[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1507-H1515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 83, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2002
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, with a
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree
to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Spratt moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con.
Res. 83 be instructed, within the scope of the conference:
(1) to increase the funding for education in the House
resolution to provide for the maximum feasible funding;
(2) to provide that the costs of coverage for prescription
drugs under Medicare not be taken from the surplus of the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
(3) to increase the funding provided for Medicare
prescription drug coverage to the level set by the Senate
amendment; and
(4) to insist that the on-budget surplus set forth in the
resolution for any fiscal year not be less than the surplus
of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal
year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXII, the proponent of the motion
and a member of the other party each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
explain the motion.
Mr. Speaker, this motion has four purposes. First of all, it says to
the conferees on the budget resolution, go as close as they can to what
the Senate provided for education.
Basically, the House resolution endorses and puts forth the
President's budget. The President's budget provides an increase in
education next year, fiscal year 2002, of 5.8 percent. That is an
increase, but it pales in comparison with last year where the increase
was 18 percent and the last 5 years over which the increase in
education has averaged 13 percent.
The Senate, given a choice, a choice we did not have here on the
House
[[Page H1508]]
floor, between a higher tax cut and less for education, opted to do
more for education on four different occasions. As a consequence, their
plus-up for education over and above the President's baseline budget is
nearly $300 billion. We are simply saying go as far as they feasibly
can toward the Senate on education.
Secondly, with respect to Medicare, and in particular with respect to
Medicare prescription drugs, the President's proposal again was to put
$147 billion out for the next 10 years to provide for a temporary
helping-hand benefit and eventually to have some kind of benefit
possibly integrated with Medicare. Over 10 years the amount he provided
for this purpose was $147 billion, but when that proposal came from the
House and to the Senate, Members in both bodies said it is totally
unrealistic. It will not even get Medicare prescription drugs off the
ground.
The Senate, once again, had a choice. They had an amendment on the
Senate floor. The Senate plussed-up its allocation for Medicare
prescription drugs to $300 billion, a minimum amount that is realistic
to provide for a decent benefit.
We say go to the Senate, be realistic, be faithful to their
commitments about providing prescription drug coverage under Medicare;
provide the full amount that the Senate allocates in its budget
resolution.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we say with respect to funding that new
benefit, this money should not come out of the Medicare part A trust
fund. It is already obligated, over-obligated, scheduled to run short
of funds in the second decade of this century. Rather than putting
another obligation on funds that are already short and over-obligated,
we think that the funding for the Medicare prescription drug benefit
should come from the general fund of the Treasury and not from the
hospital insurance trust fund of Medicare.
That is what this budget resolution provides. Take the money out of
the general fund to pay for Medicare prescription benefits so that the
HI trust fund is not made insolvent any sooner.
Finally, we say as to the HI trust fund, the hospital insurance trust
fund generally, protect it. Go to the language that we passed here on
the House floor, where we said that Medicare should be treated just the
same as the Social Security surpluses; that is to say, it will be used
only for benefits provided under those two programs, and in the
meantime to buy up outstanding debt in which the trust fund surpluses
will be invested.
This is not an idle concern. The President's budget came to us
claiming that it had unprecedented reserve funds or contingency funds.
In one place it says it is providing a contingency fund of a $1.2
trillion. Towards the end, that contingency fund is whittled down to
$842 billion. When one looks more closely at the $842 billion, they
find that of that amount $526 billion comes from the consolidation of
what is left over with what is in the surplus, the surplus accumulating
and the HI trust fund. Those two numbers add up to $842 billion.
{time} 1715
We say that the contingency fund should not include the Medicare
trust funds. In keeping with the resolution that this House passed by
an overwhelming margin, that money should be confined exclusively to
Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, these are the four principles that we raise in our
motion to the conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition and yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is good to have the opportunity to
discuss some of the budget issues with the gentleman from South
Carolina. I would have thought over the last couple of weeks some
issues would have resolved themselves, but we find ourselves debating
some of the same issues that we were debating prior to the Easter
recess. It is good to engage in these discussions again.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman's motion to instruct
conferees to some extent is asking for the second bite of the apple.
What could not be won on the floor as an alternative is being requested
as a motion to instruct. I have to reluctantly oppose the instruction.
Most are noncontroversial. Certainly motions to conferees are
nonbinding on the conferees themselves. It gives an opportunity for
Members to make a few points that they would like to make, and I
certainly respect that opportunity; but let us go through the motion to
instruct conferees.
First, to increase the funding for education in the House resolution
to provide for maximum feasible funding. I do not think that there is
much controversy there. If Members of Congress had the opportunity to
hold meetings such as I did, for example I held a youth summit in
Dubuque, Iowa, to talk about education and met with special educators,
people involved in special education, people involved in college
education and higher education, early childhood education, reading,
teacher training, administrators, principals, they all tell us anything
we can do to improve education in this country is something that we
should go back to Washington and get working on. Certainly one of the
areas where we can help in education is to increase funding. That is
why we made those increases, 11 percent; and we will hold to those. We
will cheerfully continue to support those major increases in funding
for education.
Mr. Speaker, certainly people say we can do more. I might add in that
chorus. While we added $1.25 billion in special education in this
resolution, I personally, as well as professionally, know we should do
more; but this fits within a balanced budget and a balanced approach
towards making sure that our kids have the best education possible.
Number two says to provide that the cost of coverage for prescription
drugs under Medicare not be taken from the surplus in Medicare.
What we are saying is even though we collect taxes to provide for a
Medicare benefit, you cannot use those tax dollars to either modernize
Medicare or provide a prescription drug benefit. I do not think I
understand.
We ask the American people for their hard-earned money to pay for a
Medicare benefit; and then we say even though there are some obvious
reforms, we cannot use the surplus to reform Medicare or modernize
Medicare or provide a prescription drug benefit, we have to find money
elsewhere, which is a little bit suspicious because we know our friends
on the other side do not support tax relief, and it is probably a
juxtaposition of tax relief versus Medicare benefits when all of us
know that we can provide those benefits from the surplus in Medicare as
well as possibly adding additional funds as necessary.
It does not all have to come from the HI Trust Fund. We have made
that very clear within our budget. We certainly do believe and we all
voted on that as I believe one of the first resolutions of this year
that we were going to lock away that money for Medicare and allow it
for modernization and for adding the prescription drug benefits. So
number two flies in the face of what the House has already done.
On three, it says to increase the funding provided for Medicare
prescription drug benefit to the amount set by the Senate. I am not
going to presuppose or prenegotiate this item today, but I think that
is probably something that is at least a reasonable request. I think we
had that debate on the floor here. While the President's proposal was
153, it probably is going to be scored slightly more than that; and,
therefore, we may have to make an adjustment there. So number three is
not that controversial.
Number four says to insist that the on-budget surplus set forth in
the resolution for any fiscal year not be less than the surplus of the
HI Trust Fund for that fiscal year. I think again this goes back to
number two. What this is basically saying is that we are presupposing
that you cannot use the trust fund that we collect the taxes from for
Medicare in order to modernize or provide a prescription drug benefit
for Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, two and four are really the controversy. One and three,
I think, are easily supported or at least certainly not controversial
on both sides.
Mr. Speaker, I would oppose the instruction for those two reasons. We
should be able to, as we have already voted almost unanimously in this
House in a bipartisan way, be able to provide the surplus from Medicare
to
[[Page H1509]]
provide a prescription drug benefit as well as to modernize Medicare.
Those funds should be available. Since they are paid for Medicare, they
should be allowed to modernize Medicare and improve Medicare and
provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare.
Therefore, I believe it would not be a good idea for us to instruct
our conferees just now appointed to hold that kind of position as we
begin our negotiations with the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, just in response, what we are trying to do here is make
a decision as to which is better. The Senate had a choice. They could
do more for tax cuts and less for education, or more for education and
less for tax cuts. They decided to do substantially more for education.
By the same token, they decided to adequately fund a Medicare
prescription drug benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) to talk about double counting and
overobligation of the Medicare Trust Fund.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, and in particular the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget, I just returned from my district where I
had a number of town meetings with my constituents. We talked about the
budget, and we talked about the budget not just being a 1-year budget,
but the decisions we might make this year would have implications far
beyond the next fiscal year, implications far beyond the next 10 fiscal
years.
What we are saying with respect to the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund, the Medicare Trust Fund, is it is not so simple that we can
take that money today and spend it on something else and not have to
make it up later. My colleague from Iowa uses the do-not-worry, be-
happy defense, that we can add prescription drug benefits using this
money, we can modernize Medicare and use this money, and it will all
work out in the wash. But the fact is that it will not work out in the
wash because the money that you want to use, the trust fund money, is
already obligated. It is already obligated to pay Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the demand on that money is not
declining, it is increasing as America ages. It is interesting because
my colleagues some years back, in fact my first year in the House when
we went through all of the debates over the budget and whether we were
going to cut Medicare or not, and the Speaker of the House at that time
said we needed to cut Medicare in order to save it because the trust
fund was going bankrupt; and yet today the Republican Party has brought
a budget to the floor that would in fact shorten that trust fund,
shorten the life span of that trust fund after all of the work we have
gone to to extend the life span of that trust fund.
Legally and logically it is not correct that you can take Medicare
Trust Fund moneys and spend them on anything, whether it is
prescription drugs or highways or Howitzers or whatever. Those moneys
are obligated to the beneficiaries currently and those in the future
who will enjoy the benefits of the inpatient hospital trust fund.
Mr. Speaker, all we are saying is let us use some honest bookkeeping
and set those funds aside. If we do not do that, what we are going to
end up with in this budget, not just in fiscal year 2002, but for many
years to come, is a budget which is borrow and spend. We are going to
spend today, and then we are going to borrow tomorrow much deeper than
we would otherwise.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and also thank the gentleman for the instruction to the conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I want to understand the message. I think I heard the
gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, say
that one of these points he had some problem with. I do not know why my
colleagues would have any problem with any of the points.
First of all, we are trying to make sure that we have a minimal
amount of moneys, and that is the same amount that the Senate put for
Medicare. We are trying to make sure that at least that amount of
money, which has been recognized by both Republicans and Democrats, on
this floor as well as in the Senate bicamerally, that the 147 was an
insufficient number, and that $300 billion is closer.
Mr. Speaker, so first, it is to make sure that we have adequate
amounts of money for prescription drugs. Is that what we are trying to
achieve?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is
correct.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know anyone in the House who
would disagree with that. The Republicans say maybe they will do it.
The second one, there was a resolution at the beginning of the
session that said we will not take any moneys out of the Social
Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Trust Fund; so we are simply saying
those dollars should not be financed out of the Medicare Trust Fund.
The Medicare Trust Fund, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen)
said, has already been pledged. It has been obligated. You cannot
obligate it two and three times.
Mr. Speaker, is that the second point?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is
correct.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, why should the Republicans disagree with
that? We are on record as saying we do not want to raid the Medicare
Trust Fund, and this simply says it cannot be raided to pay for the
additional moneys needed for prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for putting
forward a very practical and a very consistent bill. I must say I wish
we had more money for education. I wish we would go all of the way to
where the Senate is. The second point is to go as close as possible to
the Senate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
for a very practical motion to instruct, and I hope all of my
colleagues vote for the motion to instruct.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for
his work all along, and for bringing up these instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the House-passed budget is really full of irresponsible
tax cuts and fuzzy math; and it should be adjusted to match closely
what has been reached in compromise in the other body.
As a teacher, I am particularly disappointed that the budget
resolution fails to deal adequately with the many urgent needs for our
children in public education. At a time when more is demanded of our
schools through higher standards, annual assessments, ``increased
accountability'' is the phrase we are using this year, we risk failing
too many children by not providing greater resources to turn around
low-performing schools.
Mr. Speaker, the House-passed mark falls short of providing adequate
help for teacher training, recruitment, for school construction and
modernization, for meeting Federal obligations to assist local schools
in providing excellent education for students with special needs. The
average age of public schools in this country is 40 years old. We have
to get the students and their facilities into the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, estimates are quite clear that we will need 2.2 million
new teachers over the next 10 years to keep up with attrition. This is
not even to get smaller class sizes; this is just to keep up.
{time} 1730
Too often, I hear stories of teachers with history degrees teaching
science and math because the schools have trouble finding qualified
teachers. Having spent a year on the National Commission on the
Teaching of Mathematics and Science, the John Glenn Commission, I have
offered a bill to help schools recruit and retain qualified science and
math teachers.
Mr. Speaker, we have to do that. The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget said a few moments ago that they have provided, at the
President's
[[Page H1510]]
request, an 11 percent increase in education spending. No, it is about
half that; it is 5.8 percent. The total increase in the President's
budget, as in the House-approved budget, would not cover even half of
the cost of meeting our needs in special education, of meeting our
obligation, our Federal obligation to assist the local schools with
special education.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the motion to
instruct conferees.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I would like to engage the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget and perhaps also the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott) in a discussion of the situation we are facing with
respect to the Medicare Part A Trust Fund.
We have had for some years in this body, although sometimes the
political rhetoric would not indicate it, an agreement between the
parties that the Social Security Trust Fund ought to be off limits,
that we ought not to be using the Social Security surplus to cut taxes
or to increase spending or for any other purpose, other than to reduce
the debt and ensure the future of Social Security, to make certain that
those benefits will be there when the baby boomers retire, when that
program's cash flow reverses.
I would like to ask my colleagues if there is any principled reason
why we should treat the Medicare Trust Fund any differently from the
Social Security Trust Fund. If anything, the Medicare Trust Fund is
facing even more severe problems, even earlier than we face with Social
Security.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Trust Fund is currently slated
to become insolvent in 2028 or 2029. Social Security, fortunately,
could last until 2038, 2039, for 10 more years. So the Medicare Trust
Fund is intended, for the same reason, to sequester these funds, to
confine them for use for Medicare; and we have reached certainly an
accord on both sides of the aisle, both Houses and the White House as
to Social Security, and I think the same logic applies to Medicare. It
is not an idle concern.
We have a handout, if anyone cares to see it, and they will see that
under the House resolution, as early as 2005 by our calculation, that
resolution will take us back into the Medicare Trust Fund. The Senate
resolution is even worse. By our calculation, in 2002 the Senate
resolution would lead us into the trust fund to the tune of $11
billion, that soon, and we will be invading the trust fund in Medicare
again.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are
at present running a slight surplus in Medicare, but the Medicare Trust
Fund is accumulating assets which we will need to draw on later. If we,
instead, take those funds and use them for prescription drug benefits,
as badly as that is needed, would that not reduce our ability to meet
our basic Medicare obligations, the prescription benefit aside?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, that is
the very point we are trying to make. The fund as it is is
overobligated from beneficiary expectations, so we are simply saying,
do not overload another obligation on top of a fund that is already
short of meeting its scheduled obligations.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, having sat on the Medicare Commission for
a year and looked at the future of Medicare, and having realized that
beginning in 2010, we are going to double the number of people on
Medicare as the baby boomers move into that stage of their life, we
cannot realistically argue against putting money in advance of that big
deficit that is coming. Even more important, it is taken out of
people's paychecks under the HI, the health insurance. If that money is
not used for Medicare, it is breaking the trust with the workers who
put it in.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time. I want to also thank him for all of his work
on our behalf as the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
We all recognize that we have an urgent national need in this country
to make a greater investment in our education system so that we can
help a greater number of our children succeed within that system. I had
the honor and the pleasure of meeting with President Bush before he was
sworn in to talk with him and a number of our colleagues about
education reform in this country. We talked about the things that
needed to be done: to make schools more accountable, to make teachers
more accountable, to improve the professional development of teachers,
to make sure that we could direct the resources, as he said, to the
poorest children in the poorest performing schools. But we also said in
that meeting that it was very clear that those things would not happen
unless we had the resources that were necessary to provide those
schools the quality education that we all want.
I had an opportunity to meet several other times with him and with
Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords and with the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and again we talked about the kinds of reforms and the
results that this President genuinely wants. We said again, Mr.
President, if we are going to have testing and we are going to require
all of the States to go about this, we are going to have to provide the
resources. We are going to provide the resources so that, in fact, it
can be done in the right way, not in the wrong way, not in a way that
is harmful.
If we are really going to help these children and we are going to get
qualified teachers in front of them on a daily basis, we are going to
have to improve the quality of these teachers. It is going to take
resources. He assured us that he recognized that and he understood
that.
Now, when I see the budget, I am deeply disappointed, because a
decision was made here between the times of those meetings and the
times of this budget that those resources would be put off into the tax
cut. Now we find that the amount of the tax cut that goes to the
richest 1 percent of the people in this country is 13 times the amount
we would spend on education in this budget, 13 times the amount on the
richest 1 percent, and yet we have a huge number of children who are
not getting access to a decent, first-class education, who are not
having the kinds of reforms that the President wants, that I want, and
that many of my colleagues in the Congress want, will not bring about
the results that we want, that every parent wants for their child in
the American education system.
Mr. Speaker, we urgently need these resources. We urgently need these
resources because our schools are educating more children now than at
any time in our history. They are educating more children with English
as a second language, children with disabilities. These are expensive
items, and we owe these children an education, and we have to make sure
that they have an opportunity to participate in it.
That is not what this budget does. It is not an 11 percent increase,
as is well documented by the minority on the Committee on the Budget
and our committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We
are talking about a 5 percent increase. We are talking about the
smallest increase in many years, and that is simply not adequate to get
the results that the President says he wants and to get them for the
children that he has quite properly focused on in his discussion of
education, the children that are in most need of these resources so
that they can get the same access to an education that children get in
the wealthier schools and in the middle-class schools. But we cannot do
it on this budget. We cannot do it on this budget.
This budget suggests that we are going to try to get first-class,
world-
[[Page H1511]]
class standards in education attainment on behalf of America's
children, but we are going to do it on the cheap, and that would be a
horrible mistake, because that will lock us into another 5 years of
spending without getting the results that the taxpayers deserve and
that the children deserve in terms of their educational opportunity.
So I commend the gentleman for the motion to instruct, to say that we
should move toward the figures that the Senate has talked about and has
suggested in their budget resolution, figures that will, in fact,
provide us the kind of resources that are necessary for special
education, for Title I, for English as a second language, so that we
can hire the 100,000 counselors that are necessary, so that we can
finish hiring the 100,000 teachers that have allowed us to reduce class
sizes. Those are the urgent needs of the American education system, but
they cannot be met in this budget without going with the numbers that
are suggested in the motion to instruct.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
read the motion to instruct to the gentleman from California when he is
referring to numbers in the motion to instruct: ``To increase the
funding for education in the House resolution to provide for maximum
feasible funding.''
Now, the gentleman from California is a Member of the House who
stands behind no one when it comes to his advocacy of education and
education funding and for our students. He is a friend, he is someone
who has always tried to responsibly put forward reforms and proposals
on education. But to suggest that this motion to instruct somehow
provides more money than what the House resolution provided is just
simply not the case.
Let me review with the gentleman from California and others what is
in the budget that has been passed that we are defending here today.
The House-passed budget accommodates not only the President's ``no
child left behind'' education reform, which links dollars to
accountability. Simply throwing more money at the programs will not
make them better. The gentleman from California even testified to that
fact before me and the Committee on the Budget. It increases elementary
and secondary education funding by 10 percent. It triples funding for
reading programs. It improves by increasing IDEA by $1.25 billion to
ensure that every child, particularly children with special needs, have
access to the best possible education. It increases education savings
accounts from $500 to $5,000 and makes them available not only for
their original intent, but expands them to K through 12 education. It
provides a full tax exemption to students using qualified prepaid
tuition for college, and it provides $60 million to help older children
in foster care transition to adulthood, including providing vouchers to
cover tuition and vocational training costs.
Now, the gentleman says that we do not really have, if we take this
out and we move this over and we minus this off the top, it is not
really an 11 percent increase. One cannot do that. It is an 11 percent
increase in this budget. One cannot say, if we do not include this, we
do not include that; it is all part of the budget, it is all in here,
that it is somehow some other percentage.
It is an 11 percent increase. We believe that is a responsible
increase.
Are there more ways that we can improve education in this country?
You bet. Is throwing money at it the only answer? No. That is why we
need to move through this budget as quickly as possible, give these
instructions to the committee, give these resources to the committees
so that they can begin to reform our education programs in this country
and begin to make sure that no child is left behind. Just simply to
come in here and say, it is not enough money without the reforms, it is
not enough money without proposals, it is not enough money just because
somebody says it is not enough money does not mean it is not enough
money.
Mr. Speaker, 11 percent over and above the huge increases we have
provided for education has not necessarily solved the education
concerns of America, and just providing a rhetorical response on the
floor as a motion to instruct conferees, saying the maximum feasible
funding, is not a way to do it either.
We believe this is a responsible budget, it is responsible in the
context of overall reform of education. It will help us to ensure that
no child is left behind.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to respond to the gentleman before yielding to the gentleman from
Florida.
Let me make clear that this budget passed by the House provided a 5.8
percent increase for fiscal year 2002 in education. In over 10 years,
the President's budget, which was basically endorsed, provides just
above the rate of inflation. Now, 5.8 percent is an increase, but it is
less than half the increase of last year and less than half the
increase of the last 5 years, and less than a third of the increase of
last year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support
of the motion to instruct conferees with respect to the education
increase that has been proposed.
The Senate has finally started to take us in the direction we need to
go, an additional $300 billion increase, supported by Democrats and
Republicans, to begin to put our money where our mouth is. I applaud
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget putting emphasis on
increased funding for special education. But most of what we have said
about doing that are promises. This is a chance for us today to put
that into action and to begin to move in the direction of more funding
for both special education and general education.
{time} 1745
We know what works. We know what we need to do: we need to fix up
some of our crumbling schools. We need to fix our schools that are
overcrowded.
We have a class-reduction program at the Federal level that has paid
huge dividends. In my community in Florida, in the Tampa Bay area, in
Hillsboro County, $8 million has gone into reducing class size in some
of our most struggling schools. It has given control of the classroom
back to the teacher to reach those kids in the back row like me that
needed some special attention to get engaged in learning.
As the teaching shortage begins to grow, we are going to have to pay
more attention to attracting qualified teachers.
The Senate recognized these things when they increased education
spending on a bipartisan basis. There is no reason why we should not do
the same thing here today.
We are about to debate finally the President's proposal to provide
more accountability and more resources to education. Many of us
applauded him during the campaign for taking that position, both on the
accountability and on the spending.
Guess what: unless we take the step today of adopting this motion to
recommit conferees, those are hollow words, because this is the
spending blueprint. This is the way we begin to back up with actions
the words of the President, the words of the Congress, that we all want
to do more for education. So I would urge adoption of the motion to
instruct conferees with respect to education as well as the other
points that have been made today.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
outlining some of the implications for elementary and secondary
education on this budget.
Is it not true that President Bush campaigned on getting the Pell
grants, in opening up opportunities for students on higher education,
getting those Pell grants over $5,000?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Yes, he did.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. This budget would keep the maximum Pell
grant well under $4,000. It is simply not adequate to do what we need
to do to open the doors to opportunity in higher education.
We have been increasing Pell grants several hundred dollars a year
for several years. This would increase the Pell grant, as I understand
it; and this has been borne out by CBO, only by $150.
[[Page H1512]]
That is totally inadequate. It really falls over $1,000 short of what
President Bush himself promised.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think the incredibly meager
increase in the Pell grants cited by the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price) is really a pitiful example of how little we are doing and
how much more we can do.
I would urge that we adopt this motion to recommit conferees today.
Let us begin to put our actions where our words have been. Mr. Speaker,
let us start to live up to what we know are the Chair's intentions to
do more for special education in Congress. Let us lay the floor for the
groundwork that is going to be done in the House and Congress in the
next several years to do more for our schools and to let them make
their decisions at home, let them reduce class size, fix up the
schools, hire qualified teachers, and make sure we leave no children
behind.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just again refer the gentleman to the first
paragraph. It is kind of hard for me to disagree with the first
paragraph.
It says: ``To increase the funding in the House Resolution to
provide'' not so much money for IDEA, not so much money for reading,
not so much money for Pell grants, as has been argued on the floor here
today, but just ``maximum feasible.''
We are all for that. My goodness, we go out and swing a dead cat and
we could probably hit everybody who would be for maximum feasible
everything in the budget. That is not what a budget is all about. A
budget is putting numbers in here.
We put a number in here. I think our number is very responsible when
looked at in the context of all of the numbers that are in the budget.
So to come in here and say we want to instruct the conferees, here is a
very specific instruction: get in there and do something really good
for education. Okay, we will do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the vice-chairman of the Committee on
the Budget.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where to begin.
First and foremost, it is interesting to sit in the Chamber today, to
sit in the Chamber today and hear so much happiness and joy over
something that has been done in the other body. I do not think I have
heard this much excitement about legislation in the other body since I
have been a Member of Congress, though admittedly, that has been for
only two terms.
There has been a lot of discussion about education. Education is
important. The chairman of our committee just talked about the
instruction here to provide the maximum feasible amount for education.
I am all for good and I am opposed to evil; and I think it is nice
that we have a motion to recommit conferees that says, let us provide
more money for good things. They did not actually write in ``less money
for bad things,'' but they might as well have.
But the fact of the matter is, if we go through what we passed on the
floor here, what came out of our Committee on the Budget, I think we do
have a very strong budget resolution. That is one of the reasons, for
anyone listening to this debate, that we see so many numbers being
thrown around: $1 billion here, $1 trillion of this, $10 billion here,
5 percent, 18 percent. Because when we are not really able to argue
about good policy reform and good legislation, we try to blind people
with numbers.
I make that comment as a former engineer who maybe tried once or
twice to do the same, but I do not think it is appropriate for the
floor of the House.
Let me talk a little bit about what is in the budget resolution that
came out of committee. First, overall, we increase the size of the
government by about 4 percent, increase discretionary spending 4
percent.
I think most Americans looking at this blueprint would say well, we
are going to increase our household budget by about the level of
inflation. We are not going to live beyond our means. There is no
reason whatsoever that this Congress or any Congress should force
Americans to live beyond their means, should collect more in taxes than
we need, or should spend at 6 or 8 or 12 percent increases per year,
because everyone here knows that is the quickest way to drive us into
deficit.
A 4 percent increase in government, I certainly understand for a lot
of people in this Chamber that is not enough government. Increasing
spending 4 percent is not nearly enough government for some people
here. But I think for most Americans to have the government grow by 4
percent or 5 percent would be plenty.
What do we do on the debt? We pay down $2 trillion in debt over the
next 10 years. Everyone wants to see us retire public debt. We are
paying it down at a record level. We have not heard much discussion
about debt repayment in the debate tonight, and that is because the
focus is on more spending. We are not going to be able to pay down $2
trillion in debt if we just start allowing the budget resolution to
spend more and more and more.
We heard a discussion about education. We are increasing funding for
education by 11 percent, as the chairman described, 10 percent for K
through 12, tripling funding for literacy.
We have committed in the House budget resolution to a record increase
in special education funds, which is the largest unfunded Federal
mandate that I know of on the books.
But for some on the other side, it is never enough. It is all about
resources, resources, resources. How many times did we hear that word
tonight in talking about education? It is about resources, resources,
resources.
If money was the answer to improving education, then we could go to
those school districts in the country that were spending the most on
education, some of them perhaps here in Washington, DC., some perhaps
in New York City, and there we should find the best schools in the
country; and we do not, because it is not all about resources. It is
about how we deliver the education, it is about how we structure the
competition, it is about the needs of the student and whether or not
they are being met at the local level.
So much discussion has been held about resources; but there has been
no discussion about reform tonight, no discussion about accountability
and standards and all of the keystones that are in the President's
reform bill, and certainly no discussion about the importance of giving
those students in the failing schools in this country, so many of them
in economically depressed areas of America, give those students a
chance to get out of those failing schools, give them the economic
power of a grant of school choice, and let their parents take them to a
school that is safe, that is reliable, and that can deliver their
children with the education that they deserve.
Education accountability and education choice is something the other
side does not want to discuss because, one, it means empowering
families to make a real decision; and two, because it means attacking a
base, a status quo base that wants no competition in the public
schools, no public school choice whatsoever.
I think that is outrageous. I think it is outrageous for people,
certainly not all the opponents of school choice, but for many of them
in the Senate and some here in the House who send their children to the
best private schools in the country, to then come and say, well, we
certainly do not want someone in a public school to have the power of
choice, to take their child out of a failing school and give them an
education and a safe setting that they deserve. But we hear about
spending. It is all about spending.
That brings us to the other portions of this motion to instruct, to
provide the cost of coverage for prescription drug benefits, not within
the hospitalization trust fund; in other words, to pay for Medicare,
but do not pay for Medicare with Medicare taxes.
That does not make sense to me. I do not think it makes sense to most
Americans. I would love to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
I voted for legislation on the floor last year to add a prescription
drug benefit to Medicare. But we have in the instructions here, if we
add a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, we do not take it out
of the Medicare Trust Fund.
Why would anyone want to do that? I think there is one answer that I
can think of. It is because they do not want
[[Page H1513]]
to cut taxes. It is because they want to increase the size of
government. It is because they want to find any excuse not to have to
support tax relief.
Three years ago, 4 years ago, when I first came to Congress, they
said, we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. We enacted
balanced budget legislation in 1997.
Then they say, well, we cannot support cutting taxes because we have
not started paying down the debt. And we started paying off the Federal
debt.
Then they said, we cannot support any tax cuts until we set aside
every penny of the Social Security surplus. We did that.
Now tonight we are hearing, well, if we set aside the Social Security
surplus, let us also set aside the Medicare Trust Fund surplus.
We have actually done that in this budget, so now they are trying to
find ways to force spending even higher, to drive us back to a point
where, for some reason, we are not giving back that tax surplus to
Americans.
I think that is unfortunate. Some people will look for any
opportunity to vote against the tax cut. In the end, that is because
there are some for whom this is not nearly enough government, and only
by keeping all of the revenues that are coming into Washington in
Washington will they have the resources to increase the size and scope
of government to an untenable level.
I think that is unfortunate. Taxes today are higher than they have
been at any point since World War II. Almost 21 percent of our economy
is consumed in taxes. We wake up, we are paying energy taxes; we go to
work, we are paying gasoline taxes; we make a phone call, we are paying
3 percent in telecommunications taxes that were put in place in 1899 to
fund the Spanish-American war; of course, we pay income taxes; we pay
Medicare taxes; we pay Social Security taxes.
There is very little in our life that is not taxed today, and when we
are collecting more in taxes than in our history, and after we have
paid for all of the essential operations of government, expanded
discretionary spending 4 percent, invested in education and national
defense, added $2.8 billion to the National Institutes of Health, if we
have money left over, we ought to give it back to the American taxpayer
by letting them keep more of what they earn every week.
We do not say it nearly enough, but the reason we have record tax
collections is because Americans are working more productively and
harder and more efficiently, earning more. We ought to send a little
bit of that back.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct. It is
all about the size of government. It is all about trying to keep it
here in Washington. But I say when we take money out of Washington and
give it back to families, we are making Washington a little less
important and we are making those families and those American workers
more important. That is what I came here to do.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
{time} 1800
Let me say in response to the gentleman's statement about the bite
the government is taking out of our economy. In 1984, 1985, the peak of
the Reagan years, the government was consuming 23.5 percent of the
national pie known as GDP, gross domestic product. Peak of the Reagan
years, 23.5 percent of GDP being consumed by the government.
Today, under this budget, the budget we have this year, which is the
Clinton administration budget, less than 18\1/2\ percent of our GDP is
devoted to government spending. That is five full percentage points,
five full percentage points less than in the peak of the Reagan years.
In addition, let me clarify where we are with respect to education.
The President came here to this House and made his State of the Union.
He said the account plussed-up by the most in our budget will be
education, 11.4 percent. Our spirits were lifted.
We got the budget and started looking at it, started dissecting it;
and we saw that he was claiming for his increase for next year $2.1
billion that the House appropriated last year for 2002. When we back
that out, because he is not providing, it was previously provided, when
we back that out, we saw that the increase was 5.8 percent. As I have
said, 5.8 percent is an increase; I will grant one that. But it is
nothing compared to last year, 18 percent. It is nothing compared to
the last 5 years, 13 percent.
Furthermore, when the Senate had an opportunity, amendment by
amendment, to add to education, they added through four amendments $300
billion. When we say in this motion to instruct conferees provide the
maximum feasible funding for education, we also say within the scope of
conference, the text of the resolution. What does that mean? Get as
close to that $300 billion increase as you possibly can. We will not
dictate it in numerical terms. But within the scope of conference, that
means you can go up to $300 billion plus-up in education, provide the
maximum feasible funding for education.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question; and
it will be a short one.
Mr. SPRATT. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina indicated
that the Federal spending is 18.3 percent of GNP today.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, we are collecting almost 21 percent in
taxes.
Mr. SPRATT. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, what is the justification for collecting so
much more in taxes than the Federal Government is spending?
Mr. SPRATT. The difference is, the surplus is----
Mr. SUNUNU. I know what the difference is. What is the normal
justification for collecting so much more in taxes than we spend in
government?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is this: From 1982 to 1992, we increased
the national debt of this country, which we will leave to our children,
by more than $4 trillion. It is time we paid some of that off, and the
budget we brought to the floor would have done that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from South Carolina for his motion to instruct because it is clear that
the massive tax cut package pushed through the House earlier this year
was financed by cutting much-needed programs, particularly as it
regards to education.
There are devastating cuts in education spending affecting areas
where continued progress relies on at least maintaining current levels
of funding. Where the President proposes an increase in funds to
disadvantaged students and programs, he proposes major cutbacks in
educational technology programs and a decrease in funds for vocational
educational programs.
This budget does not provide the necessary increases to the Safe and
Drug Free Schools and Communities Program or the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, programs which have been proven to work and be
successful. This is a major blow to all urban and rural communities.
These programs are vital to providing a safe and stimulating academic
environment for students, both while they are in school and during
after-school hours. We need these programs, and we need them at full
funding, which covers real operating costs.
Despite campaign promises to increase the average Pell grant to
$5,100, this budget proposes approximately $3,800, a $100 increase per
student. The President then freezes all other critical student aid
programs, making it almost impossible for working families and students
to finance the higher education, to keep us moving on and keep us ahead
of the curve.
The elimination of the budget line for school renovation is ill-
advised and absolutely devastating to restoring and modernizing our
schools and bringing them up to the 21st century standards. This must
be reversed.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents need each and every dollar of this
Nation's education budget to provide a safe and competent educational
experience. The President's budget stops short of providing real
educational relief.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
[[Page H1514]]
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Sununu) says he does not know why we could possibly have ever seen
anything good about the other body. The fact is that even a stopped
clock is right twice a day. The question is: Do you know when it is? In
this instance, their budget makes more sense.
I went back to my district for 2 weeks, and I had four community
meetings with an average of 150 people in each meeting; 600 people.
Seventy-five percent of them, after you go through the budget and
explain what the tax cut does to all of it, said we do not want the tax
cut. We would rather have you pay down the debt. We would rather you
protect Social Security and protect Medicare. They understand.
Now, my colleagues say, well, you are from Seattle. You are from that
liberal district out on the Left Coast. The district of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Turner) right on the border between Texas and Louisiana
was reported in the New York Times as having exactly the same result.
The people understand that education is the future of this country,
that also the future is the security that comes with Medicare and
Social Security.
Now, for us to say that we cannot support the Senate, they in fact
are much more in tune with the people than are the House of
Representatives who rammed this budget through with very little
discussion about what it actually does in the long-term.
This resolution supports what the people support. They are not asking
for tax relief. They are not begging. When one explains in the meetings
who gets the tax cut and where it goes and what it means when we do not
pay down the debt and we have to pay an extra $500 billion in interest,
they say: Why do not you just keep the money, pay the debt down and
save the interest. You can use that on education.
People, they do not need to be rocket scientists. If one can add and
subtract, one can see what the Senate did. If my colleagues allowed us
to have the kind of amendments over here that they had in the other
body, we would have a much different resolution on the floor, because
they would have found there is much more support in this body for
education. But they would not allow it. So that is why they have to
have this resolution passed.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 1 minute remaining and the right to close.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to close our
portion of the debate.
Let me just reiterate that certainly we have tried and we will
continue to try and reform our education system. Part of that reform
requires us to consider new funding. Part of that reform requires us to
consider that we are not paying the bills that have been promised under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part of that is to
recognize that, as people continue a lifetime of learning, that we have
to find new ways to pay for higher education; that we recognize that
reading programs in this country need additional assistance.
But in part, that is the reason why our budget lays out for education
those many different priorities we believe so succinctly and with so
much of a priority.
I think it is wrong to assume that because we have over the course of
our appropriations passed some advanced appropriations that all of a
sudden now that that should not be included as a priority for this
year's budget or beyond. We have increased budgets for education in the
past. We will do so in the future. This year's is 11 percent. We are
proud of that. If there are ways that we can help improve that in the
future with reform, we will consider that.
As far as reform and modernization of Medicare, we believe based on
the 407 to 2 vote earlier this year that the House of Representatives
is clearly on record that not one penny of Social Security or Medicare
ought to be used for anything else except Social Security or Medicare.
Finally we have done that.
I do not want to recall history, but the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend, knows that this is a very brief
history involved in any side coming forth with a budget that does not
touch the trust funds and the surpluses for Medicare and Social
Security. Finally, in a bipartisan way, this year, we were able to say
do not touch it, only use it for its intended purpose.
But this is its intended purpose. If one cannot use Medicare Trust
Fund dollars for Medicare, for modernization of Medicare, for improving
Medicare and providing Medicare recipients more Medicare, what is one
going to use the money for? I mean, I do not quite understand that.
This desire to run to the floor and to say every penny you use from
the Medicare Trust Fund automatically takes a penny away from its
solvency in the future is just not factually correct. Modernization is
intended for and we will pass modernization that needs to extend the
life of Medicare.
I just say the following: If one cannot use Medicare Trust Fund
dollars for Medicare, if one cannot use Medicare surpluses for
Medicare, what can one use it for? We believe we have finally arrived
at a bipartisan principle on that issue. We believe that is embodied in
this budget that has already passed the House.
I believe it would be a grave mistake to change that tact now and to
instruct our conferees, albeit it is not binding, I realize that, and
maybe we should not make a controversy out of it, but I believe it is a
mistake for us to bind our conferees or instruct our conferees by
suggesting to them that now, all of a sudden, we are going to reverse
that 407 to 2 vote and say that one cannot use Medicare now for
anything, one cannot use it for prescription drugs, one cannot use it
for modernization. I believe that would be a mistake.
Therefore, I urge Members not to adopt the motion to instruct offered
by the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, basically this is what this motion to instruct does: The
Senate has added $300 billion to education. We say go as far as you
can, conferees, as far as feasible in the direction of the Senate's
plus-up for education.
Secondly, the Senate has provided $147 billion to the $153 billion
provided in the House for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is
the minimum amount that will actually provide the benefit. We say adopt
the Senate provision.
Thirdly, we say as to Medicare, do not double count. Do not take
these overobligated underfunded trust funds and use them for new
obligation. Take the money out of the general fund to provide for the
Medicare prescription drug benefit.
If one is for education, if one is for Medicare prescription drugs,
if one is for making Medicare sound and solvent far into the future,
one should vote for the motion to instruct conferees because that is
what it does.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the time for an electronic vote on the motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 428, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200,
nays 207, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 85]
YEAS--200
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
[[Page H1515]]
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--207
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Abercrombie
Brown (FL)
Cantor
Capps
Davis (CA)
Filner
Holden
Hunter
Istook
Linder
McHugh
McKinney
Mica
Moakley
Myrick
Payne
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Smith (TX)
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Vitter
Weller
Whitfield
{time} 1835
Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Messrs. OXLEY, GOSS, WATTS
of Oklahoma, SKEEN, HOBSON, WALDEN of Oregon, and NEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85, I was unavoidably
detained due to flight cancellations. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Nussle, Sununu, and Spratt.
There was no objection.
____________________