[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.
____________________