, from where I sit, the end is not even in sight. Each
time we pass another continuing resolution, we grant another reprieve.
Congress goes back in a recess. We all go back to our districts and
nothing gets done here in Washington. So I think enough is enough. I
think we should do shorter continuing resolutions. We should get the
appropriation bills finished. These week-long continuing resolutions
are not working. Congress should stay here and work.
Mr. Speaker, at this moment only 3 of the 13 appropriation bills have
been signed into law. The rest are awaiting action either by the House
or the Senate or by both. My Republican colleagues could have finished
the appropriations bills by now. They could have approved education.
They could have done a lot more but they just did not.
Despite the pressing needs for more classrooms, more teachers,
repairs to our schools, my Republican colleagues continue to put
education on the back burner.
So I think it is time for my Republican colleagues to get down to
work. I think it is time our Republican colleagues make education a
priority and put American children before the powerful special
interests. Democrats want to stay in Washington and strengthen the
American public school system. Democrats want to fund school
modernization and construction, and we also want to hire new teachers
and reduce class size. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think Congress should
head back home when so much important work is left undone. If we have
time to move the appropriations deadline again, we really have time for
America's children. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous
question in order to get the work done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on
Rules, said, here we go again. For the fourth time this month, the
Congress is considering a resolution to temporarily fund the
government. Now, Republicans claim that they are working very hard to
get these appropriations bills passed, but the American people should
know that today is our only full day of work in the Congress this week.
The Republicans will send us home tonight, and we will not be back
again until next Tuesday night. And I think the Republicans should be
embarrassed. They simply cannot govern. Keep in mind that between today
and next Tuesday, the Republicans are deploying their members to go out
and campaign. They are not hunkered down in some room trying to figure
out the appropriations bills. No, they are going out to fund-raisers
and political events rather than doing the work that they were elected
and paid to do.
Bowing to the will of special interests, Republicans have stopped
their work on HMO reform, on prescription drugs, on gun safety, on
education. They simply cannot get the job done.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention the education issue in particular
today, because that is one of the ones that is supposedly going to be
addressed in an appropriations bill next week; but so far the
Republicans have been unwilling to bring up the Democratic initiative,
which says two things. One, that we want to send more money back to the
local school districts around the country so that they can hire more
teachers and reduce class size. We know that smaller class sizes are
great for discipline, great for a learning experience. But, no, the
Republicans do not want to do that. They do not want to provide the
money.
The second education initiative the Democrats have stressed is that
they want to provide some funding back to the local school districts to
help defray the costs of school modernization. We know that many
schools are falling apart. They need renovation. Some
[[Page H10394]]
need to be upgraded for computers, for the Internet. Many times there
is overcrowding, and new schools need to be built. Well, the Democrats
have been saying and the President and Vice President Gore have been
saying let us provide some money back to the towns, back to the local
school districts to accomplish that goal but, no, the Republicans do
not want to do that.
Basically, they are saying that these are not important. We should
not provide money to reduce class size, to hire more teachers, to
provide for school modernization. Democrats are saying, let us stay
here and get the job done. We are not going to leave until the job is
done and those two education initiatives are passed.
Let me mention some of the other issues. Prescription drugs, Governor
Bush, the Republican candidate for President, said the other day that
he was very concerned and wanted to provide some sort of benefit of
prescription drugs, but I do not see it happening here. The Democrats
have been saying they want a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Put it
up. Let us vote on it. Same thing with HMO reform. We passed a good HMO
reform bill here, the Norwood-Dingell bill, the Patients' Bill of
Rights. It went over to the Senate and it died there. It died in
conference. The conference has not even met. I am a member. I am one of
the conferees. The conference has not met in several months. These are
the kinds of things that the American people want done. They want HMO
reform. They want the Patients' Bill of Rights. They want a Medicare
prescription drug benefit. They want to do something about education.
What is more important to this country than good public schools? But
we do not see any action on these things. We do not see any action. We
say, go home. Come here one day. We will pass another continuing
resolution, keep the government going for another 5 days or so. I have
said before and I will say again, I am not going to support these long-
term continuing resolutions for 5 days or a week. We should not allow
continuing resolutions for more than one day at a time because we need
to force the Republican leadership to get the job done. That is what
they came down here for. We should insist and all should insist on
staying here through the weekend every day until these appropriation
bills are passed.
There are 13 appropriation bills that make up the budget effectively,
and only three have been signed. The rest are still languishing here.
Some of them are moving now but not enough, certainly not enough for us
to go home for the weekend until next Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker, let me say the Republican majority seems to be good at
doing only one thing, and that is going home. Well, then the American
people should send them home for good this November.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this continuing
resolution really should not be approved, and it should not be approved
because it is not going to allow us to get the work of this country
done in this Congress because it simply postpones the date at which we
are going to be held responsible for getting that work done.
I would hope the President does not grant this continuing resolution
because a continuing resolution should only be granted so we can get
our work done. This continuing resolution is being granted and then
everybody is going to go home. Everybody is going to leave here tonight
and come back Wednesday, and the continuing resolution runs until
Wednesday.
Now we have heard weekend after weekend how the Republicans are going
to stay here and work, but nothing happens. No meetings take place.
Nobody works. No progress is made, and I think it is time to say enough
is enough. The President ought to give us a continuing resolution until
Monday and we ought to stay here tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday and
get the people's business done.
There is a great deal at stake here. There is a great deal of concern
in this country; and we have expressed it on both sides of the aisle,
about our education system, about the resources that are necessary for
our education system. We strongly believe certainly on this side of the
aisle that we ought to increase the expenditures for special education.
We ought to increase the expenditures for school construction, for
modernization; and we ought to get on with it. We ought to get it done
because this is what the people want for their children.
We ought to make sure that clearly the funds are in place for teacher
quality, to lower class size, and supposedly both sides of the aisle
are for that, except it just is not being done. The President has asked
us now, point blank, to get it done and yet we find out that the
meetings are not taking place; that the Republican leadership in the
Senate and in the House are not coming together to present that plan
and that proposal.
So what do we see? We drag on day after day, week after week, and the
continuing resolution now, instead of forcing us to get things done,
becomes an excuse for which we do not get things done, and meetings do
not take place.
So I think we would be much more honest to the people we represent
and to the people who are concerned with these issues in the country if
we would shorten this continuing resolution; if in fact we would
require people to stay here and work. Maybe we ought to go back to open
conference committees where people are held accountable for the work
product of those committees. I know that this extends in other areas,
but I have worked very hard on some of these education bills. We have
talked about the help that we can give to many districts that need
additional financial assistance for special education, and yet we see
that that is bogged down. That cannot be that difficult to resolve,
these education issues and to resolve them on behalf of America's
families, on behalf of America's children and our local schools.
They need these resources to do the job. They should be given these
resources to do the job, and we should do it now.
I would hope that later on when we are asked to vote on the
continuing resolutions that people would reject this, and we would get
on with a continuing resolution that puts some pressure on the Congress
to get done with the people's business and to resolve these issues on
health care.
I do not know if we have run out of time, but I would also hope that
we could address the problems of prescription drug benefits, that we
could address the problems of a Patients' Bill of Rights, that we could
address the problems of the minimum wage for millions of workers who
need additional financial resources to hold their families together, to
provide, hopefully, themselves with the wherewithal to buy some kind of
health care policy.
{time} 1430
But these are people who are going to work every day, they are
working hard, and, at the end of the year, they end up poor. They end
up without health care, they end up without decent housing, they end up
without decent educational opportunities for their children, and we
ought to raise the minimum wage. But we ought to do it now, and we
should not continue to provide excuses another 4 days, another 5 days,
another 6 days, when everybody just goes home, they hold fund-raising
events, they go campaign, they go to golf tournaments, they do all the
rest of it. They just forget to do the people's business. And that
ought to stop, and we ought to stop that now by defeating this
continuing resolution, and maybe give us the continuing resolution to
finish this weekend and get the people's work done and go home.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that the
use of personal electronic equipment in the Chamber of the House is
prohibited under the rules of the House, and Members are to disable
wireless telephones on the floor of the House.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address why this CR, this continuing
resolution, is
[[Page H10395]]
necessary. What it does is it allows our government to keep
functioning. Now, there are those who do not want one. That would mean
the government shuts down. I do not know if they have quite thought
that through, but we do not want the government to shut down.
Now, why is the budget not signed? There are a couple of reasons that
we think this is necessary to do today. Number one, we are at the point
in the budget where the leadership on the Committee on Appropriations
is working directly with the White House.
Now, the President has been out of town. The President has been in
the Middle East. I think it is important for the President to be in the
Middle East. I think it is important for America to be doing what
America has been doing in the Middle East, to try to get Chairman
Arafat and Prime Minister Barak together, because what is going on in
the Middle East is not just about the Middle East, it is about the
whole globe; and I respect the President for dedicating the time that
he has to try to resolve that. But obviously the President cannot
negotiate the budget and the appropriations bills when he is out of
town, so we are having to wait.
Now, the President is in town today, but then again tomorrow, Mr.
Speaker, he will be at the funeral of his friend, the Governor of
Missouri. Many of our Members, Republican and Democrat, including the
distinguished Democrat leader, will be there for that important funeral
of a very important, well-respected national figure. So there are a lot
of Members of Congress who are going to be in Missouri tomorrow. We
respect that. That is a bipartisan thing.
But during that period of time, there will still be a crew here
negotiating on the budget, a crew here talking. There will be people
working through the weekend, and that is what the leaders on the
Committee on Appropriations and the leadership in the House have been
doing and will continue to do.
So all of this finger pointing, that we are in this situation because
somebody has done something wrong, I guess that is what George Bush was
talking about the other day when he said it is time to get some people
together who have a can-do attitude in Washington, who want to solve
problems, who will reach out to the other side, reaching out to the
Senate and the White House.
I do not think the American people want to hear all this partisan
sniping today. The Members on the other side know that we passed the
majority of the Committee on Appropriations bills, I think 12 out of
13, before we left town for the August work period, and we feel good
that those were passed.
But this is a bicameral process, there are three branches of
government; and just because the House passes the bill does not mean it
ends there. It goes to the Senate, and the Senate has different visions
and different ideas. Then we know also in order to have the White House
sign it, they have their own visions and ideas. So we are in this very
complicated process of resolving a $1.8 trillion budget for a country
of 275 million people, and it should not surprise anybody that it takes
a long time.
What is it that the House Republicans are trying to do? What is our
vision? Well, our vision is simple. We want to pay our obligations
first for Social Security. It was the House Committee on Appropriations
that said we are going to quit using the Social Security trust fund for
general operating expenses. After all, no business in America can mix
its pension plan with its operating expenses. Who would do that? Who,
but the U.S. Congress? Four years ago we stopped that process, and that
has been one of our highest priorities.
Our second priority, of course, has been to protect and preserve the
insurance policy for our seniors, the Medicare program, and we have
done that. You will remember that 3 or 4 years ago the bipartisan
Medicare trustees appointed by the President said it is going bankrupt
if we do not act to preserve and protect it. We did, and now Medicare
is on more solid footing.
This year our budget called for a prescription drug benefit for
American seniors; not one that would insure Ross Perot and Bill Gates
and other people who do not need the benefit, but targeting those who
are in the most economic need of a prescription drug benefit. We have
done that. We had a program that gave our seniors choices, not a
universal required mandatory plan, and yet that was not passed by the
Senate.
Well, again, that is what bicameral legislation is about. We are
going to continue working on that.
I am happy to say that this House Committee on Appropriations in the
agriculture bill did do something very significant to bring down the
cost of prescription drugs, and that is the Drug Reimportation Act. The
Drug Reimportation Act allows our seniors to buy lower-cost American
manufactured drugs in other countries, such as Canada and Mexico, and
take advantage of savings that they can get in those countries that
they are not able to get right now, because, if they do, the Clinton-
Gore FDA says no, you cannot go to Canada and buy your Zocor.
But I will tell you the case of a woman in our office, Myrlene Free.
Her sister is on Zocor. If she buys it in Texas, it is $97; but if she
goes to Mexico, it is $29. Now, this Republican Congress reached out to
people like her and said we want you to be able to do that, and we put
some language in the agriculture appropriation bill to allow that.
But, better than that, we said this is great news for people in
boarder States, but what about the interior States? We are going to let
them do it through the Internet, and also let their neighborhood
pharmacist reimport drugs. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, these are
American-made and American-manufactured drugs, the same dosage as they
are already taking, and at as much as a 40 to 50 percent savings. That
not only helps millions of American seniors, but millions and millions
of young mothers raising kids.
I have four children. I know how expensive it is to keep a family in
good health, and prescription drugs is part of our budget. This bill
will bring down the cost of it. Now, we did get an agreement with the
Senate on this, we do have an agreement with the President on this, and
I think that has been worth fighting for. I think it has been worth the
negotiating process.
There are other issues out there, such as trade opportunities for our
farmers with Cuba. That is still out there.
Then we are going to be debating what to do about funding
international abortion agencies. Mr. Speaker, that is always a
controversial issue, and it is a bipartisan issue. You have pro-lifers
and pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle. But this takes time.
We have another amendment out there that deals with the situation in
Yugoslavia. Should we withhold funds from Serbia? Should we withhold
funds from Montenegro because they are having elections out there that
have turned out on a positive note right at this point? We want to
support Mr. Kostunica; but, on the same hand, what do you do with Mr.
Milosevic? That is pending in front of the Committee on International
Relations right now.
There is another piece of legislation introduced by many Members from
the Democrat side, with some bipartisan support from the Republican
side, that takes a similar approach in Palestine and says do we want to
give Palestinians foreign aid money in the face of what appears is
going on in the peace process, or should we use that money as a tool to
get both parties back at the table with maybe a more cooperative
attitude?
These, Mr. Speaker, are important issues. These are bipartisan
issues. These are not things that, well, we are going to haggle over
and see who can claim victory on this or that, but things that sincere
Members of Congress with serious legislative proposals have come to the
floor and said, you know what, the appropriation bills are somewhat the
last train leaving town, can you put these amendments on the bills? We
are narrowed down to the home stretch, and that is what takes so long.
But this is America. This is a Republic, where everybody has
opinions. That is why it has taken so long for us to adjourn.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reconsider their positions and support
this continuing resolution, so that we can keep the government
operating, not have a shutdown, and finalize these very, very important
issues.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
[[Page H10396]]
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we are now 6 weeks beyond the deadline for completing
our work on the budget. The main reason we are that far behind is not
because of what is happening now; it is because for 8 months this
Congress proceeded under false pretenses, and the majority party
pretended that there was enough room in the budget to pass their
gigantic tax package, most of which favored the most well-off and the
most privileged among us.
Now, one by one, the appropriation subcommittees are finally being
allowed to produce bills that reflect in real terms what both parties
recognize needs to be provided for science, for transportation, for
housing. We finished a bill just a few minutes ago that finally
recognized reality.
But for 8 months, because of the political pretense that the
surpluses were going to be large enough that you could make all of
these wild tax promises to everybody, we have proceeded on the
assumption that this Congress is going to spend about $40 billion to
$50 billion less than it will wind up spending. Now, in fact,
ironically, some of the appropriation bills are coming back in excess
of the President's request; and some of that is justified, in my view,
and some of that is not.
But now we have a real problem, because we are down to the last few
issues. And, yes, there is an issue remaining on family planning; and,
yes, there are a couple of other issues remaining in other bills, but
essentially there are very few differences remaining between the
majority party and us.
The main issue that remains is education, and, to a secondary extent,
what we are going to spend on health programs and on worker protection
and worker training programs.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen a lot of talk in the press about the
legislative chaos that has produced the requirement for a series of
continuing resolutions. I do not believe that that is the case. I am
coming increasingly to believe that these delays are purposeful, and I
would like to explain why.
This calendar shows in red seven days a week, a normal weekly
schedule. This calendar shows in red the times that we have been in
session since Labor Day. I want to walk you through it.
The week after Labor Day we were in for less than 24 hours. We came
in after 6 o'clock on Wednesday and left before 6 o'clock on Thursday.
The next week we were in about 48 hours. We came in at 6 o'clock on
Tuesday and were gone by that time on Thursday.
The next week we were here, as you can see, parts of 4 days, but,
actually, in terms of real time spent, about 3 days of work.
If you get down to the week of October 2, that is the only week since
Labor Day that we have put in a 5-day week here.
Do you see what happened last week? We came in late on Tuesday; the
week was foreshortened by the unfortunate death of our colleague, Mr.
Vento.
This week we were in session for a couple of hours yesterday,
starting very late in the afternoon, around 5 o'clock, and we will be
out of session by sometime between 6 and 7 o'clock tonight.
{time} 1445
It is a little over a day today, and then people will be at another
funeral Friday. I think what this schedule does is to make it easier
and easier for the majority party to avoid ever having to face up and
actually vote on the issues that divide us on the issue of education.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I think is going on, and so now what is
going to happen is when this CR is passed to keep the government open
another week, what will happen is we will have a brief meeting around
4:00 or 5:00 today in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education. There may be another meeting after that; but I
will tell you something, I have been stuck here, I feel like a fugitive
on a chain gang, because as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Appropriations, I have been here 3 weekends out of the last 4 weekends
through the weekend, so has Mr. Lew from the White House.
The President has always been a phone call away, and yet while we
have been waiting for something to happen, nothing has happened. Why?
Because the leadership of both Houses refused to delegate the decision-
making power fully to the committee with the responsibility to get the
work done, that is the Committee on Appropriations. That is the
problem. Well, I will tell you something, I have got some things I want
to do in my district, too.
I see the leadership going all over the country campaigning for
marginal Members. In my view, if I have to stay here, they ought to
stay here. So if you want me to stay in town this weekend, I want to
know that the Speaker, the floor leader, the deputy floor leader and
all of the people making the real decisions are going to stay here,
too, but they are not going to. They will be out of town while the
appropriators will be stuck here pretending that something real is
going on.
Now, to me, if you want to get a decision made, delegate it to the
people who know how to work it out. If you do not trust their judgment,
then stay in town yourselves and sit down with your opposite Members
and our leadership and get the job done, but do not ask the
appropriators to stay in town to give the rest of the leadership cover
while they go off to campaign around the country.
If we pass resolutions like this, we are going to be here until next
Saturday and probably the following Saturday, and that will get us so
close to the election that, in the end, what you will have been able to
do is to avoid voting on the issues on education that divide us. That
is what I believe the game plan is. That may suit your partisan
purposes, but it does not suit the needs of the country or this
institution.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this continuing resolution
because we ought to have one that makes us be back here Sunday or
Monday for everybody to get the work done.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I really had not intended to speak
on the rule, but my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has excited my
imagination here. When I saw his chart, I decided to bring out a larger
chart that, more or less, reinforces what the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has said, but I am going to take a little different spin on
it.
My spin is the Committee on Appropriations has done its job in the
House. The House appropriators have done their job. I hope that we can
focus on this fiscal year calendar, which is a little easier to
understand than the one that the gentleman had. If you look at all of
the red colored days in October, November, December, January, February,
March and part of April, that is how much time all of the fiscal year
that is gone before the Committee on Appropriations ever gets a budget
resolution, which is when we can begin our work appropriating, which is
what the Constitution tells us to do.
The blue colored days are the days that the House has not been in
session. And in order to get 13 bills through 13 sets of hearings,
meaning 200 to 300 hearings and 13 subcommittee markups and 13 full
committee markups and 13 bills on the Floor, we have only the green
colored days available to do that. That is part of the problem.
The budget resolution does not get adopted until after these red days
are all gone leaving only the green days, that is a problem with the
budget process.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the gentleman the only
difference between his chart and mine is that his chart in the green
gives credit for the entire day even if we have only been allowed to be
in session for a couple of hours. So the charts are essentially in
agreement.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I do admit
that the gentleman's chart did go down to the hour. I was tempted to
make mine go down to the minute to compete with his, but I thought just
days would be good enough.
[[Page H10397]]
But the point is that despite this problem of time, the House did its
job. We got our bills out of here, and the 13th bill, which was for the
District of Columbia, was on this floor in July before we went to the
August recess. Now, that bill was not completed at that time. It was
pulled off the floor, and we did not get back to it until August.
The gentleman is correct that there is a problem of time here, but
other things needed to be done. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston), I thought, made a good point. Once we did our job, that
was only part of the process, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has told us so many times there is no use getting to first base
if you cannot get home.
The truth of the matter is you cannot get home if you do not get to
first base. And so getting through our committee work was first base;
going through the House floor that was second base; then you have to go
through the other body. We have a bicameral legislature. The other
body, the United States Senate, has to do the same thing that we do,
they have to pass all the bills too.
Well, this year they did not pass all their bills. This year they
still have not passed all of their bills, and so we have to come up
with creative ways to pass a bill through the system that has not
passed in the other body. And so far we have done that.
We did a bill today that, more or less, went through that creative
process. The VA, HUD bill went through that process. But now then where
does that leave us? Even after the other body passes the bills, their
priorities may be different than ours, and most of the time they are.
So we have to sit down together and reason together to figure out what
is a responsible way to present this package to both the House and the
Senate, so that we can get it passed in both the House and Senate. That
takes a little bit of time.
We have been spending a lot of time, as the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) said. Appropriators have been here day after day after day,
whether they were colored red, blue or green on my calendar.
Appropriators have been here dealing with these differences. But then
there is another factor before you get to home base, that is the
President of the United States. When a bill gets to his desk, he has a
power that is the same as two-thirds of the House and the Senate,
because if that one person, the President of the United States, does
not approve of the bill and he vetoes it, it takes a two-thirds vote in
both the House and Senate to override the veto.
Well, we have a small majority in this Congress. We do not have a
two-thirds vote; although, we did override the President's veto on the
Energy and Water bill in the House just a few days ago, but,
nevertheless, because we have a small majority, we have to work with
the President and with his staff to try to send bills out of here that
he will sign, so that we do not have to be here week after week waiting
for those vetoes.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the education bill. We have been
meeting with the White House on the education bill now for weeks, and
we still have not come to a conclusion with the President on what is
going to be in that bill. What will he sign? Earlier there was a
strategy to send him a bill and let him veto it and send it back.
We rejected that strategy. We thought we should work with the
President, work with the minority party, and that is what we have been
trying to do. The minority staff has been involved in every meeting
with the majority staff, but those things take time.
And I am as frustrated as my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. I wish this work
would have been done in July when the House finished passing the bills
but we only control one-third of the process. And that is one reason
that it is taking more time.
I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
in as friendly a way as I can say it that we have spent many days on
appropriations bills in this House that were unnecessary. The majority
party allowed the minority party hour upon hour of debate on amendments
that we all knew were not in order; that were not protected by the
rule; that were subject to a point of order, but yet we allowed the
minority party all of that extra time because they wanted to make their
arguments.
We believe in freedom of speech. This is a debating society in this
House. So we allowed many, many days of debate on appropriations bills
that really were not necessary, except for the political debate that
was going on. Had we not done that, had we just decided to jam the
minority party, we would not have allowed those amendments to even be
discussed. We would have raised a point of order against them
immediately, but we allowed them to go on for hour upon hour upon hour
before finally raising the point of order or before they were withdrawn
by the sponsor.
Mr. Speaker, when we get right down to it, time is a problem. But I
would suggest that the majority party is not any more guilty of
absorbing and using the time than the minority party or the President
of the United States. You see it seems in this process everybody has to
have it their way or no way, but when we are dealing with a bicameral
legislature and a President of the United States, we have to come
together.
It is amazing. On the bill that we just passed, we passed it with a
large vote. It was a good bill, because we finally came together, and
we made it happen. We had the Agriculture appropriations bills a few
days ago. We came together. We worked together. And we produced a good
product.
We do not need to have political rhetoric. We do not need that. The
political points ought to be made back home on the campaign trail. In
here, we should do the people's business. In here, people should come
before politics. Back home is where we do our politics. Here we do the
people's business.
We should expedite this business the best we can, and we should be
thorough, and we should be responsible.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me as much time as he
did.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) says that the majority gave us
a lot of time to talk about issues that concerned us. They gave us a
lot of time, but they did not allow us to get any votes on the issues
that demonstrated where we wanted to take this country on education, on
health care and a whole range of other issues.
The gentleman used the Committee on Rules and you used the budget
resolution to prevent us from ever having votes on our alternatives
while you were free to put yours on the floor. If you want me to change
time for votes any time, I would be happy to do that. We would have had
much the better deal.
Secondly, I would point out, that is consistent with what you have
done across the board. You did not give us an opportunity to have a
vote on our version of a prescription drug bill under Medicare, so we
wound up with your bill of goods rather than our bill being on the
floor.
On the tax bill, we were not allowed to have a vote on our
alternative, so we had to reshape our alternative to fit it into your
rules.
{time} 1500
The fact remains, in the last 6 years they have tried to cut
education $13 billion below the President's budgets, and they have
tried to cut education below previous year's spending levels by $5.7
billion over that time period, and it has been only because of the
fights that we and the White House have waged that we were able to add
$15 billion over that period of time to the various appropriation bills
for education.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an insert on Republican
attacks relating to education and a number of charts illustrating
education numbers:
The material referred to is as follows:
Efforts To Attack Education--1994 Through 2000
Across the nation Republican Congressional Candidates are
giving speeches and running ads pretending to be friends of
education. Those speeches and ads fly in the face of the
historical record of the past six years. That record
demonstrates that education has been one of the central
targets of House Republican efforts to cut federal
investments
[[Page H10398]]
in programs essential for building America's future in order
to provide large tax cuts they have been promising their
constituents.
Six years ago in their drive to take control of the House
of Representatives, the Republican Leaders led by Newt
Gingrich produced a so-called ``Contract with America'' which
they claimed would balance the budget while at the same time
making room for huge tax cuts. They indicated that one of the
ways they would do so was by abolishing four departments of
the federal government. Eliminating the U.S. Department of
Education was their number one goal. They also wanted they
said to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Commerce and
HUD.
Immediately upon taking over the Congress in 1995 they
proposed cuts below existing appropriations in a rescission
bill, HR 1158. That bill passed the House on March 16, 1995
reducing federal expenditures by nearly $12 billion.
Education programs accounted for $1.7 billion of the total.
While the budget of the Department of Education totaled only
1.6% of federal expenditures in fiscal 1995, it contributed
14% to the spending reductions in the House Republican
package. The package was adopted with all but six House
Republicans voting in favor. (See Roll Call #251 for the
104th Congress, 1st session--Congressional Record, March 16,
1995, page H3302)
Next, legislation (HR 1883) was introduced which called for
``eliminating the Department of Education and redefining the
federal role in education.'' The legislation was cosponsored
by more than half of all House Republicans including as
original cosponsors, current Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority
Leader Dick Armey, and Majority Whip Tom Delay.
The desire to eliminate the Department of Education was
stated explicitly in both the Report that accompanied the
Republican Budget Resolution passed by the House and in the
Conference Report on the Budget that accompanied the final
product agreed to by both House and Senate Republicans. The
Conference Report for H. Con. Res. 76 (the FY 1996 Budget
Resolution) states flatly, ``In the area of education, the
House assumes the termination of the Department of
Education.''
That FY96 Budget Resolution not only proposed the adoption
of legislation to terminate the Department organizationally,
but put in place a spending plan to eliminate funding for a
major portion of the Department's activities and programs in
hopes of partially achieving the goal of elimination even if
the President refused to sign a formal termination for the
Department. The Conference Agreement adopted on June 29, 1995
proposed cuts in funding for Function 500, the area of the
budget containing all federal education programs, or $17.6
billion or 34 percent below the amount needed to keep even
with inflation over the six-year period starting in Fiscal
1996. The House passed Resolution had proposed even larger
cuts. Every House Republican except one voted for both the
House Resolution and the Conference Report.
That Budget Resolution established a framework for passage
of the 13 appropriation bills. The Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill, which contains the vast majority of
funds that go to local school districts, was the hardest hit
by that resolution. The Fiscal 1996 appropriations bill for
labor, health, and education was adopted by the House on
August 4th 1995. It slashed funding from the $25 billion
level that had been originally approved for the Department in
fiscal 1995 to $20.8 billion for the coming year. This $4.2
billion or 17 percent cut below prior year levels was even
larger when inflation was considered and was passed in the
face of information indicating that total school enrollment
in the United States was increasing by about three quarters
of a million students a year. The programs affected by these
cuts included Title I for disadvantaged children (reduced by
$1.1 billion below the prior year), teacher training (reduced
by $251 million), vocational education (reduced by $273
million), Safe and Drug Free Schools (reduced by $241
million), and Goals 2000 to raise student performance
(reduced by $361 million). Republicans voted in favor of the
bill, 213 to 18. (See Roll Call #626 for the 104th Congress,
1st session--Congressional Record, August 4, 1995, page
H8420) The bill was opposed by virtually every national
organization representing parents, teachers, school
administrators, and local school boards.
The Republican Leadership of the House was so determined to
force the President to sign that legislation and other
similar appropriations that they were willing to see the
government shut down twice to, in the words of one Republican
Leader, ``force the President to his knees.'' Speaker
Gingrich said, ``On October 1, if we don't appropriate, there
is no money * * * You can veto whatever you want to. But as
of October 1, there is no government * * * We're going to go
over the liberal Democratic part of the government and then
say to them: `We could last 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, five
years, a century.' There's a lot of stuff we don't care if
it's ever funded. (Rocky Mountain News, June 3, 1995) It is
clear that the Labor-HHS-Education bill, and education
funding in particular, was at the heart of the controversy
that resulted in those government shutdowns. Cutting
education was an issue that Republicans felt so strongly
about that they literally were willing to see the government
shut down in an attempt to achieve this goal. Speaker
Gingrich said, ``I don't care what the price is. I don't care
if we have no executive offices, and no bonds for 60 days--
not this time.'' (Washington Post, September 22, 1995) House
Republican Whip Tom DeLay said, ``We are going to fund only
those programs we want to fund * * * We're in charge. We
don't have to negotiate with the Senate; we don't have to
negotiate with the Democrats.'' (Baltimore Sun, January 8,
1996)
When the government shut down, the public reacted strongly
against Republican House Leadership hard-headedness and that
led to the eventual signing of the Conference Agreement on
Labor HHS-Education funding as part of an omnibus
appropriations package on April 26, 1996, more than halfway
through the fiscal year. That action came after 9 continuing
resolutions and those two government shutdowns. That
agreement restored about half of the cuts below prior year
funding that had been pushed through by the Republican
Majority, raising the original House Republican figure of
$20.8 billion for education to $22.8 billion.
Later in 1996 the Republican House Caucus organized another
attempt to cut education funding below prior year levels in
the fiscal 1997 Labor-HHS-Education bill. Only July 12, 1996
the House adopted the bill with Republicans voting 209 to
22 in favor of passage (See Roll Call #313, Congressional
Record, July 11, 1996, page H7373.) The bill cut Education
by $54 million below the levels agreed to for fiscal 1996
and $2.8 billion below the President's request. During the
debate on that bill Republicans also voted (227-2) to kill
an amendment specifically aimed at restoring $1.2 billion
in education funding. (See Roll Call #303, Congressional
Record, July 11, 1996, page H7330).
As the fall and election of 1996 began to approach, the
Republican commitment to cut education began to be
overshadowed by their desire to adjourn Congress and go home
to campaign. As a result, the President and Democrats in
Congress forced them to accept an education package that was
more $3.6 billion above House passed levels.
1997 brought a one-year respite from Republican efforts to
squeeze education. For one year, a welcome bipartisan
approach was followed and the appropriation that passed the
House and the final conference agreement were extremely close
to the amounts requested by the President and the Department
of Education.
Conflict between the two parties over education funding
erupted again in 1998 when the President requested $31.2
billion for the Department for fiscal 1999. In July, the
House Appropriations Committee reported on a party line vote
a Labor-HHS-Education bill that cut the President's education
budget by more than $660 million. But the bill remained in
legislative limbo until after the beginning of the next
fiscal year. Then on October 2, 1998 Republicans voted with
only six dissenting votes to bring the bill to the floor.
(See Roll Call #476, Congressional Record, October 2, 1998,
page H9314). The leadership then reversed itself on its
desire to call up the bill and refused to bring it to the
floor. The House Republican Leadership finally grudgingly
agreed to negotiate higher levels for education so they could
return home and campaign. The White House and Democrats in
Congress were able to force them to accept a funding level
for education that was $2.6 billion above the House bill.
Last year, in 1999, House Republican Leaders again directed
their Appropriators to report a Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriation bill that cut education spending below the
President's request and below the level of the prior year.
The FY2000 bill reported by the Appropriations Committee on a
straight party line vote funded education programs at nearly
$200 million below the FY1999 level. The bill was almost $1.4
billion below the President's request. Included in the cuts
below requested levels were reductions in Title I grants to
local school districts for education of disadvantaged
students ($264 million), after school programs ($300
million), education reform and accountability efforts ($491
million), and improvement of educational technology resources
($301 million). Because inadequate funding threatened their
ability to pass the bill, House Republican Leaders never
brought it to the House floor. After weeks of pressure from
House Democrats they ordered a separate bill that had been
agreed to with Senate Republican Leaders to be brought to the
House floor. The bill contained significantly more education
funding than the original House bill but still cut the
President's request for class size reduction by $200 million,
after-school programs by $300 million, Title I by almost $200
million and teacher quality programs by $353 million. The
bill was opposed by the Committee for Education Funding which
represents 97 national organizations interested in education
including parent and teacher groups, school boards, and
school administrators. It was adopted by a vote of 218 to 211
with House Republicans voting 214 to 7 in favor. (See Roll
Call #549, Congressional Record, October 28, 1999, page
H11120) It was also promptly vetoed by the President. After
further negotiations, they agreed on November 18th to add
nearly $700 million more, which we were requesting to
education programs.
This year the President proposed a $4.5 billion increase
for education programs in the FY2001 budget. The bill
reported by House Republicans cut the President's request by
$2.9 billion. Cuts below the request included $400 million
from Title I, $400 million from after school programs, $1
billion for improving teacher quality and $1.3 billion for
repair
[[Page H10399]]
of dilapidated school buildings. It was adopted by a vote of
217-214 with House Republicans voting 213 to 7 in favor. (See
Roll Call #273, Congressional Record, June 14, 2000, page
H4436).
When the FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education bill was sent to
conference a motion to instruct Conferees to go to the higher
Senate levels for education and other programs was offered.
It also instructed conferees to permit language insuring that
funds provided for reducing class size and repairing school
buildings was used for those purposes. It was defeated 207 to
212 with Republicans voting 208 to 4 in opposition. (See Roll
Call #415, Congressional Record, July 19, 2000, page H6563).
In summary, the record clearly shows that over the past six
years House Republicans set the elimination of the Department
of Education as a primary goal. Failing that, they attempted
to reduce education funding to the maximum extent possible.
In every year since they have had control of the House of
Representatives they have attempted to cut the President's
request for education funding. Appropriations bills passed by
House Republicans would have cut a total of $14.6 billion
from presidential requests for education funding. In three of
the six years that they have controlled the House, they have
actually attempted to cut education funding below prior year
levels despite steady increases in school enrollment and the
annual increase in costs to local school districts of
providing quality classroom instruction.
The education budget cuts have not been directed at
Washington bureaucrats as some Republicans have tried to
argue but mainly at programs that send money directly to
local school districts to hire teachers and improve
curriculum. Programs such as Title I, After School, Safe and
Drug Free Schools, Class Size Reduction, and Educational
Technology Assistance all send well over 95% of their funds
directly to local school districts. While zealots in the
Republican Conference drove much of this agenda it is clear
that they could not have succeeded without the repeated
assistance from dozens of Republican moderates who attempt to
portray themselves as friends of education.
The one redeeming aspect of the Republican record on
education over the last six years is that in most years they
failed to achieve the cuts that they spent most of each year
fighting to impose. When a coalition between the Democrats in
Congress and the President made it clear that the bills
containing these cuts would be vetoed and that the
Republicans by themselves could not override the vetoes,
legislation that was far more favorable to education was
finally adopted. For Republican members to attempt to take
credit for that fact is in effect bragging on their own
political ineptitude. The question concerned Americans must
ask is: What will happen if the Republicans find a future
opportunity to deliver on their six-year agenda? They may
eventually become more skillful in their efforts. They may at
some point have a larger majority in one or both Houses or
they may serve under a President that will be more amenable
to their agenda. All of these prospects should be very
troubling to those who feel that local school districts
cannot do the job that the country needs without great
assistance from the federal government.
This is not an issue of local versus federal control.
Almost 93% of the money spent for elementary and secondary
education at the local level is spent in accordance with the
wishes of state and local governments. But there are national
implications to failing schools in any part of the country.
The federal government has an obligation to try to help
disseminate information about what does and does not work in
educating children, and it has an obligation to respond to
critical needs by defining and focusing on national
priorities. And that is what the other 7% of educational
funding in this country does. Education is indeed primarily a
local responsibility, but it must be a top priority at all
levels--federal, state, and local--or we will not get the job
done.
The House Republican candidates now shout loudly that they
can be trusted to support education, but their record over
the last six years speaks louder than their words. Their
record shows that in three of the last six years, House
Republicans tried to cut education $5.5 billion below
previous levels and $14.6 billion below presidential
requests. It shows that the more than $15.6 billion that has
been restored came only after Democrats in Congress and in
the White House demanded restoration. That is the record that
must be understood by those concerned about education's
future.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION APPROPRIATION CUTS COMPARED TO
PREVIOUS YEAR
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior year House level House cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 95 Rescission................. 25,074 23,440 -1,635
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education........ 25,074 20,797 -4,277
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education........ 22,810 22,756 -54
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education........ 33,520 33,321 -199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION CUTS BELOW PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
(Millions of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Percent
Request level House cut cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education... 25,804 20,797 -5,007 -19
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education... 25,561 22,756 -2,805 -11
FY 98 Labor-HHS-Education... 29,522 29,331 -191 -1
FY 99 Labor-HHS-Education... 31,185 30,523 -662 -2
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education... 34,712 33,321 -1,391 -4
FY 01 Labor-HHS-Education... 40,095 37,142 -2,953 -7
Total FY96 to FY01...... 186,879 173,870 -13,009 -7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--EDUCATION FUNDING RESTORED BY DEMOCRATS
(Millions of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Conf. Percent
level agreement Restoration increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 95 Rescission.................................................. 23,440 24,497 1,057 5
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education......................................... 20,797 22,810 2,013 10
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education......................................... 22,756 26,324 3,568 16
FY 98 Labor-HHS-Education......................................... 29,331 29,741 410 1
FY 99 Labor-HHS-Education......................................... 30,523 33,149 2,626 9
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education......................................... 33,321 35,703 2,382 7
FY 01 Labor-HHS-Education......................................... 37,142 40,751 3,609 10
Total FY95 to FY01............................................ 197,310 212,975 15,665 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Wisconsin what
the Committee on Rules did on the appropriation bills was to use the
standing rules of the House. Those who were offering amendments germane
to the subject matter were allowed votes, those who did not were not
allowed votes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Stark).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
I have enjoyed this collegial debate between the Chair and the
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I only wish the rest
of the House worked as well.
The gentleman from Georgia stated that the government functions. The
government functions just fine. The Republican leadership is what is
dysfunctional in this town.
For example, there is no one in this room, there is no one in this
country, particularly the seniors, who do not
[[Page H10400]]
know that it is time to have a prescription drug benefit for the
seniors. We who legislate in other committees and have the
responsibility for a prescription drug benefit have not been allowed to
participate in any of that discussion.
For example, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) who serves on the
Committee on Ways and Means with me has voted two or three times, along
with every other Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means, to deny
the seniors in this country a discount on their prescription drugs.
Just think, being from Florida, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw) is with lots of seniors, how could the gentleman vote two or
three times to deny even bringing to the floor for discussion a
discount for seniors for their prescription drugs? Those are the kinds
of things that are being held up.
This House passed a Patients' Bill of Rights, a bipartisan Patients'
Bill of Rights to bring under control the managed care plans, the HMOs
that provide service to our citizens. That bill is tied up. It is dead
in the water because the Republicans refuse to move it along.
What have they done instead? In a balanced budget give-back bill, as
it is called, a bill that helped our health care providers and to some
extent our beneficiaries, they are rewarding the managed care plans
with somewhere between $6 and $30 billion.
Why do I not know why? Because no one will tell the Democrats what is
in the bill. The bill is in the Speaker's office. Lobbyists are
parading in and out of the Speaker's office working on the Republican
bill, and not telling the rest of the Members.
At any rate, as near as we can determine, there is somewhere between
$6 and $30 billion going as a reward to the managed care plans,
regardless of whether they provide a prescription drug benefit or
maintain the effort of keeping their plans open in rural areas; no
strings attached, take the money and run. They give a reward of that
magnitude to the very people that we voted to regulate.
What would we do if we did not give that money to the managed care
plans? We would give 2 extra years of update to the hospitals, we would
help home health care, and we would provide more benefits for our
beneficiaries. That is what is going on under all of this as the
Republicans stall the work of this Congress.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the continuing resolution because I
think it is time we got about the people's business. The decisions that
we will be making in the next few days and next week are about our
national budget, the appropriation of funds to meet the needs of the
American people.
I believe that our national budget should be a statement of our
national values. What we think is important is what we should put our
resources to. So we are coming down to the last few or several
appropriations bills. One of them is Labor, Health, and Human Services,
which is the lion's share of our domestic budget. In that budget we
fund the Department of Education and the Federal role in education. In
that bill we also fund the National Institutes of Health.
All of the studies that we receive from the National Institutes of
Health and other research organizations that are funded by the Federal
government tell us that children learn better in smaller classes.
Indeed, we are even learning that some children do better in smaller
schools.
We pay for this research. We have the best scientists in the world
applying their intellects to it. They give us their conclusions. Then
this body chooses to ignore those conclusions about smaller classes and
smaller schools.
President Clinton has an initiative on the table which has been
rejected by the Republican majority. The President's proposal would
provide interest-free loans for localities to have bond measures for
school modernization, for smaller classes, and rewiring schools.
If we are going to have smaller classes, we need more classrooms and
we need more teachers. If we are going to have our children prepared
for the future, we need to have these schools modernized, wired for the
future.
It is really very, very difficult to understand how the Republican
majority can reject such a reasonable proposal, a proposal based on
science and for the well-being of America's children. That by and large
is the main argument that is keeping us here.
At the same time, the Republican majority has chosen to take four- or
five-day weekends, instead of attending to a prescription drug benefit
for our seniors, a real prescription drug benefit for our seniors;
instead of a subsidized premium for insurance companies, which they may
or may not even decide to offer; and to attend to a real Patients' Bill
of Rights.
But it is about the children that we are here. The Republican
majority is asking us to vote for a continuing resolution, not so that
we can continue our work until we are finished, but so that we can go
home for 4 or 5 days, come back with work unfinished, and ask for
another continuing resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the
CR.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, we are having an argument that is worth having. The
argument is predicated on this, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) just said.
In the springtime, the majority passed a budget that was predicated
on the proposition that we should pass sweeping tax cuts in this year's
budget. We disagree with that. That is an argument worth having. We
believe that the principal fiscal focus of this country should be on
reducing the national debt.
Beyond that, we are having another argument that is worth having
about whether we should invest in education more or less, yes or no. We
believe, and I think a majority of this House believes, Mr. Speaker,
that investment in education should happen.
The reason we are having this argument, the reason we have overshot
our deadline by 2 weeks, is that we will stand on principle.
We believe that assistance for school districts around this country
in modernizing their schools and building new ones is worth fighting
for.
We believe that putting a qualified teacher in every classroom in
America, so that particularly in the primary grades children get more
one-on-one attention, is worth staying and fighting for.
And we believe that programs like after-school programs, drug and
alcohol education, are worth funding to their highest and most
practical level. It is an argument worth having.
I commend the Committee on Appropriations for their diligence in
moving the process forward, but we will stick to our principles and
invest in debt reduction and education improvement for the benefit of
the people of this country.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wishes to stick to his principles with
respect to debt reduction, he can support these bills, because each of
these appropriation bills has a special line item for debt reduction.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to move the
end of the continuing resolution up 2 days from Wednesday, October 25,
to Monday, October 23. If we do not move the deadline, there will be no
pressure to work, and American families will continue to get short
shrift from this Republican Congress.
We need to rebuild our schools. We need to hire new teachers. We need
to stay in session until we get the work done.
The text of the amendment, if offered, is as follows:
On page 2, line 4, strike ``and (2)'' and add after the
semicolon, ``(2) the amendment printed in section 2 of this
resolution which shall be considered as adopted; and (3) ``
[[Page H10401]]
At the end of the resolution, add ``Section 2. The
amendment to H. J. Res 114 Strike ``October 25, 2000'' and
insert ``October 23, 2000''
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the previous question so
we can move on with the vote on the rule and get the continuing
resolution on the floor to keep the government open, running, and
responsible until we finish our work, our very difficult work this
year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 193, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 537]
YEAS--212
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--27
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Conyers
Cooksey
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hansen
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Oxley
Rodriguez
Rush
Shays
Spratt
Talent
Thompson (MS)
Turner
Weygand
Wise
{time} 1529
Messrs. ROTHMAN, UDALL of New Mexico, EVANS and Mrs. MEEK of Florida
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209,
noes 187, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 538]
AYES--209
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
[[Page H10402]]
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--187
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--36
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clement
Conyers
Davis (VA)
Dunn
Franks (NJ)
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilman
Hansen
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Obey
Oxley
Pickering
Radanovich
Regula
Rodriguez
Rush
Shays
Spratt
Talent
Tauzin
Thompson (MS)
Turner
Weygand
Wise
{time} 1538
Mr. DIXON and Mr. CONDIT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________