[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10849-H10856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up 
the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 115) making further continuing 
appropriations for the 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 the joint resolution is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 115

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 106-275, is further amended by striking the date 
     specified in section 106(c) and inserting ``October 26, 
     2000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 646, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 115 is a continuing resolution, and it 
continues the funding of our Government for one day until midnight 
tomorrow night.
  I am not sure that is the smartest way to go. I think that, with the 
progress that we are making now, that we could probably be finished by 
Friday or Saturday. I would have preferred to have introduced a 
resolution to go to at least Saturday. However, the President of the 
United States has told us that he would only sign CR's for one day at a 
time. And, of course, that is his prerogative. He is the President and 
he has the veto pen; and unless we have a two-thirds vote to override 
him, he prevails. And so, he prevails in this case, and we have a 1-day 
CR. If we do not finish our business tomorrow, we will have another 1-
day CR.
  Where we are on the progress of our bills is, after having passed the 
Foreign Operations appropriations conference report today, there are 
only two outstanding conference reports, one of which we intend to file 
tonight, that is the District of Columbia appropriations bill along 
with the Commerce, State, Justice bill. And then the one remaining bill 
is the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill, which we 
hope to be able to file by tomorrow night and move to consideration of 
it Friday or Saturday.
  Then we will have completed our appropriations process. All this CR 
does is extend the continuation of the Government from midnight tonight 
to midnight tomorrow night.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say I want to thank the President of the 
United States for insisting that this continuing resolution be for only 
24 hours and that we operate with these 24-hour resolutions from now 
on.
  And the reason is simple. Most of the discussion right now is over 
the fact that the Republican leadership refuses to move on the 
Democratic education initiatives that include funding for school 
modernization and also for more teachers and more money that goes back 
to the local towns and school districts to hire more teachers. I just 
want to say how important those initiatives are.
  In the State of New Jersey, we rely mostly for our school funding on 
local property taxes; and increasingly we find that the towns are 
unable to afford more money for educational purposes. And so, what we 
have is that the class sizes continue to rise; the school buildings, in 
many cases, do not receive the necessary repairs; we have overcrowding 
where we cannot even in a lot of the school districts build a new 
school because we do not have the money.
  So when the Democrats talk about an initiative that allows these 
towns to have more money to hire teachers, to reduce class size, or to 
pay for school modernization or for new schools, these are real 
problems, these are real issues that affect people every day and affect

[[Page H10850]]

children in New Jersey and throughout the country every day.

                              {time}  1545

  The bottom line is the Republican leadership talks about the need for 
discipline in the classroom. How are we going to have discipline in the 
classroom if we have a class that has 25, 30, or even 40 students? If 
we give money back to the school districts to hire more teachers, they 
can reduce the class size. I think the President's suggestion is down 
to 18 students at the elementary level. That means better discipline in 
the classroom, better learning opportunities for these kids in the 
public schools.
  And the same thing goes for the school modernization initiative. How 
can they learn if they are in a building that is falling apart? I have 
been to school districts in my district where the roof was collapsing. 
Or in other situations where they have to have two shifts and kids go 
to school starting at 7:00 in the morning to noon and then 12:00 noon 
to 5 o'clock, or something like that.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are talking about something that is real 
here. This is not pie in the sky. All we are saying is that we have the 
money now, let us make it available for these towns, because it helps 
with their property taxes. But most importantly, it helps with these 
kids and their lives.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Am I 
correct that if we passed the initiative that we have been hoping to 
pass on making sure that we have more classrooms and more teachers to 
bring class sizes down and have safe and clean, healthy schools to 
teach in, am I correct that if a local subdivision did not want to have 
more teachers, or did not want to do any school construction, that this 
legislation would not force them to do anything? Am I correct?
  Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, so it would be the local school board's 
choice, the local citizens' choice whether or not to utilize these 
resources.
  Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, if I could say to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the money for both classroom size reduction and 
for school construction has been included in the conference report 
since July 27. It is fully available under title VI of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. Under this title the school district, if 
it decides it does not need the money for school construction, can use 
the money for other purposes like teacher training or equipping 
classrooms with technology and computers.
  So there should be no dispute about the money being available. The 
dispute is about whether money is to be mandated by Washington to be 
spent for a particular purpose, or whether the local school district 
and the parents in that school district will decide the use for that 
money. The money is there; there has never been a dispute about the 
money. There is a dispute about Washington control or about local 
decision-making. We favor local decision-making.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman, as 
he knows, and for all that he has done in his capacity as chairman of 
the subcommittee. But I think there is a serious issue here about 
whether the money really is available in the sense that what has been 
proposed, from what I understand from the Republican leadership, is 
that this is more in the nature of a block grant and it is not 
necessarily the case the way the language is now that this money would 
be available for these purposes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that the way it is structured, not only $1.3 billion would be 
available for school construction, $2.7 billion would be available for 
that purpose. Or the $2.7 billion would be available for classroom size 
reduction. In other words, we are not straitjacketing the process; we 
are giving flexibility so that the schools can decide their needs 
themselves. That is the way it should be done, in my judgment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, I think 
there is a serious question about that and whether or not the money 
would actually flow to the school districts. I understand the gentleman 
disagrees.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee, my friend; but I would 
nonetheless like to set the record straight, because I view this issue 
quite differently than does he.
  He says that the argument is not about availability of money. He says 
the argument is simply about whether or not we are going to have 
Federal dictation to local school districts or whether they are going 
to have some flexibility.
  I would point out one simple fact: 93 percent of all of the money 
that is spent by every school district in the country, on average, is 
raised and spent in accordance with State and local wishes. That hardly 
sounds to me like Federal dictation. It is true that what we are trying 
to do on this side of the aisle is to assure that the other 7 percent 
is focused on what we regard to be critical national priorities. One of 
those priorities is school construction. Another is teacher training. A 
third is class size.
  We happen to believe that the research shows that children do a 
better job of learning if the classes are small enough so that teachers 
can have, from time to time, control of the classroom in which they are 
teaching and have some close personal relationship with those students.
  We also happen to believe that children do better if they are not in 
schools that are falling down. There is a $125 billion backlog on 
school construction in this country. The President is trying to fashion 
a program which meets at least 20 percent of that need, and we make no 
apology in trying to focus that 7 percent of Federal funds that we 
provide on those items.
  The third point I would make is simply this. With respect to class 
size, lest anyone in this Chamber believe that there is not a large 
degree of flexibility for local school districts, let me point out the 
following: school districts now have flexibility to spend up to 25 
percent of the funds on training, existing teachers, testing new 
teachers, and providing high-quality professional development to ensure 
that all teachers have the knowledge and schools to teach effectively.
  So if school districts have already reached the class size target at 
18, they are free to move a significant portion of their funds to 
teacher training, as the majority demanded last year.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that we here in 
Washington know that reduced class sizes are better for kids to learn, 
and we here in Washington know that kids should not have to go to 
school in dilapidated classrooms. What makes the gentleman think that 
the local school board does not know those same things? What makes him 
think that we have to tell them how to spend their money?
  It seems to me that the argument that since 93 percent of the money 
is raised locally, we ought to be able to dictate how our 7 percent is 
used simply goes against the genius of public education in our country. 
The secret is not Washington control, it is local control. That is what 
we have done for 200 years in America, and it seems to me that we can 
trust them to make these decisions. They have made a lot of good 
decisions.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, taking back my time, I would simply say the 
gentleman has asked why is it that local school districts do not 
recognize these same priorities. The fact is that they do, and that is 
why they are asking us to pass these programs. Take a look and see 
which educational organizations have supported these programs: the PTA, 
right on down.

[[Page H10851]]

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that the gentleman get some 
time from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I would be happy to 
continue this exchange, but I prefer that some of it be on his time.
  But let me simply complete my thought. Directing that 7 percent of 
the education money that is spent in this country be spent on national 
priorities is not what I call running roughshod over local control. 
What we are saying is they control 93 percent of the funds. Spend it 
any way they want. But if they want us to use taxpayers' dollars at the 
Federal level, we want them used for areas that we know by research 
work, and in areas that have an extra problem.
  We know that the average school in this country is 43 years old. Some 
of them are so old we cannot even wire them anymore for modern 
technology. We ought to be helping to change that, instead of 
obstructing the efforts of the President to do something about it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has just clearly defined our differences. We believe that 
education decisions can be made at the local level, and we are willing 
to give not the President's level of $1.3 billion, but $2.7 billion. If 
local school districts want to use it for school construction, they 
can. We believe that they can make these decisions without Washington 
direction.
  The flexibility that we believe in and the control that they believe 
in clearly defines the differences between our two parties in this 
area. That is the way it is. We understand it. We accept it. We think 
that they are wrong; and obviously, they think that we are wrong.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have had this argument in our committee 
before, and I ask the gentleman why then does he not believe that all 
the education money that we appropriate in his bill should not be 
simply block granted? Let me give a specific example.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what makes the gentleman 
think that I do not believe that?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if he does, that is fine. Why does he not 
propose that?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I will say to the 
gentleman that we have made every effort, for example, to put money 
into special education for disabled children. Now, that is an account 
that is a Federal mandate. We know that that money has to be spent. The 
more money that we put into that account, while it obviously helps that 
situation and that need, it also frees up other money that has had to 
be spent in that account for other purposes and allows the local school 
district to decide where those funds can best be used.
  So, yes. Are we for more flexibility? Absolutely. That is what we 
believe in.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
understand his premise. We have, for instance, billions of dollars in 
our bill for Head Start. Is it the gentleman's position that we ought 
to make that flexible so that if a community locally decides that they 
do not need a Head Start program in that community, they can use those 
dollars for something else?
  Mr. PORTER. That is not an education program. That is an HHS program. 
It is a Federal program. It is not administered by the schools.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter), my distinguished friend and chairman of the subcommittee, 
that in some instances he is correct. In Prince George's County, the 
Head Start program is administered by the school system and they can 
use Head Start money only for Head Start. They do not have the 
flexibility, I tell my friend, to put that money in other places.
  Now, why is that? Why is that? Because 435 of us have been elected by 
the people of the United States to make policy, to make judgments, to 
establish priorities. I have full respect for State legislators. I was 
in the State legislature for 12 years, president of the Senate for my 
last 4. I respect the members of the State Senate. I respect my county 
council and my county executive.
  But, Mr. Speaker, they were not elected to decide how we spend 
Federal tax revenues. As a matter of fact, we had a revenue-sharing 
program that most on that side of the aisle voted to repeal, as I 
recall. This is in effect what the gentleman from Illinois is talking 
about, a revenue-sharing program.
  I believe, as the gentleman from New Jersey believes, that there is a 
critical problem in America: A, there is a shortage of teachers; B, 
there is a shortage of classrooms and we have crowded classrooms. Now, 
it may not exist in every school system. So what I believe, and what 
the President believes, is because we have identified a problem, the 
gentleman is correct, it may not exist in every school system. We are 
providing a program to respond to that problem.
  Now, those who represent school districts that think that the 
teacher-pupil ratio is perfect, that the school buildings do not need 
rehabilitation, they do not need help with school bonding, then fine. 
They do not have to take the money. But we have identified as Federal 
legislators a need, and we are prepared to take the responsibility for 
appropriating funds to solve that problem.

                              {time}  1600

  That is where the gentleman and I disagree. He places it in a context 
that I think is not the premise that I adopted. I am not for 
controlling the local system. What I am for doing is establishing a 
Federal policy which says that we need to have small classrooms so that 
we can educate our children to be competitive in a world-class economy. 
I think that is essentially what we are trying to do.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly the same thing. The 
money is there. In fact, more money is there for construction, for 
classroom size reduction. We simply provide flexibility as to how that 
money will be used.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not 
correct. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, why you are not correct. What 
you do is you take a sum of money and you distribute that by formula 
pursuant to title VI to every school system in America that may or may 
not have this particular problem that I think I have identified, my 
constituents have identified; and what you have turned it into is a 
revenue-sharing program to be disseminated. Some jurisdictions, 
frankly, are going to get a paltry sum.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is the administration asked for $1.3 billion in 
renovation funds. They asked for $1.75 billion for class size. You 
merged that into a block grant. They asked for $3 billion. You gave 
them $2.7 and block granted it.
  We have seen from the way you use the community service block grants 
and other programs that the first step on your side of the aisle is 
always to block grant funds. Then, after you block granted it so you do 
not have to take the heat for individual program cuts, then you cut the 
guts out of them in the second and third years. That is what has 
happened time and time again in social service programs, and we are not 
going to fall for it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is one of the leading experts in this 
Congress on the issue of education and funding for education.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleague from 
Wisconsin that there was already $365 million in the education block 
grant. The total for all activities including class size reduction and 
school renovations is $3.1 billion. I would also say to my friend from 
Maryland that his example of Head Start is an example of a federal

[[Page H10852]]

program that does not exist under the Department of Education. It may 
be that school districts apply to the Department of Health and Human 
Services or the State of Maryland. But clearly that is not an example 
of what we are trying to do in providing greater flexibility in these 
accounts.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from Illinois, my point was, 
A, that the money in Head Start is in our bill. I said in our bill. I 
understand it is not in the education title because it is administered 
under HHS. It happens to be run by the education department in my 
county, and about one-quarter of the Head Start programs, as the 
gentleman knows, in America are under the education departments. Three-
quarters are not.
  My point was that the Head Start money is money that is identified 
for a particular program. I tell my friend from Illinois that we made a 
determination that children from at-risk homes needed a special start, 
a head start. It is a program Ronald Reagan said worked.
  We, therefore, at the Federal level made a determination that we were 
going to, in our case, make billions of dollars available, but for this 
purpose, because we have made, as a Federal legislative body, a 
determination of a need.
  My point to you, sir, is that I believe that we have made on our side 
of the aisle a similar determination that there is a classroom shortage 
in America, that there are crowded classrooms in America, and that we 
have a teacher shortage in America as a result of having more students 
in our schools than any time in our history.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I understand the gentleman from Maryland's discussion about a 
specific Federal purpose like the Head Start Program or a specific 
Federal purpose like school construction or a specific Federal purpose 
like reducing the size of classrooms for teachers. But in this 
particular instance, there are specific needs that this money can fill.
  For example, in the school district in Somerset County, where 
Crisfield students go to high school, there is no new construction that 
is needed. There are no new teachers needed, because classroom sizes 
are already small and getting smaller because the community is reducing 
in size. What is desperately needed in that poor, lower shore 
community, where salaries are very low, is some technology. So this 
particular program as distributed across the country can help in school 
class size, school construction, but in that community specifically 
these dollars spent by the local school district can help in the arena 
of enhancing those teachers, in training, technology, and computers.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Un-Congress, as ``The Washington Post'' now calls 
us, will approve now its fifth continuing resolution, and with it the 
Federal Government will stay open for an additional 24 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support, of course, this resolution, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same. It finally focuses on doing work. For as 
every one of us knew when we approved the fourth continuing resolution 
just 6 days ago, not much was going to be done in the 5 days that we 
lost. We knew it would take a measure such as this.
  As ``The Washington Post'' again stated, ``The un-Congress continues 
neither to work nor to adjourn. For 2 years, it has mainly pretended to 
deal with issues that it has systematically avoided.''
  This Congress has avoided a real patients' bill of rights, it has 
avoided a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit, it has avoided 
campaign finance reform, and now, of course, it seeks to avoid, I tell 
my friend from Maryland, the Democratic initiatives on class size 
reduction and school modernization.
  It seeks instead to simply parcel out very small sums of money to 
everybody in America, and perhaps solve no problem, because the monies 
that everybody will receive will be too small to accomplish any one 
objective.
  The mother of all budget train wrecks, those irresponsible and 
decisive government shutdowns in 1995, Mr. Speaker, has morphed this 
year into the eerily quiet derailment. After 6 years of Republican 
leadership, our budget process is in a shambles. It is unnecessarily 
contentious, it is often disingenuous. And I want to make it clear, as 
I have made it clear on each one of the four previous continuing 
resolutions, this is not the fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), a distinguished, able, effective and very honest chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations, who does this institution credit in 
his leadership.
  I believe it has contributed to the growing cynicism in our country 
towards the legislative process. While our budget debate need not 
degenerate into intransigence, the GOP's approach, in my opinion, over 
the last 6 years has made such an outcome inevitable.
  The majority has adopted unrealistic budget resolutions in each of 
the last 3 years. That is why we are here today, because the budget 
resolution was unreasonable. And guess what we did just a few hours 
ago? We changed the budget caps. Why? Because they were not working.
  In some years, including this one, House and Senate Republicans have 
been unable to reach agreement even among themselves, Mr. Speaker, as 
you know, and, although I do not want to put words in your mouth, I am 
sure you lament as well.
  Just 2 years ago, Congress failed to enact a budget for the first 
time in 24 years, since the adoption of the 1974 Budget Act. And I will 
say to my friends on the majority side of the aisle, that budget could 
have been adopted without a single Democratic vote. It was not. Both 
Houses are controlled by the majority party, and they did not adopt a 
budget.
  Republicans have loaded up spending bills with legislative riders 
that, frankly, have no place on appropriation bills. As Chairman Young 
said recently, ``the thing that is holding us up are the non-
appropriation issues that should have been taken care of in authorizing 
committees.''
  Finally, Republicans have proposed spending cuts that even ardent 
conservatives could not long have lived with. My good friend the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of our 
Committee on the Budget, how quickly they forget, released a report on 
Monday that debunks the myth of big spending Democrats. I want to have 
my majority party friends hear this. In fact, domestic appropriations 
have risen faster when the House is controlled by Republicans.
  I will just let that sink in a while, because it is contrary, of 
course, to what you argue out on the hustings.
  So while I urge my colleagues to vote for this continuing resolution, 
Mr. Speaker, and to complete this year's budget, I lament the fact that 
again we are hung up at the end of a session because of our 
unwillingness in the majority to confront the educational needs of 
America's children and America's families.
  We have been discussing the difference, and the difference is the 
identification of a critical need in America, that of more classrooms. 
Why? Because we have more children in school than at any time in our 
history. And we know that we have a teacher shortage, a quality teacher 
shortage; and what we seek to do is expand upon the availability of 
classrooms and of teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the majority party to take a hard look at our 
process. No reasonable person, in my view, can conclude that this is 
the way this great institution ought to be run. Even Senator Phil Gramm 
commented in the morning's Post, ``I think the budget process has been 
destroyed; and I think, unfortunately, Republicans have been heavily 
numbered among the assassins.'' So said Phil Gramm.
  Mr. Speaker, we can and should do better. Let us come to agreement on 
providing more classrooms and more teachers for our children.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind

[[Page H10853]]

Members that it is not in order in debate to refer to statements of 
Senators occurring outside the Senate Chamber.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, as good a friendship as I have with 
my friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I would strongly 
disagree with the statement that he made that the Republican majority 
has not done well for education. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) pointed out very effectively that we have actually provided 
more funding this year alone than the President asked for. The only 
difference is the great debate over who is going to control the funds, 
who is going to make the decision on what the needs are, back in my 
congressional district or in his congressional district, a bureaucrat 
in Washington, or the locally elected school board back home in our 
districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats controlled this House for 
40 years, and what have we ended up with? This Nation, with all its 
resources, last in math and science of all the industrialized nations; 
last in literacy. Our schools are crumbling, and they need help. But 
what have they done? They have catered to the trial lawyers and the 
unions to rip off our school system. And I want to be specific.
  They talk about school construction. Waive Davis-Bacon. It costs 
between 15 to 35 percent, depending on what State, to build schools, 
because Federal dollars have to fall under the prevailing wage. They 
say, well, we want a living wage. Ninety percent of all the 
construction in this country are nonunion, and they earn a living wage. 
And, guess what? Minority contractors have a good chance at the jobs, 
where they do not with the unions.
  We can build schools. Let us not take that money away from the 
schools. Let us let the schools keep it. Do they want more 
construction, do they want teacher training, or whatever? But my 
colleagues on the other side, because they get most of their campaign 
money out of the unions, will not cross the unions.
  Secondly, my colleague from Wisconsin says that 93 percent of the 
money is controlled by State and local, and 7 percent Federal.

                              {time}  1615

  That is the way it is supposed to work. Just look at IDEA and special 
education. Look at the requirements in the D.C. bill; we capped the 
amount that liberal trial lawyers could take out of special education, 
Alan Bernstein's number one problem in San Diego, the superintendent of 
schools.
  But yet my colleagues wanted to pay off for the liberal trial lawyers 
and oppose it. Luckily, the Senate saw through in the conference. Guess 
what? The city was able to hire 123 special-needs teachers. Democrats 
wanted to control it. We said no, let the local district do it.
  When I was chairman of the authorization committee, 16 programs came 
forward from different areas. Every one of them had the absolute best 
program in the world. And after the hearing, I said, which one of you 
have any one of the other 15 in your district? None of them. That is 
the whole point.
  We want to give it directly to the schools so that the teachers, the 
parents, and the local administrators can make those decisions. My 
colleagues want Federal control of everything.
  Another good example was Goals 2000. There are 14 ``wills'' in that 
bill, which means you will do it. They say it is voluntary. Well, it is 
only voluntary if you want the money. One of those wills you had to 
establish another board to see if you comply with Goals 2000. It then 
went to your school board. It then went to the principal; it then went 
to the superintendent.
  Think about it, all the schools in California sending all of that 
paperwork to Sacramento and the bureaucracy it takes. Then where did it 
go? It came back here to the Department of Education.
  Think of all the schools in the United States sending all of that 
paperwork and bureaucracy and, of course, there was paperwork going 
back. That is why we only get 48 cents out of a dollar to the 
classroom.
  That is what my colleagues on the other side want to continue to do 
is have government control of education. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a 
difference, in the two parties.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
for his sacrifices in trying to work through the difficult details of 
the bill.
  If my colleagues listened to the last several speakers who came 
before us, claiming this is a do-nothing Congress, as if all of this 
slow-down of bill passage is our fault, well, if my colleagues listened 
to the other side of the aisle, this Chamber and this government would 
be financially insolvent if they had their way.
  No rhyme or reason, no restrictions on spending. Our projects, our 
way or the highway. I voted for Patients' Bill of Rights. I have voted 
for hate crimes. I voted for a number of issues that are not considered 
traditional Republican issues, but I have yet to see my colleagues on 
the Democratic side of the aisle want to come to conclusion on any of 
those bills.
  Minimum wage, let us not pass it, let us just use it for campaign 
issue; and then they come down to the floor here today, and assume some 
way, we, as the Republican majority, are holding up the will of the 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I personally believe we are exemplifying the will of the 
people by trying to bring some restraint and establish priorities and 
focus Federal resources.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, despite the stump 
speeches, domestic spending has risen at the behest of the Republican 
leadership. Amen to that. We are finally putting our money in domestic 
accounts for the people of the United States who are the taxpayers. No 
longer are we willing to waste away money on international expeditions, 
finding ways to send money to every nation that never votes with us at 
the U.N. treaties or any other instances.
  Again, I hope that the Members of this Congress will applaud and 
appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and 
I hope they will come together and end the rhetoric.
  Yes, it is almost election day; and we know we are all tense and 
ready to leave, but our government is better for the debate and the 
negotiations that have occurred. If the President is willing to 
negotiate with us on some of these final outstanding issues, we will be 
gone. Do not look to us and blame us for all of this slow-down.
  I think a lot of it is occurring on the other side of the aisle, and 
they should take equal credit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think to understand our concern about today people 
need to understand what the record was yesterday. And if my colleagues 
take a look at what our Republican friends in the majority have tried 
to do on education since the day that they took over control of this 
Chamber 6 years ago, my colleagues will see the following:
  Over that 6-year period, they tried to cut the President's budget 
request for education by a total of over $13 billion.
  They shut down the government twice to try to force the President to 
buy their priorities which included the elimination of the Department 
of Education.
  They will claim, well, you are just talking about cuts in the 
increase, you are not talking about cuts in actual spending levels.
  I have two responses to that. First of all, we will have a million 
more children in our schools, and so any budget that does not provide 
increases for education each year, in fact, results in less dollars 
being spent on every child each year, and that is not a way to promote 
educational quality.
  My second point is that even if you only measure the cuts, which our 
Republican friends tried to make in preexisting spending levels, you 
will find that they, on four occasions in the last 6 years, they tried 
to cut education spending below the amount that was being spent at the 
time to the tune of more than $5.5 billion.

[[Page H10854]]

  After we went through all of the arguments, we wound up, because of 
pressure from the White House and pressure from the Democratic side of 
the aisle, we wound up restoring some $15.5 billion to those education 
budgets. That is the track record.
  I was amused when I saw the Republican leadership yesterday in a 
media event brag about the fact that they should be trusted on 
education, because they had increased spending on education by over 50 
percent since they had taken control of the House. That is true, but 
only after you shut down the government twice to try to avoid doing 
that, only after you tried to cut $5.5 billion below existing spending 
levels.
  The only reason that spending for education has risen by 50 percent 
over the last 6 years is because we made you do it. I find it ironic 
that you are now taking credit for the fact that you were beaten in 
previous years. That is an interesting trick, but the numbers that I am 
giving you happen to be true.
  Mr. Speaker, the record will bear them out.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following three charts 
demonstrating what I have just said:

  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION CUTS BELOW PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              House              Percent
           Fiscal year             Request    level   House cut    cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Labor-HHS--Education.......    25,804    20,797     -5,007      -19
1997 Labor-HHS--Education.......    25,561    22,756     -2,805      -11
1998 Labor-HHS--Education.......    29,522    29,331       -191       -1
1999 Labor-HHS--Education.......    31,185    30,523       -662       -2
2000 Labor-HHS--Education.......    34,712    33,321     -1,391       -4
2001 Labor-HHS--Education.......    40,095    37,142     -2,953       -7
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total FY 96 to FY 01........   186,879   173,870    -13,009       -7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Discretionary Funding--Minority Staff, House Appropriations
  Committee.


  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION APPROPRIATION CUTS COMPARED TO
                              PREVIOUS YEAR
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Prior    House     House
                 Fiscal year                    year    level      cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 Rescission.............................   25,074   23,440    -1,635
1996 Labor-HHS--Education...................   25,074   20,797    -4,277
1997 Labor-HHS--Education...................   22,810   22,756       -54
2000 Labor-HHS--Education...................   33,520   33,321      -199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Discretionary Funding--Minority Staff, House Appropriations
  Committee.


    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--EDUCATION FUNDING RESTORED BY DEMOCRATS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                House      Conf                  Percent
         Fiscal year            level   agreement  Restoration  increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 Rescission.............    23,440     24,497      1,057           5
1996 Labor-HHS--Education...    20,797     22,810      2,013          10
1997 Labor-HHS--Education...    22,756     26,324      3,568          16
1998 Labor-HHS--Education...    29,331     29,741        410           1
1999 Labor-HHS--Education...    30,523     33,149      2,626           9
2000 Labor-HHS--Education...    33,321     35,703      2,382           7
2001 Labor-HHS--Education...    37,142     40,751      3,609          10
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total FY 95 to FY 01....   197,310    212,975     15,665           8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Discretionary Funding--Minority Staff, House Appropriations
  Committee.

  Now, we are down to the last days of this Congress, I hope, and we 
have essentially two issues remaining, one involves what are we going 
to do with the issues of class size and teacher training and Pell 
grants and special education. Are we going to meet our responsibilities 
there?
  We have seen billions of dollars go into other appropriations bills. 
Now we are told, oh, you have to be tight on this one. So that is one 
education issue remaining.
  The other issue is whether or not we are going to sufficiently 
respond to the President's request on school construction.
  What has been missing from this debate so far on that side of the 
aisle is the recognition that there are two construction pieces which 
the administration is trying to achieve. The first is the small $1.3 
billion renovation package which we are trying to get in the Labor, 
Health Education appropriation bill, and the second is the bonding 
assistance that the administration is trying to get, either by running 
it through this bill or by running it through the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the bonding authority which they are trying to get so that they 
can help by the expenditure of $2.5 billion of Federal money over a 
multiyear period so that they can leverage the construction of $25 
billion in additional new school facilities, modern school facilities.
  As I said before, to put that in context, the demonstrated need for 
the country is $125 billion. So that basically is what we find at issue 
on education as we try to reach agreement.
  We are here because we have seen the succession of week-long 
continuing resolutions, and as a result of that, the Congress has moved 
along in a leisurely fashion, most Members being able to go home 5 days 
a week; the negotiators on the Committee on Appropriations being stuck 
here most of the time around the clock, 7 days a week.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been home to my district exactly 2 days since 
Labor Day, and that is why I have told people I feel like a fugitive on 
a chain gang.
  I would hope that we will be able to reach closure on these issues. 
Until we do, we have no choice but to approve the continuing resolution 
before us, but I would urge in the meantime that we have additional 
flexibility on the majority side when it comes to the school 
construction issue, because that, in my view, is the issue that has to 
be resolved before we are going to be able to put together the rest of 
the pieces on education and get out of here in time to at least say 
hello to the constituents that we all thought we would be greeting and 
meeting with and talking with for the last 3 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I had been prepared to just yield back my time early on 
during this debate, because the issue before us is simply a 1-day 
extension of the continuing resolution, but so many things have been 
developed during this debate that I feel tempted to respond to each and 
every one of them, but I am not going to do that. But I feel tempted.
  I understand the position of the minority. I served in the minority 
for a lot of years, as did many of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle. We were not all here for 40 years, but for those who have been 
here nearly that long, we served in the minority almost the whole time 
we have been here, so we understand the frustrations.
  But when we became the majority party and I became chairman of one of 
our subcommittees on appropriations, I was determined that the minority 
would have access to every bit of information, would have the 
opportunity to have input on every subject coming before that 
subcommittee, and I think any member of that subcommittee on either 
side would concede that and confirm the fact that that is how we 
function.
  When I became chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, one of the 
first instructions I laid down to the Members and the staff that the 
minority would be included in all of our deliberations, and I believe 
they would admit to that at the staff level and the Member level.
  We have met with each other off and on most of the year, and then as 
we got toward the end of the process, we began meeting with the 
President's representatives, and both parties were involved in all of 
those meetings. Even at that we understand the frustration of the 
minority.
  We tried to be as responsible as we could and as generous as we could 
in trying to reach consensus and trying to reach bipartisan agreements.

                              {time}  1630

  And we have reached a lot of bipartisan agreements. But there is a 
lot of political rhetoric occurring now, because we are rapidly 
approaching Election Day.
  One of the things that got my attention was the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's statement that the Republicans shut down the government. 
Well, that conclusion is the result of masterful and effective spin-
mastering. The Republicans did not shut down the government; the 
Republicans passed the appropriations bills, they sent them to the 
Clinton-Gore administration, they vetoed them, and when they vetoed 
them, the government shut down for a couple of days. The Republicans 
sent the appropriations bills to the President. We did our job. He 
vetoed them. Until we were able to come back and rewrite the bills, the 
government was closed for a short period of time.
  Now, there are two major issues that have been developed here today. 
There are those who spoke and complained that the budget really was not 
high enough, that we were not doing enough spending. I say to those 
people who believe that, they are true to their conviction. They really 
believe that there should be more government spending,

[[Page H10855]]

that there should be more government involvement. And while I might 
disagree with them, I do not question their sincerity, and I do not 
question their motivation for standing for what they believe.
  But there are others who say, well, we are spending too much. Mr. 
Speaker, my colleagues will remember, as I remember, that all through 
this appropriations process we spent hour after hour, day after day, 
week after week on appropriations bills dealing with amendments from 
the minority side to increase spending, to increase the amount of money 
in those appropriations bills. Yet some of the people, not all, but 
some of the Members on that side who voted for all of those amendments 
now complain that we are spending too much money. We really cannot have 
it both ways. We cannot vote for every amendment to increase and vote 
against any amendment that would reduce and still stand up and say, 
with a clear conscience, we spent too much money.
  There is another reason that it has taken some time to conclude this 
process. This is because we have included all sides, Republicans and 
Democrats in the House and in the Senate, and the White House. There is 
also another reason. We had a few years ago a real disaster, in my 
opinion. Under our watch, we had an omnibus bill that included about 
eight appropriations bills. We put all of those eight bills together, 
and the leadership sat down with the White House and we negotiated 
them. We came out with an omnibus appropriations bill. I do not think 
many people today still know what was in that bill.
  We have not done that this year. We have resisted that. We have gone 
one bill at a time. The House has had an ample opportunity to deal with 
every bill specifically and independently, and we passed all 13 of our 
bills through the House early in the process. Now, we slowed down a 
little when the other body did not get around to taking up some of 
their bills; but nevertheless, we found a way to deal with that, and we 
attached one of the bills they had not passed to one of the bills that 
we had passed. And probably tomorrow, we will do the same thing again.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no omnibus appropriations bill being developed 
this year. We in the House have dealt with each and every one of the 
bills. That takes a little time, because instead of having one large 
negotiation taking place, we had 13 small negotiations that, by the 
way, all developed into pretty big ones. So it took a little more time.
  Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are not here to campaign. The political 
rhetoric that we hear from time to time on the floor, especially on 
appropriations bills, is not what we are here for. We are here to do 
the people's business. The campaigning should be on the campaign trail. 
I listened to the minority leader last week make what I thought was an 
excellent speech where he appealed to us and said, let us work 
together, let us be bipartisan, let us do the best we can to get our 
job done for what is best for the American people. I liked that speech 
and I complimented him right after he made the speech on the floor, in 
public. But then so much campaign rhetoric followed. I know that he was 
sincere, but I just believe that some of the people on his side were 
not listening to his appeal.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to deal with a 1-day continuing resolution. 
I just ask that the Members vote for this CR so we can get about the 
rest of our business today and the rest of the week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 646, 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. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 9, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 552]

                               YEAS--395

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

[[Page H10856]]


     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--9

     Baird
     Barton
     Capuano
     Costello
     DeFazio
     Ford
     Kaptur
     Miller, George
     Visclosky

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bonilla
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Collins
     Combest
     Danner
     Delahunt
     Engel
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Klink
     Largent
     Lazio
     Maloney (CT)
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Owens
     Peterson (PA)
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Stupak
     Talent
     Waxman
     Wise

                              {time}  1656

  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.

                          ____________________