[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10402-H10411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) making further
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 114 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 114
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled. That Public
Law 106-275, if further amended by striking ``October 20,
2000'' in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof
``October 25, 2000''. Notwithstanding section 106 of Public
Law 106-275, funds shall be available and obligations for
mandatory payments due on or about November 1, 2000, may
continue to be made.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 637, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the CR before us now should not
require much debate, since we did have a very lively debate on the rule
on the very same subject, but I am sure the same subjects will be
discussed again. But this does extend the funding for the fiscal year
until next Wednesday.
It is essential to pass this CR because, although the House has
completed its part of the appropriations process quite a long time ago,
the part of the process requiring the other body and the administration
has not been completed yet, although we are getting very close. We
moved out two more bills today, as my colleagues will remember.
This CR does two things: One, it extends the date from midnight
tomorrow night until midnight Wednesday night of next week. In
addition, because we are reaching the end of the month, it is necessary
that we make provision for funding authority for checks that go out
automatically every month to those who are in entitlement programs. The
agencies involved need to have the authority to go ahead and print the
checks, mail the checks, and have them in the mail so that they arrive
by the first of the month. Those are the two things this continuing
resolution does.
Hopefully, this is the last one we will have to do. One of the
outstanding bills is the bill from Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education. We are having another meeting this afternoon on this
bill with the White House and with the Republican and Democratic
Members representing the House and the Senate, and we hope to finalize
those agreements today.
The District of Columbia bill, as most Members know, is ready to
file, however, it is being held because it may be needed as a vehicle
for another appropriations bill that our colleagues in the other body
have not passed yet. So there is somewhat of a delay there. It is not a
delay of the making of the House of Representatives or the House
appropriators.
And I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, as I have said so many times, that
the House Committee on Appropriations completed its work very early in
the year. We had all 13 of our appropriation bills through the House,
with the last one on the floor in July before the August recess. That
bill was then withdrawn from consideration and put off, but the
appropriators were ready to move.
Anyway, we are near the end. It was theoretically possible that we
could have done what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley)
wanted and made this CR go to midnight on Monday night. Because it runs
until Wednesday, he opposed the previous question so that he could
offer an amendment to take us to midnight Monday. But, Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow the House will not be in session out of respect for the
Governor of Missouri who was, along with his son, unfortunately killed
in a tragic airplane crash. We respect that and the fact that many of
our Members will be traveling to Missouri for that funeral tomorrow.
{time} 1545
So there will be no business here tomorrow. Saturday and Sunday the
House will not meet for recorded votes. Monday the House will not be in
for recorded votes. And so, if we go to the policy of having CR's one
day at a
[[Page H10403]]
time, that is a big mistake, Mr. Speaker. If we do that, I can
guarantee we will be here until Christmas because it will take all day
long to do each CR, and we will not get any other work done.
So we need to get this CR passed and then the appropriators will
continue the meetings with the White House. And if we can reach the
agreements that we think we will in the next few days, we will have
this business completed by midnight Wednesday next.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the CR.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that the
use of personal electronic communication devices is prohibited in the
Chamber of the House, and they are to disable wireless telephones while
they are in the Chamber of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this CR.
Mr. Speaker, I have supported the previous CR's. I rise, representing
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member who,
unfortunately, has been called off the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of the majority are fortunate. They have
been fortunate in September; and they have been fortunate in October.
Let me tell my colleagues why. The Olympics were on in September and
people were focused on the Olympics. The World Series is just about to
start. The playoffs have just completed, and the people have been
focused on those. And we have a presidential race. It is a tight race,
as everybody knows, and the people have been focused on them. All of
those events have captured the public's attention and diverted it from
what is not going on in this House.
What is going on here is that one of the greatest deliberative bodies
in the world is doing practically nothing. We are at a standstill, Mr.
Speaker, and the American people are suffering because of it. No
meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights, despite the fact that it enjoys
wide bipartisan support. No Medicare prescription drug benefit, despite
the fact that our seniors need relief from skyrocketing drug prices. No
reasonable gun safety legislation. No Hate Crimes bill. No targeted tax
relief for hard-working American families.
Let me say, we could have passed inheritance tax or estate tax or
death tax, call it what you will, relief for 98 percent of the estates
in this country and the President said he would have signed it. We
could pass legislation to relieve married couples from the penalty that
they might incur. But because we could not give all of a loaf, we have
passed none of the loaf.
As Roll Call stated recently, ``If they paid attention,'' and as I
said, they have been distracted because of the Olympics, the World
Series, the playoffs, the presidential debate, they, the public,
``surely would be appalled,'' said Roll Call.
We are now considering our fourth continuing resolution because the
Republican leadership has not had us doing anything this week, the
previous week, the week before that, the week before that and, yes, the
week before that. Look at the Record. We have hardly met since Labor
Day.
My distinguished chairman references the fact that we got our work
done in July. With all due respect to the chairman, we passed 13 bills
by July which all of us on this side said were not going anywhere and,
very frankly, we were absolutely correct and, very frankly in my
opinion, the majority knew they were not going anywhere.
How do I know that? Because they said, well, this is the first inning
or the second inning or the third inning, we know this is not the real
deal; but at some point in time we will get real. We have not done it
yet. We are not there yet. There is still no end in sight.
While negotiations have continued behind closed doors, the fact of
the matter is the President has still signed only three of the 13
spending bills that fund the basic operations of our government.
I ask my colleagues, is this any way to run a railroad? Well, I do
not know about that, but it is certainly no way to run the people's
House. Even many of our Republican friends are hard pressed to say it
is.
Last week our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford), commented, and I quote Mr. Sanford, not a Democrat, but Mr.
Sanford, ``Anarchy reigns at the moment. Nobody is quite sure what
comes next.''
Clearly we are not, because we are not told. But the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) from the majority side says, ``Nobody is
quite sure what comes next.''
Let me tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle one thing
they can count on. Democrats will never, never, never sell out
America's children. Our kids need and they deserve smaller class sizes,
which improves their learning and achievement. The Democrats' class
size reduction initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers does just that.
Our kids need, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve safe schools, a great
number of which now require repair and renovation. The Democrats' and
the President's school modernization initiative does just that. Our
kids need and they deserve highly trained and highly qualified
teachers. The Democrats' teacher quality initiative does just that. Our
kids need and they deserve safe and drug-free schools. The Democrats'
safe and drug-free school program does just that.
These, however, Mr. Speaker, are not just Democratic priorities. They
are the priorities of the American people. If we fail to enact them by
passing a Labor-HHS-Education conference report that looks anything
like the bill that passed the House in June, of which my chairman
spoke, then we have failed future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution. I expect, however,
it will pass. I do not want to see the government shut down. Nobody on
this floor does. But I do want to see us do our work.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has stayed here the last
two weekends, has told me that no meetings have been scheduled to work
on any of the bills. So that when we go home tonight at some point in
time, apparently no work will be done on Friday, no work done on
Saturday, no work done on Sunday, no work done on Monday; and we will
come back Tuesday at some point in time.
As I said, I will vote against this resolution. But I also want to
urge the majority party, the party that wanted to eliminate the
Department of Education to take education off the chopping block, we
can do better, we should do better, we must do better, and the American
people and our children deserve better.
Let us do, I say to my colleagues of this House, what the voters sent
us here to do and pass the bills that meet their needs and address
their concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) will manage the time previously allocated to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
There was no objection.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a member of the committee and, of
course, also the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is an election year. Unfortunately, most
of the time, the real loser in an election year is the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen the Democrat presidential nominee and the
vice presidential nominee travel all over this country taking credit
for balancing the budget, taking credit for paying down the debt,
taking credit for welfare reform, taking credit for locking up the
Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus.
Yet, the truth of the matter is, when Bill Clinton had a Democrat
Congress, they passed budgets that had deficits as far as the eye could
see. In fact, their budget they passed, the last one they passed in
1994, said that last year we would have over a $200 billion deficit.
Yet now we have surpluses.
In fact, they would lead us to believe that the shutdown of the
Government in 1995 was because the Republican Congress was
intransigent. If we really look at the record, the shutdown in 1995
came when the President shut down the Government because he did not
want a balanced budget. That is what that fight was all about.
[[Page H10404]]
On welfare reform, the President of the United States and most of his
people in the House and the Senate voted against welfare reform. We had
speeches down here in the well of the House accusing us of starving
children and putting children in the grates outside and throwing them
out of their homes. Yet it was a huge success, so now they want to take
credit for it.
The President vetoed welfare reform twice before he finally signed it
a couple of months before his reelection campaign.
Last year, when we decided to stop the 40-year-old Democrat practice
of taking the Social Security surplus and spending it on Big Government
programs, they fought us every step of the way. Yet we did it for the
first time in 40 years and, hopefully, forever more.
This last spring, we said that we were going to do the same with the
Medicare surplus, we were going to stop the Government from spending
the surplus on Big Government programs. And we did it. Now we are
saying that we want to lock up 90 percent of the on-budget surplus and
use it to pay down the debt.
In the last 2 years, we have paid over $354 billion down on the
public debt. We are proposing that next year we pay another, in 1 year,
$240 billion down on the public debt that is on the backs of our
children and our grandchildren. That is responsible.
The minority and this President have fought us every step of the way
while they have taken credit for everything that we have done, and now
they say that we are a ``do nothing'' Congress. ``Do nothing''
Congress? The 106th Congress is one of the most productive Congresses
in recent history.
This is a single-space list of all the wonderful bills that we have
gotten signed by this President dealing with reducing the national
debt, with Social Security and Medicare, strengthening retirement
security, excellence in education, health care, tax fairness, enhancing
the national security of our Nation, protecting families from crimes
and drugs, ending lawsuit abuse, advancing the high-tech agenda. And it
goes on and on and on. That is what we have done.
Now we have reached the end, and we have had to face for 6 years this
event every year. The President submits his budget at the first of the
year, and then we do not hear another word from him until the very end,
and then he wants all this spending.
He has never vetoed a bill because it had too much spending. He has
vetoed bills because they did not have enough spending; and he has drug
it on and on and on, especially this year worse than ever.
Mr. Speaker, we remain here today because some people simply will not
support the principles of fiscal discipline. The House did its job, and
it completed its business. The minority chose not to participate. Some
of the 13 bills we passed in this House we had to pass with only
Republican votes, and we only have a six-vote margin.
Let us remember what happened earlier this year. The leadership of
the other party acknowledged that they had no genuine interest in
working together to advance any sort of bipartisan agenda. Instead,
they resolved to slow down proceedings, drag out the negotiations, and
stall progress. That was their strategy that they started out with this
year.
Why in the world would they adopt such a strategy? Well, in some
unguarded remarks, they admitted that their drive to become the
majority party was predicated on a ``do nothing'' strategy that was
designed to stop anything from happening.
{time} 1600
It was designed to stop anything from happening, and the indictments
that we hear today are indictments on themselves, because they are the
ones that have slowed this process down; will not negotiate. We have
asked the President for the last 2 months to negotiate these bills with
us, and he has chosen not to.
At this point in time, they are holding the bills hostage for issues
that have never passed either body, the House or the Senate, because
they want their way or they will take their ball and go home. If the
President was serious about reaching a reasonable consensus on the
budget, he could rapidly conclude the negotiations by finally answering
a few simple questions. How much spending is enough? How much money
should go for debt reduction? How much money should go for tax relief?
He often claims to support tax relief and debt relief but his actions
do not reflect these goals. Rather, every effort of this
administration, through this budget process, has been to advance his
actual agenda and that is spend the surplus.
Support this continuing resolution and let us get our work done.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the majority whip says the truth has not been told on
this side of the aisle. I beg to differ with my friend, and I certainly
beg to differ with his recitation of history. He relates that the
President has vetoed every one of the bills where they tried to cut
spending. Now, if that is the case then the fact is that nothing they
did on their side has brought us this surplus.
The CBO says that, in fact, the Republican Congresses have added to
the deficit, not cut it. Now I will remind the public that in 1993, the
majority whip stood on this floor and said if we pass the President's
economic program, the deficit is going to soar, unemployment is going
to soar, inflation is going to soar, and the economy will go in the
Dumpster. He was 180 degrees wrong.
In fact, we now have the best economy in the lifetimes of anybody in
this Chamber because of the leadership of this President and the
courage of Members to vote for tough programs, tough spending cuts and
tough revenues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we heard from the majority whip, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). We heard from my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Some of you may be
confused who is correct. Let me just quote, if I can, three editorials
that have been written recently about this Congress. The Washington
Post, October 10, ``The normal role of congressional leadership is to
help pass legislation. The principal role in this Congress has been
instead to block it.''
They go on to say, the Republicans say they have engaged in no more
than normal self-defense. They have lost control of their agenda. They
have tried mainly to give the impression of dealing with issues that it
has systematically finessed. The finessing of them and the blame are
part of what this election is now about.
Roll Call, a newspaper which follows the goings on of the Congress,
had an editorial recently that said, what a mess.
The Baltimore Sun had similar comments about the ineptitude of this
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great moments in American history was the
successful effort to decrease the work week to 40 hours. At the time it
was done, it was considered a radical thing to do, but that is nothing
compared to the work week the majority has given this House: A 16-hour
work week and a 5-day weekend. That is what this is about, and I would
like to take those sheets that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
demonstrated just a second ago, and I would imagine that about half of
that are filled with the naming of post offices all over this country.
This is the fourth CR, continuing resolution, to keep the government
going. We just heard from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) before
he yielded the time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), that
they will not be meeting on Saturday and Sunday. We are 19 days past
the date that the fiscal year began and we have not done our work. They
have only had 3 of the 13 bills that make the government work signed
into law by the President. The rest have not reached him, Mr. Speaker.
So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do
your work. Let me remind you, let me remind you of something, that no
one elected us to work 2- and 3-day weeks. Let me remind you of
something else; that if a policeman or a fireman or an auto worker or a
nurse or any other American can put in a full week's work on the job,
we can as well.
There is not a working man or woman in this country who has a right
to walk away from their job and say, well, I will come back and finish
it
[[Page H10405]]
maybe next week, Tuesday or next week Wednesday, but that is exactly
what the majority is telling us. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we
stop that kind of schedule, and that kind of nonsense. Instead of
passing one stop gap measure after another to keep the government from
shutting down, it is time for all of us to roll up our sleeves, to lock
the doors, to stay here and to do the work of the country.
It is not as if we do not have work to do. The main issues that this
election is being fought on, the issues that the people are responding
to, have not been addressed. Instead of leaving town, we could be
putting together a bipartisan bill on prescription drug care. You are
campaigning on it. You are running ads on it. Let us do something about
it. You are in the leadership. You control what goes on in this body
and in the other body. Bring something forward. Instead of complaining,
going home, putting a sign on the door saying gone fishing or maybe
gone out to the golf tournament there in Manassas, we could be staying
here this weekend and dealing with things like the HMO reform bill. You
are running ads on it. Let us get it done. Or hate crimes, or the
minimum wage. We can find money for the top 1 percent in a tax bill.
The top 1 percent making $319,000 a year under your bill would get
about $46,000 a year. All we are asking is that the 10 million
Americans who go to work every day, who take care of our children, who
take care of our aging parents and who make $5.15 to $6.15 an hour, all
we want is a minimum wage for them and that has gone nowhere.
How about Latino fairness, to give fairness and justice for those who
are here who are doing those jobs I have just described? And what
about, of course, education? We will not leave this floor, we will not
leave this body, until we get what we want in education; and that means
lower class sizes for our children so they can get a better disciplined
education. That means school construction so we do not have faucets
leaking and roofs falling on top of children in schools, and children
learning in mobile units outside the main building. That means as well,
Mr. Speaker, after-school programs so our children have a place to go
so they do not go home to an empty home where temptation leads them to
drugs and alcohol and teen pregnancies and all the other maladies that
flow when there are not people there loving them, teaching them,
mentoring them; an after-school program that we think, when we fund,
can put an additional 1.6 million kids into an after-school program
where they can get that attention.
We are not leaving here until those things are done. These are tough
issues. They deserve our attention. They deserve our time, and I urge
my colleagues to vote no. This is a 5-day CR. We ought to be doing it
one day at a time forcing us to stay in this building.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will manage the time for the
majority.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we did one CR every day that is all we would get
done. We would not have time to do anything else except the CR one day
after another. We would be here until Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the way people deal with
history around here. For more than 40 years this party was the
majority. As recently as 1993 they owned the government. They had the
House; they had the Senate. They had the Presidency and yet they have
the gall to stand up and say what we should be doing about children in
schools. They owned the place. What did they do when they were here? I
will tell you. In 1992 and in 1993, this House was in scandal and when
the Republican majority took over we said we want a third party audit.
It took us 5 years, no question about it. This House now gets a clean
audit from the third party private sector. Do you know why we have a
surplus? It is very simple.
In 1993, they held the House, they held the Senate and they held the
Presidency. They passed the largest tax increase in history, and then
the American people in November of 1994 voted Republicans for the first
time in half a century a majority in the House. And guess what? We did
not spend it.
Now, if you want to know where the surplus came from, they raised
taxes; and we did not spend it. That is how we got the surplus. So if
you listen to these people telling you all of the things that need to
be corrected, with our small majority we passed a prescription drug
provision; we are moving forward on Medicare reforms. And we are making
changes while they are complaining about things they never ever did
when they were in the majority.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) makes an
impassioned statement, but the fact of the matter is almost every
independent analyst agrees that the reason we have the surplus is the
1990 bill for which most of his colleagues did not vote and excoriated
their own President, President Bush, for proposing; the 1993 bill and
then the 1997 bipartisan agreement. So that the gentleman's reading of
history is sorely wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we heard a few minutes ago that truth has
been a victim in this election. I would submit that it has been a
victim today on this floor. The fact of the matter is it was Democrats
and Democrats alone that passed the votes for the President's deficit
reduction program that brought us the first balanced budget in a
generation and now the Federal surpluses that we argue about on this
floor.
That is a good argument to have, but let us not forget that the truth
of the matter is not one Republican in this House, not one Republican
in the Senate, was willing to make the difficult decisions on the
deficit reduction program that President Clinton put forth. I have
never seen how the majority that runs both this House and the other
body can claim that it is the responsibility of the minority to be able
to achieve that for which they control the entire legislative process
of this House and the other body. I do not know where in America the
majority does not run and rule, and the majority in this House is a
Republican majority.
Now we have had the whole year to finish our budgetary work, and we
have not. We Democrats want to stay here and work until we complete the
important business of the people. The real purpose of this continuing
resolution, which by the way is a one-page resolution for which the
date is changed so it is not that complicated to have it on a daily
basis to keep the pressure to make us complete the people's business,
is not to help America's working families; it is to allow Republican
Members to go home and avoid a battle of public opinion they know they
will lose.
Now Governor Bush keeps talking about bipartisanship. Well, I hope he
makes some phone calls here to the House and to the other body where
his party rules, because we want bipartisanship, too; but that does not
mean abdicating our principles and letting one do simply what they
want.
{time} 1615
We believe that we will have bipartisanship, but not at the expense
of reducing class size for our children or giving children the modern
schools they deserve or hiring 100,000 qualified teachers. There are
some battles we are fighting, some principles worth going to the mat to
defend. For me, for Democrats, educating our children and giving our
seniors a secure and decent retirement, are just those kinds of
principles, the right principles for America.
Governor Bush keeps talking about bipartisanship. But look at what
Republicans cannot accomplish when they control both Houses of
Congress. They cannot pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights; they
cannot pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit for all
[[Page H10406]]
seniors; they cannot provide class size reduction legislation for our
children; they cannot pass campaign finance reform to preserve our very
democracy; and that is the failed record, in part, of this Republican
Congress. And they want the presidency too.
If the Republican majority cannot get a budget done at the height of
prosperity, how can you govern when tough decisions have to be made?
To my colleagues on the other side, I say it is time to stop the
delaying and get the work done. Working families need our help now, and
if Republicans cannot provide the leadership to do so, we Democrats are
more than ready to take the reins and get the job done: pass a strong
Patients' Bill of Rights; pass a prescription drug program under
Medicare; pass an education process that raises standards, but helps
reduce class size; modernize our schools and provide for technology
connections; ensure that we pay down this debt over the next 12 years;
and have tax cuts for working families. That is an agenda. If we had
been working together, we could get it done. That is an agenda that
your Members are campaigning upon. That is an agenda we have been
fighting for.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle speak as if they know the facts. I would say that the gentleman
is factually challenged. Let me be specific.
When the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the
Senate, they said not a single Republican voted for their tax increase,
$265 billion in tax increase, $320 billion in new spending. How did
they get the new spending with the tax increase? They stole every dime
out of the Social Security trust fund. Al Gore was the deciding vote on
that, to take the money out of the Social Security trust fund.
Why did we not vote for it? First of all, it increased the tax on
Social Security. That is a fact. It took every dime out of the Social
Security trust fund and put it up here with new taxes for increased
spending. That is a fact. They talked for a year about a targeted
middle class tax cut. The leadership over here demagogued for a year.
``What we want is a targeted middle class tax cut.'' They could not
help themselves, because money in the Federal Government is power to
the Democrats, their ability to rain down money and spend it on their
constituents. And yet they increased the tax on the middle class, that
is a fact, when they had the House, the White House, and the Senate.
Another one of their priorities, they cut the veterans' COLAs. They
cut the military COLAs in 1993. And they ask why we did not vote for
it? I would not vote for it today.
They talk about the minimum wage. Did they pass a minimum wage
increase in 1993 when they had control of the White House, House, and
Senate? Absolutely not. Alan Greenspan said there are three issues
which have stimulated the economy the most: one is the balanced budget,
the other is welfare reform, and the other was capital gains.
Balanced budget, my liberal Democrat leadership fought tooth, hook
and nail against a balanced budget, every single time. Even when we
passed it and the President signed it, the liberal leadership on that
side still fought against it.
Welfare reform, that was vetoed twice, and after the President signed
welfare reform, my liberal friends on that side of the aisle still
fought against welfare reform.
Capital gains, they said, oh, that is a tax break for the rich. Alan
Greenspan says that is what stimulated the economy, along with a
balanced budget, that lowered interest rates and allowed jobs. But yet
my colleagues on that side of the aisle fought against it.
Why did not we vote for the 1993 bill? Because it was anti-economic
progress. It was anti-economic progress, 100 percent.
They talk about school construction. I went to 18 districts 3 weeks
ago. Every district had at least $1 million from their unions put
against our candidates. Why would not they vote for school construction
with Davis-Bacon taken out? Why would not they vote for school
construction and waive Davis-Bacon? I will vote for it if you do. It
saves 35 percent, and we can allow those schools to keep the money that
it takes, the extra, for the union to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, they said we need a living wage.
Ninety-five percent of all construction in this country is done without
the union, and they earn a good wage. But my colleagues get all of
their campaign funds from the liberal trial lawyers, from the unions,
and do you think that they would do that in the name of education?
Absolutely not.
You did not talk about quality of education for 40 years; you just
put more money into it. It was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), the chairman of the committee, that talked of quality
education. Your 100,000 teachers from the last time, half of them were
not even qualified. We had to say if you are going to put those
teachers in, they have to be qualified and the school has got the
flexibility to use the money. If they want technology, if they want
teacher training, if they want class size reduction, we will do that.
But yet my colleagues on that side want government to tell everything.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not have time to correct all the
misstatements of the gentleman from California. Suffice it to say,
however, as he leaves the floor, that from 1981 through 1992, not a
penny was spent in the United States from Social Security, from
anyplace else, that was not approved by Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
Not a penny. Why? Because we never overrode a veto of a spending bill
that asked for more spending of Ronald Reagan. Never.
So the fact of the matter is that it is Presidents who make policy.
We make the laws, I understand that. But in your lament that Bill
Clinton will not sign the bills you want signed, your tax bill of 1998
would have wiped out that surplus that you now so proudly say you want
to pay down the debt with. It has been Bill Clinton and the Democrats
in Congress that have brought us this surplus.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, made the assertion at that
podium that often in an election year the first casualty is truth; and
then, over the course of the next several minutes, he went on to prove
that, at least in some cases, that assertion can be true.
He asserted that a couple of years after President Clinton and Vice
President Gore took office, the budget deficit was still $200 billion.
You can hurt the truth and kill the truth by acts of omission as well
as commission, and that is what happened in that particular case.
What he failed to observe was that when President Clinton and Vice
President Gore came to the White House, the annual budget deficit that
year was almost $300 billion; and so, yes, a couple of years later it
was already reduced by $100 billion, and it was continuing to go down.
He used the phrase ``budget deficits as far as the eye could see.''
That is a phrase that was coined by the Office of Management and
Budget, the Budget Director, of the outgoing Bush Administration, and
the outgoing Bush Administration predicted that under the policies of
former President Bush, that the deficit today would be $445 or $450
billion. That is ``deficits as far as the eye can see.''
Yes, unquestionably, it was in fact the budget resolution of 1993,
added on to the previous one in the Bush Administration, that has
brought this Nation back to fiscal sanity and brought the budget back
into balance, and in fact brought the budget this year into a $211
billion surplus; a $500 billion turnaround in the 8 years that
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been in the White House.
Those are the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the facts today are these: we are fighting now over a
budget here, and the issues are these. You want a tax cut for the
richest people in the country; we want services for the American
people. We want a Patients' Bill of Rights; you do not. We want a
[[Page H10407]]
prescription drug program for people who have to pay for their
prescription drugs out of their pocket; you do not. We want an increase
in the minimum wage; you do not. We want a reasonable and modest middle
class tax cut, which will provide the majority of the benefits to the
working people of this country; you want to give $1 trillion to the
richest people in the country.
Those are the issues upon which we differ, and those are the issues
that need to be decided, and they will not be decided by passing a
continuing resolution. They will only be decided by staying here and
debating these issues, and bringing the bills out on the floor so that
they can get honest and fair votes, and so far you have refused to do
that.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a real fighter. He was a fighter
pilot in Vietnam, and the first ace, having shot down a lot of the
enemy's aircraft. I would like to yield to him to respond, because he
is a fighter; and I think I see a fight developing here.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, no fights, just facts. In 1993, I
mentioned that the Democrats raised Social Security taxes. We did away
with that. They took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund.
Republicans put it into a lockbox. Al Gore was the deciding vote to
take the money. Every budget that Clinton-Gore sent us stole the money
out of the Social Security trust fund. Now he is saying, oh, I want a
Social Security trust fund.
The middle class tax that they increased, we gave it back in a $500
deduction. We gave IRAs for school education. That was a ``tax break
for the rich,'' and the liberals fought against it, tooth, hook and
nail; but we gave it. We gave middle class tax relief.
If you take a look at the veterans' COLAs that they cut, we rescinded
that. We gave back the veterans' COLAs. The military active duty COLAs,
we gave back. Not a single one of the White House budgets or economic
policies have passed either the House or Senate.
So when they claim credit for the economy, the 1993 bill, we
rescinded it, and none of their bills passed since. Those are the
facts.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of one of
our important appropriation subcommittees.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate, and
there are a couple of things that I thought we might want to correct
just for the record here.
There have been speakers on the other side that have talked about how
they are concerned about class size reduction, how they are concerned
about the infrastructure of our schools and making sure that we have
money for that. And we are too. But perhaps the public does not know
that in the conference that has been worked out on the Labor-HHS bill,
there is every single dollar that the President has requested for
classroom size reduction, $1.4 billion, and for new school
construction, $1.3 billion. Every one of those dollars is in there. The
difference, of course, is that in the conference report, it is in a
block grant to the schools.
{time} 1630
Because as we know, in one school district, there may not be a
problem with new school construction. It may be teacher development,
and in another school district, there may not be a problem with class
sizes, it may be a community where the population is shrinking. They
may need to have new computers and renovation.
What we suggest is give the money back to the school districts, to
the local districts, to the teachers, to the parents, to the
administrators to make the decisions about how the dollars will be
spent; but the other side says no, we, here in Washington, the
bureaucracy in Washington, we, in Congress, we will dictate exactly how
you are going to spend those dollars. We know best.
That is the fundamental philosophical difference between the minority
and the majority. We believe that the dollars should go back to the
schools, back to the parents, back to the teachers, back to those who
need it, get into the classrooms.
They believe it should go to the bureaucracy to determine how it will
be spent, and we will direct exactly how those dollars will be spent.
One other point, Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned here earlier that the
only thing different about this CR is the date is changed. Well, there
is another difference, the previous CR did not give the authority to
the administration to write the checks beginning for November 1 for
Social Security benefits and for veterans' benefits and all other
entitlements, but mainly for Social Security and for veterans'
benefits. This continuing resolution does give them that.
Mr. Speaker, a vote against this continuing resolution, make no
mistake about it, a vote against this continuing resolution is a vote
against writing the Social Security checks for the beginning of the
month. It is a vote against the benefits for veterans. It is a vote to
say no, we will not make the payments for veterans or for Social
Security beneficiaries. That is what the vote against this continuing
resolution would do, because it is not the same as the previous
continuing resolution.
So I think those points need to be kept in mind here as we move
forward with this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding me
the additional time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
for making that point on the entitlement checks, because in my opening
comments, I did refer to the entitlement checks that are prepared in
advance. I did not specify that they were Social Security checks. And I
did not specify that they were veterans' checks, but that is, in fact,
what they are. If my colleagues watched television last night, there
was a big program about that. These checks are printed in advance of
the time that they are mailed out, and if we do not give the
administration, the Social Security Administration, ample time to
prepare and print those checks, they will not get delivered on time.
I thank the gentleman for making that point. I think it is essential
that we include, and we did include, in this CR the provision that the
affected agencies could go ahead and prepare those checks and mail them
out so they get in the hands of the Social Security recipients and the
veterans and anyone else entitled to an entitlement check at the
appropriate time, at the beginning of the month.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it the proposition of the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young) if we did not pass this CR and we still
continue another 24 hours, because the CR expires, as the gentleman
said 24 hours from now or 36 hours from now, that the agencies, both
Social Security and the Veterans Administration, would not go ahead
over the next 24 hours or 36 hours and prepare to send out these
checks?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would
respond to the gentleman that that is the reason we put that language
in this continuing resolution. It is there so that there would be no
question they had the authority to do just that.
If the gentleman would like to discuss the 24-hour period CR, we are
not going to be here tomorrow. Many Members of this House are going to
show their respect to the former Governor of Missouri and go to his
funeral tomorrow. So we are not going to be here tomorrow.
Last week we paid tribute to and honored one of our own Members who
had passed way, and we were not here that day either. So we lost those
legislative days, but it was proper and appropriate that we honor the
memory of Congressman Vento. It is certainly proper that we honor the
memory and the service of the Governor of Missouri. The 24 hour CR just
does not work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the gentleman from
[[Page H10408]]
Florida (Chairman Young) has refocused and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) has refocused this debate on exactly what we are debating
about here right now on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before us, which is
H.J. Res. 114, which is designed to keep the government open till
Wednesday. I would prefer to keep it open, even if we cannot come to an
understanding among Republicans and Democrats and people on both sides
of the aisle on appropriation bills. Unfortunately, the Gekas
amendment, to keep the government open under these circumstances, was
defeated in this House earlier this year. Perhaps some of my
colleagues, even on my side of the aisle, might have second thoughts on
the Gekas amendment now that we find ourselves in this predicament.
But notwithstanding that, what we have before us is a measure to keep
the government open through next Wednesday. Now, who could oppose that?
Yes, that is right. What we have here is a situation where people are
opposing that. In order to accomplish what? People are opposing that in
order to accomplish, and I have heard the debate, I hope my colleagues
listened very closely, spending proposal after spending proposal after
spending proposal.
What we have are people who are willing to hold the American people
hostage, even hold Social Security checks and veterans' checks hostage
in order to get more government spending on specific ideas that people
on that side of the aisle support, particular government spending.
All right. We have may have a difference on agreement on priorities.
Republicans may want to spend a little bit less than. Democrats may
want to spend a little bit more. It is not right to hold the American
people hostage under this circumstance.
Let me say one of the issues at hand that the President is demanding
that we put into the Commerce, State and Justice appropriations bill,
he is threatening to veto that bill and close down the government, what
is that issue the President is demanding? It is for us to have an
amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which would again push up
spending in the United States and the spending requirements that we
have.
This is not right. It is not right, number one, to hold us hostage
and to demand things. It is not right to hold the American people
hostage under these circumstances.
We can have honest disagreements here. But the fact is that we have
turned this into a political debate. We have gotten way off course,
because, I am sorry, my friends on the other side of the aisle made
this into a political debate. This is about whether or not we should
keep the government open until Wednesday and not shut it down and not
put our veterans and our Social Security recipients in jeopardy, and
not to hold those things in hostage in order to force us to spend more
money on illegal immigration and all these other spending proposals.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I responded to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
about the need to have the authority for the entitlement checks, and I
did double-check and it was the President's Office of Management and
Budget who advised us that this had to be done, and that is why it is
here
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, one or two points I might make here is
that, quite frankly, the continuing resolution is enough time for us to
try to do our business here if we have not accomplished it. But the
fact of the matter is that this is going through next Wednesday. We
will not be here. They are letting us out of here. There will be no
work done on the issues that we have to focus on until we get back next
Wednesday. So it is really a little bit disingenuous about the amount
of time that we need in order to get business done, when no business
will be done on prescription drugs, on Social Security, on any other
issue that is important to the people in this country.
Secondly, to my good friends across the aisle, quite frankly, the
only people, the only people who have shut this government down, not
once, but twice, have been my colleagues on the Republican side of the
aisle. So that if any one wants to talk about jeopardizing Social
Security or veterans' benefits, take heed my friends, because my
colleagues did it not once, but twice.
But I will just say that here we go again, another week comes,
another weeks goes, and this Republican Congress continues inaction on
a specific issue, I might add, in my view, which is a critical priority
for this country, and that is education.
Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to fashion a bipartisan agenda, where
we invest in our schools and our teachers, reduce class size, increase
accountability and standards, the Republican leadership today is going
to push through another stopgap measure that only preserves the status
quo, the fourth, fourth stopgap measure that the House will consider.
Quite frankly, it ought to be the last.
Instead of working only 2 days a week naming post offices, this
Congress ought to stay here every single day until the work of the
American people is done. My friends, that is what we are paid to do.
That is what we get elected to do in this body, and we should do it, it
is what our obligations are.
Mr. Speaker, the final budget for this year is now 2\1/2\ weeks late.
It did not have to be this way. We could have moved forward by crafting
a bipartisan budget that reflects the values of this great country,
which paid attention to America's number one priority, the education of
our children.
The Republican leadership rejected bipartisan progress. They drafted
a budget that puts tax cuts for the wealthy at the very head of the
line, and they pushed education to the bottom of the list. We are left
with their misplaced priorities. This House has passed $750 billion in
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. They have spent not one dime to
modernize America's crumbling schools, not one dime to hire 100,000 new
teachers to reduce class size, increase discipline and to hold schools
accountable for the results.
The analysis on their tax cut is as follows: 43 percent of their tax
cut goes to the richest 1 percent of the people in this country, that
is folks making an average of about $915,000 a year, and for those
folks, they are going to get $46,000 a year in a tax cut. And by his
own admission, Governor Bush, 2 nights ago, said yes, in fact, that the
tax cut was going to the richest 1 percent of the people in this
country. Yes, in fact, a trillion dollars was coming out of this Social
Security.
Let me just say, it is, in fact, in their own words, we need to do
the people's work in this House; that is what it is about, and we need
to look at what we are doing about education, what we are doing for
retirement security. These folks need to really understand what the
priorities are.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there has been back and forth about who is responsible
for this and who is responsible for that. Unfortunately, we do not have
the time to fully develop those issues. We ought to in the long run.
This is about passing a CR.
Everybody on my side of the aisle has voted for the last three CRs.
They passed overwhelmingly. Keep the government functioning. We ought
to keep the government functioning, but we ought to also, as the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said, do the people's
business.
What this debate is about, Mr. Speaker, is about the fact that we do
not think we are doing the people's business. With all due respect to
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the issue is not the
funeral on Friday of my good and close friend and a great leader of
this country who was tragically lost to us in an airplane crash,
Governor Mel Carnahan, Saturday is available to us, Sunday is available
to us, Monday is available to us, Tuesday is available to us. But we
are not coming back until Tuesday at 6 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, essentially what our side of the aisle is saying,
through the debate on this continuing resolution, is we ought to
address some of the critical issues that had been pending in this House
for 8 months and pending in
[[Page H10409]]
the Senate, pending in the Congress for 8 months. Yes, my colleagues
have heard us talk about prescription drugs. Everybody says they are
for prescription drugs, because we know the costs of drugs is driving
seniors to Draconian choices in their lives.
{time} 1645
But we are not passing a prescription drug bill, we are having a CR
on going home for 5 days. We do not think that is right, Mr. Speaker.
That is what this debate is about.
We talk about a Patients' Bill of Rights, so that HMOs are not
telling doctors and patients what kind of medical care they ought to
get, and that they have access to emergency care and they can make
choices.
The gentleman from Arizona says our educational debate is about who
makes the choices, ``bureaucrats,'' used as an epithet, or the people
at home. The fact of the matter is on the school construction program,
guess what, who makes the choices? The people at home. If they do not
build schools, that is their choice. If they do not want to put on more
classrooms, that is their choice. We do not force them to do anything.
If they do not need teachers and do not hire teachers, we do not force
them to.
Get off my back with this rhetoric that is phony on choices. None of
these programs we are talking about force locals to do anything, and
the gentleman knows it, but he thinks it is good political rhetoric. I
understand that.
This CR is about whether we are going to do the people's business.
That is what this debate is about. I think, as I said, that this CR may
pass. If it does not pass, then we ought to pass a second CR until
Monday night and come back Saturday, after we observe the funeral for
Mel Carnahan, and do our work on Saturday; and yes, go to church Sunday
morning, come here in the afternoon, and do the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is about, not about a CR which
says we have not done our business, and therefore we are going to
continue government in operation until Tuesday night or Wednesday
night. We all agree on that. It is about whether we are going to go
away from here 2\1/2\ weeks after we said we were going to adjourn
without doing the critical business on the public's agenda.
That is what this debate has been about, that is what this discussion
is about; not to look at the past, at what has been done and who is
responsible or who is not. It is about, Mr. Speaker, whether we are
going to pass these critical programs: prescription drugs, campaign
finance reform, education, more teachers, more classrooms, smaller
sizes, particularly for young children, which all the experts say need
specific attention.
If they get it, we will lift them up and make them better students in
the upper grades. We will therefore have a better America and a more
competitive America. That is what this discussion on this CR is about.
I would hope we would defeat this CR, Mr. Speaker. I would hope we
would defeat this CR. Then, Mr. Speaker, because I know the gentleman
is a man of such good will and purpose and responsibility, I would ask
the chairman that we come back on the floor, pass the CR until Monday
night, as the gentleman from Massachusetts wanted to do, come back here
Saturday, do our work, come back here Sunday afternoon, do our work,
come back here Monday, and perhaps be able to leave.
If the gentleman does not agree with the President, fine, send him a
bill. Let him veto it, and criticize him. I do not know why Members do
not send the bills. I have a hunch that they are afraid that the
American public will say he is right and they are wrong, so they do not
send the bills down. I hope this CR is defeated, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, one of our speakers spoke in favor of an automatic CR.
One of the reasons that I have opposed the automatic CR is because it
would deny my friends on the minority side the opportunity to take 2
hours today for their political platform.
I was really happy last week when I heard the minority leader, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), stand in the well and say, we
really ought to cut out all of this partisanship, and we ought to work
together.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what we can do when we work together. I
will have to admit that it is tempting to rejoin the political argument
here. But this is not the place for campaign politics. The place for
campaign politics is back home in our districts, not on the floor of
the people's House, where we are supposed to put the people's business
above politics.
We have talked about appropriators being here or not being here. When
the House leaves, I think everybody ought to know the appropriators do
not necessarily leave. The appropriators in the House on both parties
work really hard. Whether the House is in session or not, the
appropriators that have business before them are here, whether it is a
weekend, whether it is late at night.
I know sometimes our colleagues will say, this was done or that was
done in the dark of night. That is a fact. We do a lot of work in the
dark of night, because if we start here in the morning at 9 o'clock,
and we are still going at midnight or 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning to
get our business done, we are working in the dark of night. If we did
not do that, we would be here until next spring.
We would need a 2-year budget cycle, which I think is probably a good
idea anyway. As the gentleman from Maryland knows, I have supported
that strongly.
But appropriators do not leave Washington just because everyone else
does. There will be appropriators here this weekend working on
finalizing decisions, making decisions, writing the bills, reading the
bills, getting them ready to file.
As I pointed out earlier in my comments on the rule, we only are one-
third of the process here. If we were the entire process, we would have
been done back in July, but we are only one-third of the process. Our
colleagues and friends at the other end of the Capitol are one-third,
and the President of the United States is one-third.
Mr. Speaker, we have a great prosperity in this country today. There
are a lot of people who want to take credit for it. I think that the
confidence that we have created in the industrial community by
balancing the budget is one reason we have a strong prosperity.
Investors are willing to invest because they think that government
might not be on their back as much as it has been in the past, so they
are willing to invest. It creates prosperity. It creates movement in
the economy.
There is another reason. One of my colleagues on the minority side
mentioned it and one of my colleagues on the majority side mentioned
it: welfare reform. I do not think Congress has gotten nearly as much
credit for what welfare reform has contributed to our economy as it
should.
For years, there were families who had been on welfare for
generations. We changed that. We changed it, and we reformed welfare to
the point that we encouraged people to go to work. Mr. Speaker, many
Americans who had been on welfare for all of their lives went to work.
They started to earn money. They were able to buy homes, buy
automobiles. They actually felt good about the fact that they were
working. They were making an income. They were doing something for
their wives and children.
Besides that good feeling, those people for years had been taking
money out of the system. Once they went back to work, they were putting
money back into the system. They paid taxes, like everyone else. They
paid payroll taxes, social security taxes, income taxes. They paid into
the system, so we are getting two for one benefits. They are no longer
taking out, they are putting in, so there is a tremendous economic
advantage to that.
Now, if I might allow myself something that might sound a little
political, I listened to the speeches of both candidates for president.
I was impressed. I watched the Vice President when he made his
acceptance speech at his convention, and on two occasions he mentioned
how he fought for this welfare reform that I think is a major
contributor to our strong economy.
I sat there and scratched my head, because I remember being here in
the House when we passed the welfare reform bill the first time. We
sent it to their administration. They vetoed it.
[[Page H10410]]
Then I remember we came back and fought again to pass welfare reform
legislation. We sent it to the administration, the President and the
Vice President. They vetoed it again.
So we went back to work and wrote it the third time. We sent it to
the administration, the President and the Vice President, and this time
they finally said, we will sign it. We do not like it. They told their
friends who opposed it, we do not really like it, but we are going to
sign it. They did. They signed it.
Then I heard the Vice President in that speech say how he had fought
for welfare reform after his administration had effectively killed it
twice after Congress fought to make it happen, and the third time it
happened.
There are other things that have been mentioned in this debate that
have nothing to do with the CR, that are political issues that are out
there in the presidential debates. I would say to those who make those
arguments, why do they not make them where they belong? They do not
belong on this CR. This CR has nothing to do with what they were
talking about.
Then I would repeat words that I have said and many of my colleagues
have said: Where were they for the last 8 years? They have owned the
administration for 8 years. Where were they? Why did they not do it?
Why did they not get it done during that 8-year period?
That comment has nothing to do with the CR, just like most of the
comments from the minority side have nothing to do with the CR. Mr.
Speaker, let us pass this CR and then get about finishing the few
appropriations matters that still lay out there to be completed.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Continuing
Resolution, the fourth resolution in as many weeks to keep the
government open. I call on Republicans to stop the delays, stop the
obfuscation, and keep Congress in session so we can finish our work. We
must do the people's agenda, and we must do it now.
We are now three weeks beyond the start of the fiscal year, and the
light at the end of the tunnel is still not shining brightly. We do not
meet. We take off days at a time. We spend our time on the floor naming
courthouses, voting on suspension bills.
And the American people are not seeing any results.
Education is America's number one priority. But this Congress has
failed to meet the challenge. Republicans have refused to dedicate
funding to reduce class size and for school construction. They are
unwilling to fund critical priorities so communities can hire more
teachers, improve teacher quality, and provide more after-school
programs. Instead, they support block grants with no accountability
that a single teacher will be hired or a single classroom fixed. They
also let the Elementary and Secondary Education Act expire for the
first time in 35 years because of their extremism.
The time has come to stop the delays, stop the foot-dragging, and act
on the education priorities of the American people. We should not
neglect the people's agenda for personal politics. This Congress should
stay in session and finish our spending work. We should take a first
step to make every public school a great public school.
Democrats want funding dedicated to emergency school repairs; the
bipartisan Johnson-Rangel tax credit to help schools districts on
school construction bonds; funding to hire 100,000 highly-qualified
teachers to reduce class size, and for teacher training and recruitment
and after-school programs that are an essential part of any school
reform.
We are in an Information Age. Every child needs to know how to read
and write. Parents are working more and they are commuting more, and
they have less time for children. And our public schools are not
equipped to fill the breach. What we are asking for is a sensible,
first step toward filling the holes in our education system. And I
believe there is still time to work together, in a bipartisan way, to
meet this challenge.
Let's stop neglecting our work, stop passing these stopgap measures,
and do what any sensible legislative body would do: finish our spending
bills, fund the priorities of our people, and get away from the special
interests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 637, the joint resolution is considered
read for amendment and 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 the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOYER. 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 262,
nays 136, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 539]
YEAS--262
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
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
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--136
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Becerra
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
[[Page H10411]]
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--34
Ackerman
Barcia
Brady (PA)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Forbes
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hansen
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Owens
Oxley
Rodriguez
Rush
Sanchez
Shays
Spratt
Talent
Thompson (MS)
Turner
Weygand
Wise
{time} 1717
Mr. HINOJOSA and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. KLECZKA changed his 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.
Stated for:
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 539 on H.J. Res.
114, I was unavoidably detained, Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________