[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10844-H10849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 115, 116, 117,
118, 119, AND 120, EACH MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 646 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 646
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. 115)
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.
Sec. 2. 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. 116) 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.
Sec. 3. 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. 117) 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.
Sec. 4. 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. 118) 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.
Sec. 5. 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. 119) 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.
Sec. 6. 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. 120) 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 646 is a closed rule providing for
consideration of House Joint Resolutions 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and
120. Each of these joint resolutions makes further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for a period of 1 day.
H. Res. 646 provides for 1 hour of debate on each joint resolution
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 these
joint resolutions. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit on
each joint resolution as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of
the day today and further continuing resolutions are necessary to keep
the government operating while Congress completes consideration of the
remaining appropriations bills. Because the President refuses to sign
any longer duration, the joint resolutions covered by this rule each
simply extend the provisions included in H.J. Res. 109 by one
additional day.
Mr. Speaker, after weeks of hard work, the House now just has three
appropriations conference reports left to pass. However, as we work to
reach agreement over the remaining appropriations bills, we will have
to take valuable time away from our negotiations each day to pass 1-day
continuing resolutions. President Clinton has threatened to veto any
continuing resolution of more than one day's duration, so each day we
must take the appropriators away from negotiations and bring them to
the floor to vote on these 1-day measures.
Mr. Speaker, if that is what the President wants, it is fine with me.
I will come to the floor every day to vote for a continuing resolution
to keep the government running. Like my Republican colleagues, I am
determined to
[[Page H10845]]
pass fair and fiscally responsible appropriations bills. We will stay
here as long as it takes to do the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress is responsible for only two-thirds of the
appropriations process. The executive branch must also do its job to
move the appropriations process along. We would all like to complete
our business and go home, but our principles keep us here, and the
Republican majority is committed to putting people before politics and
passing appropriations bills that reflect the priorities of the
American people.
I hope that the President will join us in our good-faith efforts to
negotiate a fair, bipartisan solution to the disagreements still before
us. I am confident that the fair, clean, continuing resolutions covered
by this rule will give us the time we need to complete the
appropriations process in a thoughtful and judicious manner.
This rule was reported unanimously by the Committee on Rules
yesterday evening, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may
proceed with 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.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my
colleague and my friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of not 1, not
2, not 3, not 4, not 5, but 6 continuing resolutions. Each one ends on
a different day beginning tomorrow and going through Halloween. That
way my Republican colleagues can finish now or they can finish later.
With this rule, they have the continuing resolution they need to, no
matter when they finish, without having to get more rules on the
continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the 13 appropriation bills were supposed to have been
passed and signed into law by October 1. Today only four appropriations
bills have been signed into law, Defense, Military Construction,
Interior and Transportation. There are 5 bills waiting at the White
House: VA-HUD, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, Treasury-Postal
and Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, so in order to keep the Federal Government open, despite
the unfinished business, we must keep passing these continuing
resolutions until the appropriation bills are finally signed into law.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the appropriations bills that are still
outstanding, Labor, Health and Human Services, Commerce Justice State,
Foreign Operations and the District of Columbia, are some of the most
controversial. So these bills are not going to be finished without a
fight, and that might take some time.
But my Republican colleagues continue to move slowly, and in the last
month, the Congress has been in session only a few days a week, and for
many of those days, we have been voting on very noncontroversial
suspension bills.
Instead of renaming post offices, my Republican colleagues should
have been passing real managed care reform. They should have passed the
prescription drug program within Medicare. They should have passed
campaign finance reform, gun safety legislation; but, Mr. Speaker, they
did not. And even Republican Senator McCain said, we are gridlocked by
the special interests.
Democrats, on the other hand, want to help working families. We want
to hire 100,000 new teachers. We want to build new schools and repair
the old ones.
We wanted to help school districts with school construction bonds. We
want to create after-school programs. But my Republican colleagues just
will not let us.
Mr. Speaker, even though my Republican colleagues balk at spending
money on education, they are increasing spending on other items faster
than ever before, even nondefense spending.
{time} 1445
And that increase in spending, Mr. Speaker, is very significant, even
if we account for inflation.
So I think it is time Congress enacted some bills for everyday
Americans. I think it is time we put education first. I think it is
time we finished the appropriation bills instead of stalling for
another week. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule providing for
the six continuing resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members it is not
in order in debate to refer to statements of Senators occurring outside
the Senate Chamber.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
only to offer myself first in line to nominate my friend from
Massachusetts as chairman of the national school board.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who are from the Midwest are familiar with
an insect called the cicada. Now, the cicada is a very fierce bug that
lays dormant for years, but at any given time, they seem to wake up
from their slumber, they make an incredible racket for a very brief
period of time, and then they are gone, they have vanished. Now, how
very much like this Republican Congress are the cicada. It is a
Congress that for 2 long years has been laying flat on its back and
only now is it rising to its feet to give its self-serving speeches.
Now, in the words of Washington Post's editorial, this is an un-
Congress. We have heard of the ``uncola.'' They have called this the
un-Congress. Quote: ``The un-Congress continues neither to work nor
adjourn. For 2 years, it has mainly pretended to deal with the issues
that it has systematically avoided,'' The Washington Post.
Now, is this because, Mr. Speaker, there is no work left to be done?
Granted, our country is in much better shape today than it was under
the last Republican President, but that does not mean that all of
America's problems have been solved.
Just consider education. We know that one of the toughest obstacles
to learning is the fact that too many kids are stuck in overcrowded,
undisciplined schools and classrooms, as the gentleman from
Massachusetts has just made clear. Overcrowding has gotten so bad that
in some schools it is at the point that classes have been held in
converted boiler rooms. We have even heard of roofs caving in on our
students. We should be doing something about that. We have a bill to do
something about that. In fact, there are Republicans that have
sponsored our bill to do something about that. We can pass the Rangel-
Johnson bill. We can have safer and modern schools and, by the way, at
the same time help cut the property taxes at the local level.
But, it seems the Republican leadership would rather complain about
public schools than join with us in helping to fix them. If their
leadership put as much time into crafting solutions as they do in
passing stopgap measures, we could have addressed this issue. We could
have passed the patients' bill of rights. We could have approved a
Medicare prescription drug plan under Medicare. We could have had hate
crimes legislation. We could have raised the minimum wage. All of these
major pieces lie dormant like the cicada after it raises a racket.
So maybe if we could have done these things we could have earned the
right to take some of those extra long weekends we have been enjoying.
But, Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for my colleagues on this side of the
aisle when I say that none of us ran for Congress because we came here
to complain about problems. We came here to help solve them.
If my Republican friends are not willing to roll up their sleeves to
stay here to face those four or five issues, to make sure we have the
education agenda in modern schools, in lower class sizes, in after-
school programs, if they are not willing to do that and they are not
willing to do raising the minimum wage and doing the prescription drug
benefit under Medicare and making HMOs accountable and passing campaign
finance reform, I suggest that they step aside in favor of those who
will.
[[Page H10846]]
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule so that we can raise
these issues in a way that will allow us to have them before us so we
can have something to take back to the American people before this
Congress adjourns.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon reluctantly in support of the
continuing resolutions that we will be passing, but in opposition to
the rule. I would like to speak just briefly about the importance of
understanding the current state of our fiscal affairs.
It is important to understand that these measures that we will be
voting on are very small infinitesimal steps in a significantly larger
process. That larger process is one that has not been very well
explained to the American people. The American people understand or
expect that we are going to have a budget surplus and that we will be
paying down on the debt and that over the next 10 years, that payment
may be as much as $4 trillion. Well, the facts do not really square up
with that, and the action here today really gives us reason to pause.
I would like to start by just pointing out with respect to this chart
that we have had not a surplus, but indeed we have had an increase in
the debt over the last year. The dates here just are from June 30, 1999
to June 30, 2000. We can look and see that the debt went up by $40
billion. Now, compared to what it has been in some other years, this is
really cause to rejoice, but compared to where we think we are, it is
cause for pause, and it is cause to be much more sensible about where
we are going.
In this regard, I would like to emphasize that if we look at the
spending that has been occurring under the current leadership here in
Congress over the last several years, discretionary spending has been
going up at a rate of about 5.5 percent a year. And when we look at the
Social Security system which we should not even consider in calculating
our surplus, and we back out that amount, then we back out this
increase that has occurred and projected into the future, we will have
approximately $350 billion of surplus over the next 10 years.
Now, the point of this brief discussion is that we simply cannot
afford all of the things that our colleagues and the leadership have
been telling us we must do. For example, a $292 billion marriage tax
bill which was misguided, it was not in the budget, it came up before
we even passed a budget. This type of irresponsible legislation is what
is going to put us back into deficit spending, back into the Social
Security trust fund, and I urge my colleagues, as we consider these
continuing resolutions this afternoon, let us be realistic about where
we are going long term and let us make sure that we keep our eye on the
ball and the ball is to pay down on the national debt.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, rightfully so, the Chair admonished me for
using the name of a Senator. I meant to refer to our former House
colleague, John McCain, the former Presidential candidate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up where our colleague, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has left off and actually rise in opposition
to the rule which will give us a series of six 24-hour continuing
resolutions.
According to information, Mr. Speaker, compiled by the House
Committee on the Budget, the Republican leadership is in the process of
busting the spending cap of $600.3 billion that they set earlier this
year. Keep in mind that the Congress has not sent all 13 appropriations
bills to the President yet, but if the present trend continues, the
Republicans are on track to spend $620.5 billion, which means they will
have busted the spending caps that they set by over $20 billion. In
fact, on the nine bills that Congress has agreed upon, the Republican
leadership has agreed to spend over $11 billion more than the President
requested in his budget. Considering the House and Senate have not even
worked out the differences on three of the 13 appropriations bills,
including the huge Labor-HHS-Education bill, this number will only get
significantly larger.
The really sad thing is that, Mr. Speaker, all of this could have
been avoided. The Blue Dog Coalition worked very hard last spring to
develop a viable budget plan and reached out and offered to work with
the Republican leadership to reach a bipartisan agreement that would
receive widespread support on both sides of the aisle.
First, our plan would have locked up 100 percent of the Social
Security surplus for future retirees. It would have set aside 5 percent
of the non-Social Security surplus for debt reduction over the next 10
years; set aside 20 percent of the non-Social Security surplus for tax
cuts, and allowed Federal spending to grow at a rate of 2.5 percent
over last year. However, like last year, Mr. Speaker, the Republican
leadership was not interested in reaching a compromise. They enacted a
completely unrealistic budget that set spending caps on the 13 annual
appropriations bills at levels which assured those caps would be
ignored this fall.
The fact that Congress is now in the 4th week of a new fiscal year
with three of the 13 appropriations bills still not ready for the
President's signature, including one that the Senate has not even
considered, shows how unrealistic their budget was in March. Because
they do not have a sound budget plan, this Republican Congress is on
track to spend more money than any other Congress in history, with an
increase in non-Defense spending of 5.2 percent over last year. I
repeat, an increase in non-Defense spending of 5.2 percent over last
year. This is over twice the rate of spending growth proposed in the
Blue Dog budget.
This orgy of spending is a result of the poor budget decisions made
by the Republican leadership in March of this year. Instead of working
to develop a bipartisan budget plan with responsible tax and spending
priorities, instead of working to develop a bipartisan plan with
responsible priorities, we have passed a budget that made a nice
political statement to a faction within the party with virtually no
chance of being successfully implemented.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that we use back home: you reap
what you sow. When we sowed the seeds that grew into a budget back in
March, the Republican leadership rejected every offer of compromise
from the Blue Dog Coalition. Now it is fall and the crop has failed. We
are 24 days past the end of the fiscal year with the spending caps
destroyed, three appropriations bills left to pass, and no idea how
much more will be spent.
Mr. Speaker, this is fiscally irresponsible, and it is a direct
result of the failure of the Republican leadership to develop a sound
budget plan back in March.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Here we are 25 days after the end of the fiscal year, and we still do
not have all of the appropriations bills passed to keep the government
running. Frankly, that is no way to run a railroad. One would not run
one's business that way, one would not run one's household budget that
way, but here we are.
Some may say, what is wrong with it? Well, what happens when we get
in this predicament is exactly what we see playing out. The back room
deals end up being made out of the light of day and we end up spending
more money than this Congress should spend.
{time} 1500
My friends in the other party always talk about the Democrats as the
big spenders. I want to tell my colleagues those old fables just do not
work anymore.
The truth is this is the fourth year in a row that the Republican-
controlled Congress has passed appropriations bills with higher
discretionary spending outlays than the President requested. By
contrast, the Democratic-controlled Congresses of the Reagan and Bush
years more often than not appropriated less than the President
requested.
[[Page H10847]]
We all talk about this big budget surplus. The presidential
candidates are talking about it, how they want to spend it. The truth
of the matter is this Congress is frittering away that budget surplus.
It may not even be here if we continue along this path.
We talk about a $2.2 trillion on-budget surplus, but it is based on a
whole lot of iffy assumptions. If we continue increased spending at an
annual rate of 5.5 percent as this Congress has done since 1998, we
will wipe out two-thirds of that projected surplus.
Now, to put this in context, just a year ago, the Republicans in
Congress proposed cutting taxes a trillion dollars. Now, I am for
cutting taxes. But the truth of the matter is, if we had passed that
legislation, we would have wiped out the surplus, considering the
increase in spending that this Congress seems intent to do. The problem
that we face today is to pass a budget that preserves our surplus and
ensures our future prosperity.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to continue to talk a few minutes here about the
Nation's financial picture. But before I do, we are now 25 days into
the new fiscal year. Do my colleagues know how many days Congress has
met of those 25? We have sat for 12, only 12 of those days.
At the beginning of the fiscal year this year, on October 1, only two
of 13 appropriation bills had been completed and signed by the
President. Today only four, there are five more waiting, but we are
still three or four away from even having something to negotiate to
send to the President.
Now, if one ran one's business in that manner or if a physician
practiced medicine in that manner, I would suggest that a suit for
malpractice, legislative malpractice would apply. This is not the way
to conduct the Nation's business. It was done and the seeds were sown,
as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) said earlier, back in March
when a political statement was enacted called a budget that was
unrealistic and was never intended to be followed.
We are now in a situation where the Republicans say, well, we have to
stay in session here to keep President Clinton from demanding all of
this money to be spent. If we look at history, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner) just alluded to it, and the Blue Dogs went back and looked
at this when we compiled our budget, over the 12 years Reagan-Bush,
Bush-Quayle, the Democratic-controlled House at that time, part of that
time, of course the Republicans had the Senate, spent less than those
Presidents asked the Congress to spend.
For the last 4 years, the Republican Congress has spent more on
nondefense items than President Clinton has asked for. We now are in a
never-never land 25 days into a new fiscal year with no idea in sight
of how we wind up the business of the country for the previous fiscal
year. We are in a position where the surplus is a projection and the
spending is a fact.
Now, we are going to support a CR to keep the government open. But
this rule is a sham to get by for another 6 days, trying to keep this
ball in the air before the November 7 election day so that no one can
definitively and affirmatively state what this Congress did or did not
do. I have been here 12 years. This is as poor a way to run the
Nation's business as I have witnessed in those 12 years.
Yesterday or 2 days ago, we were not only not consulted, we are told
2 days ago there is a tax package out there, and the leadership is
going to brief the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate about what is in it.
We are supposed to be a legislative body. I tell my colleagues, the
country needs to know that whatever may happen November 7, this
situation is not the way to conduct their business in a responsible
manner.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying at home, the proof
of the pudding is in the eating. Well, take a good look at what we are
talking about today. We continue to hear a lot of rhetoric from the
other side of the aisle about Republicans standing up to big spending
demands of the President and Democrats in Congress.
Before my colleagues point fingers about big spenders, they should
take a good look in the mirror or better yet at the record. Eight of
the nine appropriation bills that Congress has passed so far this year
and sent to the President would spend more than the President has
requested.
The nine bills Congress has sent to the President would result in
$11.4 billion in outlays above the President's request. This is the
chart. According to estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, the
nine appropriation bills that this Congress, under Republican majority,
has sent to the President would spend $498.6 billion, $11.4 billion
more than the $487.1 billion requested by the President on those bills.
I do not know how my Republican colleagues can continue to honestly
explain that Democrats are big spenders for asking for $5 billion in
additional spending for education when they have already voted for
appropriation bills spending $11 billion more than the President has
requested.
According to one rather prominent Republican who has been a leader in
fighting against pork barrel spending, the nine appropriation bills
that Congress has sent to the President contain $21 billion in programs
and projects which he identified as low priority, unnecessary or
wasteful spending for programs and projects that have not been
appropriately reviewed in the normal merit-based prioritization process
of the Congress.
I do not understand how voting to increase spending by $21 billion on
programs that some have identified as pork is acceptable, but asking
for $5 billion more for education makes someone a big wasteful spender.
Everyone who voted for the rule on the Foreign Operations conference
report earlier today voted to increase total spending by $13.3 billion
in budget authority and $8.3 billion in outlays above the President.
Let me repeat that. If my colleagues voted for the rule on the Foreign
Operations bill, they voted to increase spending substantially above
the amount requested by the President. No Member who voted for that
rule can honestly continue to claim that the President is responsible
for increased spending.
According to the bipartisan Concord Coalition, if discretionary
spending continues to increase at the same rate it has over the last 3
years under Republican Congress for the next 10 years, nearly two-
thirds of the projected $2.3 billion on-budget surplus everybody has
been talking about will be wiped out.
I will again say to any of my colleagues on this side, if they wish
to challenge me on anything I am saying as to the accuracy and
authenticity of what I am saying, I will yield to them.
By contrast, discretionary spending increased by just 1.2 percent,
the rate of inflation, under Democratic Congresses after the budget was
created.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman's chart of the
President's request include the additional demands he is making upon
closing this process or only his original requests?
Mr. STENHOLM. The original requests, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LINDER. Which does not include the coverage for fires in the
West, for example.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LINDER. And did not include the coverage, the additional programs
and spending he asked for right now at the end of the process.
Mr. STENHOLM. The numbers in our chart represent the original
Republican requests, the original President's request, and the Blue Dog
request that we have begged and pleaded with those of you on the other
side to agree with us on numbers that we could stand together.
If we are so concerned about the President's request for spending,
why
[[Page H10848]]
did my colleagues never at one time, their leadership, ever come to the
Blue Dogs and say we accept your numbers which is between the President
and you.
So the point of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is well taken
except I think my point still stands. We are spending more because my
colleagues have voted for it. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
point he is making because it is a valid point and is one which more
people need to understand. But the finger pointing needs to stop. It
needs to stop.
The problem is not today with the Budget Act, as some would say. The
problem is with a leadership in this House that has made the budget
process irrelevant by proposing unrealistic budgets, refusing to work
in a bipartisan manner on a realistic budget that would have held down
spending to less than what the President has requested. That is the
problem.
As I said this morning, I have no quarrel with the Committee on
Appropriations, and I see the chairman here and the ranking member. I
have no problem here. Mine is with the process and the finger pointing
that has gotten into the political process, which it is ridiculous.
The problem is with the leadership of this House. We now absolutely
can show big spending originates in the House. Presidents do not spend
money. Congress spends money. We are in the minority. I am in the
minority. I am a part of the minority party. We cannot be responsible.
The majority has to assume that responsibility.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to inform
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and me how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 27\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
the time.
Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just said
is exactly on point. My friend Archie the cockroach said once that what
happens to men or to mankind is not determined by the system that they
have. He says, what happens to mankind is determined by what they do
with whatever system they happen to have in hand. I think that is the
case with the budget resolution.
As the gentleman from Texas has said, the problem we are facing now
is not due to defects in the budget resolution, per se, although it
certainly has some giant ones. The problem is that the budget
resolutions have been used to deceive the American people about the
true intention of this Congress for over 10 months. They have been used
to deceive the American people about what is intended, what is
affordable, and what is doable under that resolution.
Because those resolutions have been so deceptive, that is what has
enabled the majority to pretend that there was enough room within their
spending caps to provide the tax package that they tried to pass over
the last 10 months. Most of the benefits in that tax package went to
those in this society who were already the most comfortable and the
most blessed.
Now we have the chickens coming home to roost time. We have just seen
the passage of a provision in the previous bill which admits that the
fiction that this Congress is going to spend only $600 billion this
year on discretionary spending was a giant public fib.
So now we have proceeded to pass a number of bills, and we are down
to two of them. The main issue that divides us on those two remaining
appropriation bills is education. As the gentleman from Texas says, we
are now being told that, after this Congress has exceeded the
President's request on a number of those appropriation bills, after we
have seen large amounts of money, $19 billion above last year put into
the military budget, and, again, I find that amusing because the
majority party said that there was not enough in that budget for
readiness. Then they cut the readiness portion of the defense budget by
$1.4 billion, either 1.4 or 1.6, I have forgotten which, in order to
make room for congressional projects.
Now we are told, after we have done all of that, that there is not
room in the inn to meet the President's budget request on reduced class
size so that teachers are teaching classes rather than zoos.
{time} 1515
We are told there is not enough room in the inn to train teachers,
even though we are going to need well more than a million new teachers
because so many are close to retirement nationally.
We are told there is no room in the inn to have a significant school
modernization construction program. We have a $125 billion backlog in
the need for school reconstruction in this country. The President is
asking us to support a proposal that pays for less than 20 percent, and
we are being told by the majority there is no room in the inn.
Well, I have to tell my colleagues something. There is no room in the
schools, and we are going to have more than a million additional
children attending our public schools and we are not ready for that
challenge. We are not ready in terms of buildings, we are not ready in
terms of technology, we are not ready in terms of teacher training. One
out of every 10 teachers in this country is not qualified to teach the
subject that they are teaching. We are certainly not meeting our
responsibilities with respect to either Pell Grants so that we measure
up to our pretense that we are providing equal opportunity for people
to attend college, and we are certainly not meeting our obligations
with respect to special education. I believe we are only spending about
17 percent, or at the 17 percent level in terms of the requirements in
order to meet the mandates sent down by the Federal Government.
So now we are here having to pass these day-after-day CRs because the
majority refuses to meet our national needs in education, after we have
seen so much money poured into other bills. That is our problem. That
is what needs to change if we want to go home.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205,
nays 191, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 551]
YEAS--205
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
[[Page H10849]]
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
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--191
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)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--36
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Collins
Danner
Delahunt
Ehrlich
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Klink
Largent
Lazio
Maloney (CT)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Mollohan
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Shadegg
Slaughter
Stabenow
Stupak
Talent
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1537
Messrs. MURTHA, FARR of California, and EDWARDS changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
Stated for:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote. Had I
been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the
rules and pass H. Res. 646 (rollcall No. 551).
____________________