[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 124 (Thursday, September 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6753-H6768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of 
the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) making 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 111 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 111

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and 
     other organizational units of Government for fiscal year 
     2003, and for other purposes, namely:
       Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 for continuing 
     projects or activities including the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for 
     in this joint resolution) which were conducted in fiscal year 
     2002, at a rate for operations not exceeding the current 
     rate, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority 
     was made available in the following appropriations Acts:
       (1) the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2002;
       (2) the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, 
     notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, section 313 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
     103-236), and section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act 
     of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1));
       (3) the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002, 
     notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1));
       (4) the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002;
       (5) the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
     2002, notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1));
       (6) the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2002, notwithstanding section 10 
     of Public Law 91-672 and section 15 of the State Department 
     Basic Authorities Act of 1956;
       (7) the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002;
       (8) the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002;
       (9) the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002;
       (10) the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2002;
       (11) the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002;
       (12) the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
     Act, 2002; and
       (13) the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2002.
       Sec. 102. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department 
     of Defense shall be used for new production of items not 
     funded for production in fiscal year 2002 or prior years, for 
     the increase in production rates above those sustained with 
     fiscal year 2002 funds, or to initiate, resume, or continue 
     any project, activity, operation, or organization which are 
     defined as any project, subproject, activity, budget 
     activity, program element, and subprogram within a program 
     element and for investment items are further defined as a P-1 
     line item in a budget activity within an appropriation 
     account and an R-1 line item which includes a program element 
     and subprogram element within an appropriation account, for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not 
     available during fiscal year 2002: Provided, That no 
     appropriation or funds made available or authority granted 
     pursuant to section 101 for the Department of Defense shall 
     be used to initiate multi-year procurements utilizing advance 
     procurement funding for economic order quantity procurement 
     unless specifically appropriated later.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be 
     available to the extent and in the manner which would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
       Sec. 104. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to 
     initiate or resume any project or activity for which 
     appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available 
     during fiscal year 2002.
       Sec. 105. (a) For purposes of section 101, the term ``rate 
     for operations not exceeding the current rate''--
       (1) has the meaning given such term (including supplemental 
     appropriations and rescissions) in the attachment to Office 
     of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 01-10 entitled 
     ``Apportionment of the Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal 
     Year 2002'' and dated September 27, 2001, applied by 
     substituting ``FY 2002'' for ``FY 2001'' each place it 
     appears; but
       (2) does not include any unobligated balance of funds 
     appropriated in Public Law 107-38 and carried forward to 
     fiscal year 2002, other than funds transferred by division B 
     of Public Law 107-117.
       (b) The appropriations Acts listed in section 101 shall be 
     deemed to include supplemental appropriation laws enacted 
     during fiscal year 2002.
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution shall cover all obligations 
     or expenditures incurred for any program, project, or 
     activity during the period for which funds or authority 
     for such project or activity are available under this 
     joint resolution.
       Sec. 107. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint 
     resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act, 
     appropriations and funds made available and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution shall be available until 
     (a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or 
     activity provided for in this joint resolution, or (b) the 
     enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by 
     both Houses without any provision for such project or 
     activity, or (c) October 4, 2002, whichever first occurs.
       Sec. 108. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint 
     resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, 
     fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained 
     is enacted into law.
       Sec. 109. Appropriations and funds made available by or 
     authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution may be 
     used without regard to the time limitations for submission 
     and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of 
     title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be 
     construed to waive any other provision of law governing the 
     apportionment of funds.
       Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 107, for those programs that had 
     high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of 
     fiscal year 2002 appropriations at the beginning of that 
     fiscal year because of distributions of funding to States, 
     foreign countries, grantees or others, similar distributions 
     of funds for fiscal year 2003 shall not be made and no grants 
     shall be awarded for such programs funded by this resolution 
     that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.
       Sec. 111. This joint resolution shall be implemented so 
     that only the most limited funding action of that permitted 
     in the joint resolution shall be taken in order to provide 
     for continuation of projects and activities.
       Sec. 112. For the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
     Program account, for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, 
     at an annual rate not to exceed $19,000,000, to be derived by 
     transfer from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
     non-credit account, subject to section 107(c).
       Sec. 113. Activities authorized by section 403(f) of Public 
     Law 103-356, as amended by section 634 of Public Law 107-67, 
     and activities authorized under the heading ``Treasury 
     Franchise Fund'' in the Treasury Department Appropriations 
     Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), as amended by section 120 of 
     the Treasury Department Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
     106-554), may continue through the date specified in section 
     107(c) of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 114. Activities authorized by title IV-A of the Social 
     Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), and 1925 of such 
     Act, shall continue in the manner authorized for fiscal year 
     2002 through December 31, 2002 (notwithstanding section 
     1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act): Provided, That grants and 
     payments may be made pursuant to this authority at the 
     beginning of fiscal year 2003 for the first quarter of such 
     year, at the level provided for such activities for the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines 
     set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee 
     of conference accompanying Conference Report 105-217, the 
     provisions of this section that would have been estimated by 
     the Office of Management and Budget as changing direct 
     spending or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 were they included 
     in an Act other than an appropriations Act shall be treated 
     as direct spending or receipts legislation, as appropriate, 
     under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, and by the Chairmen of the House 
     and Senate Budget Committees, as appropriate, under the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       Sec. 115. Activities authorized by section 1722A of title 
     38, United States Code may continue through the date 
     specified in section 107(c) of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 116. In addition to amounts made available in section 
     101 and subject to sections 107(c) and 108 of this joint 
     resolution, such sums as may be necessary for contributions 
     authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1111 for the

[[Page H6754]]

     Uniformed Services of the Department of Defense, the Coast 
     Guard, the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration are made available to accounts 
     for the pay of members of such participating uniformed 
     services, to be paid from such accounts into the Fund 
     established under 10 U.S.C. 1111, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 
     1116(c).
       Sec. 117. None of the funds made available under this Act, 
     or any other Act, shall be used by an Executive agency to 
     implement any activity in violation of section 501 of title 
     44, United States Code.
       Sec. 118. Collection and use of maintenance fees as 
     authorized by section 4(i) and 4(k) of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 
     136a-1(i) and (k)) may continue through the date specified in 
     section 107(c) of this joint resolution. Prohibitions against 
     collecting ``other fees'' as described in section 4(i)(6) of 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
     U.S.C. 136a-1(i)(6)) shall continue in effect through the 
     date specified in section 107(c) of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 119. Security service fees authorized under 49 U.S.C. 
     44940 shall be credited as offsetting collections and the 
     maximum amount collected shall be used for providing security 
     services authorized by that section: Provided, That the sum 
     available from the General Fund shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2003.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 1 hour.
  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, the legislation before the House, H.J. Res. 111, is a 
continuing resolution, a CR, for fiscal year 2003, and it extends our 
spending profiles for four big days.
  At midnight this coming Monday, the fiscal year ends. None of the 
appropriations bills has been sent to the President's desk, regardless 
of who is at fault. We have heard some discussion on that. We will 
probably hear more about that. But we need this legislation to continue 
operations of the Federal Government for the first 4 days of the new 
fiscal year.
  As everyone is aware, the Committee on Appropriations continues to 
work on the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills, despite the fact 
that we have no common budget with the other body. The collapse 
occurred because we had a breakdown in the budget process, not the 
appropriations process. The budget process stalled because the other 
body did not adopt a budget resolution. The House did. But because both 
Houses did not, we had no opportunity to come to conference and reach 
the same 302(a) number, the 302(a) number being the top number that we 
would both use in our appropriations process.
  Anyway, despite all of that, we continued to produce bills, and we 
have a number of bills in the queue ready to go when we are given the 
approval to bring them to the House floor.
  I will comment again that without a common 302(a) number, the top 
number, it is nearly impossible to have a common 302(b) number for the 
respective subcommittees of the House and the Senate appropriations 
committees. It is unfortunate that this is the case, because one of the 
fundamental responsibilities of Congress is the power of the purse. I 
emphasis ``responsibility.''
  The guiding principles of checks and balances that the founders of 
our great Nation embodied in our Constitution is lost when the Congress 
does not complete its work with regard to government spending.
  If I might indulge my colleagues in the House for just a moment by 
reading from Article I of the Constitution, it very simply says, ``No 
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of 
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular statement and account of the 
receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from 
time to time.''
  That is in our Constitution. Unless we do this, we are failing to 
uphold our basic constitutional responsibilities.
  It is unfortunate that our budget process broke down at a critical 
time for our country when we are currently at war against terror and 
when the security of our homeland is at risk. I do not believe the 
people who wrote the Budget Act ever intended that budget debates would 
get in the way of our national security interests.
  The House has passed five of the 13 appropriations bills. We are 
currently in conference with the Senate on two of those bills, the 
defense and military construction bills. We are waiting to appoint 
conferees on the legislative branch bill.
  The Committee on Appropriations has reported four other bills that 
are awaiting floor action, and that is the appropriations bill for 
agriculture, energy and water, foreign operations and the District of 
Columbia. On Tuesday of next week we will conclude consideration of the 
transportation appropriations bill, and next week we also plan to 
report the VA-HUD bill from the Committee on Appropriations.
  But until we get to the point where we can develop a common set of 
numbers between the House and the Senate for us to work with, it is 
important that the operations of our government agencies continue 
without any disruption, and that is what this legislation is about 
today.
  Let me briefly describe the terms and conditions of the CR. It will 
continue all ongoing activities at current rates, including 
supplementals, under the same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2002. 
We have codified the term ``rate for operations not exceeding the 
current rate'' as defined in OMB Bulletin No. 01-10. As in past CRs, it 
does not allow new starts, and it allows for adjustment for one-time 
expenditures that occurred in fiscal year 2002. It restricts 
obligations on high initial spend-out programs so the annualized 
funding levels in this bill will not impinge on our final budget 
deliberations.
  It includes eight funding or authorizing anomalies, of which six 
allow for the continuation of existing programs and fee collections 
that would otherwise expire. The remaining two provisions will ensure 
that executive agencies use the Government Printing Office when 
procuring government printing, as specified under current law and to 
ensure that funding for all of the uniformed services to support the 
accrual contribution for Medicare-eligible retiree health care is 
available.
  After some of the discussion, Mr. Speaker, this may come as a 
surprise to some, but I believe the CR is noncontroversial, and I urge 
the House to move this legislation to the Senate quickly so that our 
government will continue to operate smoothly and efficiently and so 
that we can continue our work to finish our regular appropriations 
bills when we are able to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect this short-term continuing resolution will pass 
the House by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But make no mistake. 
When it does, it will represent an overwhelming bipartisan indictment 
of the failures of this Republican House of Representatives.
  The fiscal year ends next week, and this Republican-controlled House 
has passed only five of the 13 appropriation bills. The gentleman who 
just spoke, the chairman of the committee, is an honorable man and his 
committee has been doing its work. His own leadership has prevented him 
from bringing the appropriation bills to the floor even though those 
bills have been reported out of his committee. Republican leaders have 
stopped even trying to do their work. They have given up on doing the 
most basic job Congress is elected to do, fund important initiatives in 
education, health care, and other key American priorities.
  It is a shocking abdication of leadership, Mr. Speaker. America is 
suffering through the weakest economy in 50 years. Unemployment and the 
poverty rate are up while the stock market and retirement security is 
down. For too many Americans, the drop in the stock market has turned 
401(k) plans into 201(k) plans, but while millions of Americans are 
busy looking for jobs, House Republicans refuse to do their jobs, the 
jobs they are getting paid to do.
  What accounts for this shameful failure to lead, Mr. Speaker? Simply 
put, Republicans have put America in a huge deficit ditch, one that 
poses a

[[Page H6755]]

grave threat to Social Security and other priorities like education, 
prescription drugs, and homeland security, and now they refuse to pick 
up the shovels and dig their way out of it. We can see it most clearly 
on education. With much fanfare last year, Democrats and Republicans 
passed the No Child Left Behind Act, but now Republicans refuse to 
provide schools with the resources they need to carry out the reforms 
Congress mandated last year.
  That is why the appropriations process is stuck in the House, Mr. 
Speaker. The majority of the House Republican Conference wants to gut 
resources for education and other priorities in the bill funding the 
Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. But a 
few moderate Republicans are afraid to take that vote on the eve of the 
election.
  Over the past week, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders have turned the 
House floor into little more than a PR vehicle for the Republican 
Party. They have wasted time and taxpayers' dollars on numerous, 
meaningless resolutions. Mr. Speaker, Americans are facing real 
challenges right now. The economy is weak, prescription drug prices are 
still sky high, the budget is in deficit, and many Republicans want to 
privatize Social Security. It is time to quit playing politics. It is 
time to get back to doing the American people's business.
  Free the Committee on Appropriations. Let them bring their bills to 
the floor. What is the leadership on that side afraid of?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve my time 
for just another couple of minutes if the gentleman could proceed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 14 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious time for the country. In 2 years' time 
we have seen a record surplus go to record deficits, almost 2 million 
people more out of work today than there were a year ago, a year and a 
half ago. Economic growth is more anemic than at any time in 20 years. 
Corporate marauders have swindled investors and ruined workers' pension 
plans. The stock market has lost more than $4 trillion in value, and 
the price of health care and prescription drugs is skyrocketing. And 
almost nothing is being done about that by the American people's 
government.
  We also are conducting a war against terrorism, and now we are 
considering taking on a new war against Iraq. In the midst of all of 
that, because of an unreal and incredibly mismanaged budget, this 
Congress has passed only one of 13 appropriation bills, and that means 
that 90 percent of our domestic budget is likely by the end of next 
week still to be unfunded.

                              {time}  1715

  Even the defense budget is not funded at this point; we hope it will 
be funded next week.
  Under these circumstances we need to work together; we need a 
cooperative spirit. The last time we went to war against Iraq, 
President Bush, Sr., consulted broadly, he respected differences of 
opinion, he set the tone for cooperation between the U.S. and our 
allies, between the U.S. and the U.N., between the executive and 
legislative branches of government, between the Democrats and 
Republicans who serve in this Congress. The result was that we had a 
spirited debate which I had the privilege to chair at that time; and 
after the vote, we all came together, united in purpose and in spirit.
  But this time the situation is sadly different, and this President is 
taking a much different approach at a time when we need to keep 
discussion on a high plane. We have seen the report in The Washington 
Post yesterday which questioned the concern of the Senate Democrats 
about national security. The kind of rhetoric that we saw emanating 
from the President on seven occasions is divisive when it should be 
unifying, it personalizes issues that ought to be substantive, and it 
weakens this country's ability to find consensus at a time when we need 
it badly.
  Now, the White House issued a limp apology yesterday and said ``Oh, 
the President did not mean it; he was not talking about the Iraq 
debate, he was talking about homeland security.'' I would point out 
that when this President questions someone else's concern for national 
security because of their positions on homeland security issues, this 
is the same President who told me nose-to-nose in the White House that 
the bipartisan package that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) 
and I were producing to buttress our homeland security programs after 
September 11 would be vetoed if we spent one dime more than the 
President had himself requested for homeland security.
  This is the President who resisted our efforts to provide more money 
to the FBI so that we could end the disgraceful situation under which 
50 percent of the FBI's computers could not even send a picture of a 
terrorist or a suspected terrorist to another FBI computer around the 
country.
  This is the same President who resisted our efforts to add more 
funding for Canadian border security, when I stood in this well holding 
a traffic cone, saying that on many of the stations on the Canadian 
border, after they were closed at night, the only deterrent we had to 
terrorists crossing the border was a traffic cone. I am sure they were 
scared stiff of that.
  This is the same President who resisted our efforts to strengthen 
funding for the Nunn-Lugar program to secure nuclear material in the 
former Soviet Union before it fell into terrorist hands.
  This is the same President who resisted our efforts to add money 
above his budget request to protect our nuclear plants and to protect 
other sensitive Federal installations from terrorist attack.
  Now, I have served with seven Presidents. I have never seen any 
President during all of that time, except Richard Nixon--the only 
President I ever saw use that kind of innuendo, questioning someone 
else's dedication to the security interests of this country was 
President Nixon.
  The reason I am so passionate about this issue is because I get my 
dander up when people question any other public servant's commitment to 
this country's security interest. Because I come from the State of Joe 
McCarthy, and I saw how he denigrated the political debate in this 
country, and I think that no one ought to emulate that. Unfortunately, 
I think we have seen remarks that came pretty close.
  I would also point out, it was not the other body of this Congress, 
if the President wants to know, it was not the other body that blocked 
funds that his own Secretary of Energy requested to protect the 
shipment of nuclear warheads down U.S. highways from terrorist attacks. 
Huge bipartisan majorities of this House and the other body approved 
those funds, but the President said no. It was not the other body of 
this Congress that blocked funds to bring the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation into the information age. Huge bipartisan majorities in 
both Houses of Congress approved those funds in the recent 
supplemental, but the President said no.
  It was not the other body of this Congress that blocked funds to 
establish a global system of checking containerized cargo on cargo 
ships before they leave ports overseas rather than after they are on 
American soil in order to determine if they have radioactive material, 
chemical, or biological weapons, or other material that may be used to 
launch acts of terror. Huge bipartisan majorities in both Houses of 
Congress approved those funds, but the President said no. It was not 
the other body of this Congress that blocked funds to help the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service develop the analytical 
capability they needed to prioritize and track the thousands of illegal 
immigrants who were inside the United States and identify the ones that 
are likely to pose the greatest threat to the citizens of this country. 
Huge bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress approved those 
funds also, but the President said no.

  It was not the other body of this Congress that blocked funds to help 
the National Weapons and Research Laboratories to make certain that 
they can defend themselves and their employees against cyberattacks and 
espionage conducted by terrorist organizations. Huge bipartisan 
majorities in both Houses of Congress approved those funds, but the 
President said no.
  Despite all of that, I do not think we saw Democrats in either this 
body or the other body questioning the President's patriotism or his 
commitment

[[Page H6756]]

to national security. We took those differences to be honest 
differences. The President owes us and the other body the same 
courtesy.
  We all have obligations of conscience, and we should respect them, 
including the President of the United States. And we have other 
obligations. Because this House has not met those obligations, we are 
here today with this continuing resolution. Because at this point, this 
House, if we can quit blaming somebody else for a change, this House, 
not the other body, this House has passed only five appropriation bills 
out of the 13 required to finish our business.
  This chart demonstrates what has happened every year since 1988. The 
worst record during that period from 1988 through today, the worst 
record we had was in 1991 when the House only finished 10 of its 13 
appropriation bills, and in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 years, the House 
finished all of them. This year, the House has done virtually nothing 
of its appropriations work, and that is not the fault of the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, and it is not the fault of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  It is because there is an internal war in the majority party caucus 
over one bill, the Labor, Health and Education bill. The conservatives 
in the majority party caucus do not want to see any appropriation bill 
brought to this floor until the education budget is brought to this 
floor and passed at the President's level, and the Republican 
leadership's dilemma is that they know they do not have the votes for 
that in their own caucus. Because the moderates in the Republican 
caucus know that the President's budget is inadequate, and they do not 
want to go home having stopped the progress we have made on education 
over the last few years.
  Now, I will say one thing for the President. He has had a lot of 
photo ops. He has been in elementary schools more often than students 
over the past year, posing for political holy pictures with children 
promoting the No Child Left Behind Education Act. We passed that with 
large bipartisan majorities, and what that act said is that we are 
going to reform the education programs and then we are going to fund 
them. Well, we reformed them. Where is the funding? Before that act 
passed, this Congress, over a 5-year period, virtually doubled support 
for public education. But what budget did the President send down to 
match his talk as he goes from schoolroom to schoolroom, trying to 
create the image that he is putting education first in this country? 
The President's education budget brings to a screaming halt the 
progress we have made in expanding education funding over the past 5 
years. He puts a financial freeze on education when we look at it on a 
per-student basis. That is not what my constituents tell me they want 
when I go home.
  The reason this continuing resolution is here is for only one reason: 
it is because the majority party does not want to have to vote on the 
President's education budget before the election. The only group that 
appears to want to vote on it are the conservatives in the Republican 
caucus. But the rest of the caucus does not want to have to vote on the 
President's budget because they know they would vote no, because the 
President's rhetoric is not matched by his actions.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is not putting our money where our mouths 
are, and I call that posing for political holy pictures. As far as I 
can see, the Nation's schools are regarded as the number one photo op 
for the White House political staff and the number one target by the 
White House budget staff. I would like to know which of those two 
groups our friends in the majority party are actually going to be 
supporting. But this CR is here because they do not want to have to 
vote on that issue. They do not want to have to expose their own chaos 
and their own different vision in their own caucus.
  So I want to make clear to the leadership in this House, I will vote 
for this resolution today, this short-term continuing resolution, 
because we have no option if we are going to keep the government open. 
But I will not vote for an extended continuing resolution. I will not 
vote for a continuing resolution that allows this body to push these 
issues off until after the election so they can have a collective 
Republican duck. I will not do that.
  This House needs to finish its business. It needs to pass the Labor-
HHS bill, it needs to pass the transportation bill, it needs to pass 
the budget for science, it needs to pass the budget for defense. In 
short, we need to meet our basic responsibilities.
  When all we can do is produce five of these 13 bills and then somehow 
blame the other body for the fact that we have not even seen these 
bills come up here, that to me is a confession of institutional 
impotence and a demonstration of political incompetence; and neither 
one of them ought to make anybody very proud.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do so, 
number one, to say that I agree with some of the things that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said, and I disagree with some 
of the things that he has said. I do want to thank him for helping us 
bring this resolution to the floor today, because it is essential. We 
have to pass this resolution, or Monday night at midnight the 
government closes down. I do not want that to happen. There may be some 
around here that want it to happen, but I am not one of them. But 
anyway, I do appreciate the fact that we finally have got this 
resolution on the floor.
  But I also want my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
to know that I am not going to try to respond in kind on any of the 
political issues that might be raised today, because my job and my 
responsibility today is to move this CR through the House, get it to 
the Senate, and get it to the President.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  I do not want to engage in the blame game; I just want to support the 
record that we have achieved in the past 6 years in terms of education. 
I think this is an outstanding record, and I must say, in fairness, 
that oftentimes or most of the time we have had the support of the 
minority party in doing this. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
is ranking in our committee, and has been very supportive.
  Title I, aid to disadvantaged students. I think the important part 
that I want to say is that the record in education has been to help 
those really in need of help. Let us take Title I. It is up 62 percent 
from 1996, from $6.37 billion to $10.35 billion, a good record for this 
body that we can all take pride in.
  IDEA, special education grants. These are young people who need help. 
It is up by 224 percent. That is a remarkable increase over the past 6 
or 8 years.
  We have tripled the funding for Federal reading programs from $300 
million to more than $900 million. This is what the President promised 
to do. I think he deserves credit for that.
  We have increased the Federal teacher quality funds by 35 percent to 
help States and local communities to train, recruit, and retain quality 
public school teachers.
  I might say here, and this is almost a crusade with me, we should get 
a good teacher in every classroom, because if we ask any group, do you 
have some teacher that in your life has made a difference, without 
hesitation hands go up. That is why it is so important that we can 
continue the programs that will help the States and local communities 
to get good teachers in every classroom. No child will be left behind 
if they have a quality teacher.
  Pell grants. This is help to those from the low income to have an 
opportunity to get an additional education; it might be in a trade 
school, it might be in a college, a university, or whatever. We have 
increased them by 62 percent, from $2,470 to $4,000 in fiscal year 
2002. That is a credit to this Congress, that it has recognized the 
importance of helping these young people.
  Head Start, another program to help those who are less advantaged, we 
have increased it by 83 percent over the past 6 years. I think it is a 
record to be proud of.
  We have increased Federal aid to America's Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities by 144 percent.

[[Page H6757]]

  Mr. Speaker, we want to continue this record because I think 
education is the most important responsibility, in cooperation with the 
States and the local communities. We need to have an educated 
population if we want to compete in the world of tomorrow, if we want 
to give the people of this Nation an opportunity, the young people.
  I would also like to point to the record in Health and Human 
Services. We have supported dislocated worker employment assistance. It 
grew by $271 million to $1.4 billion, again, helping those who need a 
helping hand.
  Community health centers. They delivered needed medical services to 
over 10 million patients in fiscal year 2001, and it grew by 77 percent 
since fiscal year 1996.
  Support for the Centers for Disease Control. We suddenly discovered 
after 9/11 how important the Centers for Disease Control were to this 
Nation, and they deal with infectious diseases. They are the traffic 
cop that stands between us and the incursion of many different types of 
diseases in our society. It grew by 400 percent; again, something that 
helps people all across the Nation.
  The Centers for Disease Control's chronic disease prevention, it has 
grown by 178 percent.
  Medical research by the National Institutes of Health: a commitment 
was made about 4 years ago or 5 years ago that we would double their 
budget. We have kept that commitment, and we would hope to do that 
again in this fiscal year. They have supported nearly 37,000 research 
projects. That is important. That is important to people, because out 
of those research projects will come cures, will come ways of helping 
individuals.
  If Members could sit in the committee that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and myself are responsible for and listen to the 
testimony, they would realize how important it is to the people of this 
Nation, and parents with children that need help; people with 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, you name it, we have heard from them in our 
subcommittee, and we have tried to help by enhancing the programs of 
the National Institutes of Health and many others.
  All I want to say to this body is that I think we have an excellent 
record we have accomplished on a bipartisan basis over the past several 
years, and particularly since the Republicans have had the 
responsibility for the programs as the majority party.
  But in fairness, I also want to say, we have had help in getting this 
record accomplished. We would hope that we will have the same kind of 
help. We know that we cannot do everything, that the resources are not 
as great as they might have been 3 or 4 years ago.
  I think one of the things we need to do is take a look at all the 
money we have poured into these programs and say, is it being spent 
wisely? Is it getting results? Is it producing value received to the 
taxpayers of this Nation? What we are trying to do in crafting these 
appropriations bills is to ensure that we are getting value received; 
that we are using the money wisely on behalf of the people who need the 
help.
  I would reiterate again that these programs help all Americans. They 
are not limited to any single group. Illness strikes at all types in 
our socioeconomic strata.
  Education is important, and we have had a real concern in making sure 
these programs serve the people. I think that is a record we can point 
to with pride, and I hope that we can work out appropriation bills that 
will continue this record of great service to the American people from 
every walk of life.
  Under Republican leadership, America's proven education programs have 
thrived. In the past several years, Republicans have:
  Increased Title I aid to disadvantaged students by 62 percent--from 
$6.37 billion in FY 96 to $10.35 billion in FY 02.
  Increased special education grants to states (Part B of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) by 224 percent--
an increase far larger than under Democrat controlled Congresses.
  Tripled funding for federal reading programs from $300 million to 
more than $900 million, as promised by President George W. Bush.
  Increased federal teacher quality funds by 35 percent to help states 
and local communities train, recruit, and retain quality public school 
teachers.
  Increased the maximum Pell Grant award by 62 percent--from $2,470 in 
FY 96 to $4,000 in FY 02.
  Increased Head Start funding by 83 percent--from $3.569 billion in FY 
96 to $6.538 billion in FY 02.
  Increased federal aid to America's Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, Historically Black Graduate Institutions, and Hispanic-
Serving Institutions by 144 percent--from a combined total of $140 
million in FY 96 to $341 million in FY 02.
  Support for dislocated worker re-employment assistance grew $271 
million, to nearly $1.4 billion since FY96;
  Support for Community Health Centers, which delivered needed medical 
services to an estimated 10.5 million patients in FY2001, grew $587 
million, or 77 percent, since FY96 helping CHCs serve 2.4 million more 
patients over six years;
  Support for CDC's work in tracking, understanding and controlling new 
and re-emerging infectious agents grew $282 million, or over 400 
percent since FY96.
  Support for CDC's chronic disease prevention activities, in areas 
such as breast and cervical cancer prevention, diabetes control, and 
cardiovascular disease prevention, grew $479 million, or 178 percent, 
since FY96;
  Support for medical research administered by the National Institutes 
of Health grew $11.5 billion, or 97 percent since FY96. NIH estimates 
that they will support nearly 37,000 research/project grants in FY2002, 
over 11,000 more than they supported in FY96;
  Support for Head Start grew nearly $3 billion, or 83 percent, since 
FY96. During FY2002, the Administration estimates Head Start will serve 
over 100,000 more children aged 3 to 4 then it did in FY96; and
  Support for helping low income Americans in meeting their heating 
costs through the LIHEAP program grew $1.1 billion, or 120 percent 
since FY96.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is certainly a friend of education and 
health care; but I would simply point out that the issue is not what we 
have done last year, it is what we are going to do next year.
  We still have not seen a bill produced by the majority, and the 
President's budget for health care cuts back $1.4 billion in crucial 
health care programs outside of NIH. It essentially fails to provide 
anywhere near the support level that is needed for programs that help 
low-income students, for programs that help the handicapped, and for 
children who need help with second languages.
  So there are going to be thousands of children, indeed, left behind 
by the President's budget, and we would like to correct that, but we 
cannot get the Republican majority to bring a bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula). I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is a friend of education. 
Also, he is the chairman of our subcommittee.
  What I think most of us feel on the Committee on Appropriations is 
our Republican colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations want 
positive investment in our country. They are not the problem, but the 
leadership of the Republican Party is the problem. Frankly, the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget this year and in past years is 
the problem.
  Now, let me tell my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, about education. 
The irony is that my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, would stand and 
say, look what we have done since 1995 on education. What we have done 
on education is, under the leadership of Bill Clinton, he said, I am 
not going to sign bills that underfund education.
  What were those bills? Let me read them to the Members so in the 
future the Members will know, because I know if the gentleman knew 
this, he probably would not have made this representation.
  The Republican bill offered to this House in 1996 was $5 billion 
under the President's request. That did not end up that way.
  In 1997, the Republican bill offered $2.8 billion under the 
President.
  In 1998, it was a Presidential election year. The Republican 
leadership, wanting to elect its own, came in with a bipartisan bill. 
It was just $191 million under the President. However, in the

[[Page H6758]]

next year, it was over half a billion dollars over the President.
  In the year 2000, the Republican bill was $1.4 billion under the 
President; and in 2001, it was $2.9 billion under the President. By the 
way, the bills were not as harsh as the budget.
  So, Mr. Speaker, yes, over the last 8 years we have been generous to 
education, and we have in fact said not only are we rhetorically going 
to leave no child behind, but we are going to fund programs to seek 
that end.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) put up a chart here, it is 
now over there, but essentially it shows 15 years of activities of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and more importantly, the House committee, 
in passing appropriation bills.
  Over those 15 years, we have averaged 12.2 bills passed before the 
end of the fiscal year. That is a 93 percent average. That is an A. 
This year, we are at 38 percent. That is a miserable failure; not the 
responsibility of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) or the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) or others who chair the appropriations subcommittees, but 
it is the fault of a divisive leadership that wants to talk about being 
for programs but does not want to fund those programs; not only that, 
does not want to debate them on this floor.
  This month of September we have not considered one appropriation bill 
on this floor, notwithstanding the fact that September 30 is at the 
door.
  I, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), will vote for this 
continuing resolution, but like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), I will also call to account those who put us in a position of 
being unable to debate the priorities of this Nation on this floor.
  Like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I do not want my 
patriotism or concern for the security of this Nation to be called into 
question by this President, who is our leader and who ought to bring us 
together, not drive us apart.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to my dear friend, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I want to assure him that however 
politically engaged this might become this afternoon, that none of my 
speakers will attack any of the gentleman's leadership. We had a lot of 
disagreements with the gentleman's leadership, but we are not going to 
raise those today. We have a strong leadership on our side and they 
have accomplished a lot in this Congress.
  We did hit a couple of roadblocks dealing with the budget process, 
and as the gentleman knows, we passed a budget. Whether the gentleman 
likes it or not, we passed a budget in the House. That did not happen 
in the other body.
  Secondly, I wanted to point out to my friend that the only two bills 
that we have had a request from the other body to go to conference on 
are the defense bill and the military construction bill. We in fact are 
in conference aggressively coming to closure on those two bills. With 
the exception of Legislative Branch appropriations, we have not had a 
request from the other body to go to conference on any other 
appropriation bills, including the ones that we have already sent down 
there to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that in 1994, with 
a Democrat-controlled House, they passed an education bill $3 billion 
below President Clinton's request.

                              {time}  1745

  I have heard tonight, well, let us stop pointing fingers. That is all 
I have heard from the other side, every single speaker, pointing 
fingers. You know why? Well, the President took control of the issue of 
education.
  I have talked to Democrat pollsters; they are upset because the 
Democrat numbers are down on Education. This President has shown that 
he cares about education. He focuses on education. And education 
spending is not everything.
  I would like to submit this for the record. It is what Secretary 
Paige showed, the number of increases in education spending but yet 
test scores have baselined. The education plan is more than just 
spending. We have increased education dollars, but we have also given 
the State the flexibility to move those dollars around where parents 
and teachers can make those decisions.
  My colleagues on the other side want line items and every item 
increased so that they can mandate exactly what is done in the States, 
the paperwork increases, the mandates, the union bureaucracy. And the 
President said no, I want to give the States the flexibility where 
parents and teachers can make those decisions.
  They also demand accountability. And with the accountability he also 
gave the superintendents and the State legislatures the ability to move 
money around, not line item it and mandate it. A hundred thousand 
teachers? We need teachers, yes. But we also put money in for the 
quality of education and teachers.
  We have passed prescription drugs, and tax relief for working 
families. My colleagues only attack, oh, it is a tax break for the 
rich. Some of them have not found a tax they do not want to increase. 
In 1993 they increased tax on the middle class after they said they 
were going to reduce it. They taxed Social Security. They actually 
taxed gas. And, remember, there was even a retroactive tax in there and 
you cut veterans' COLAs. You cut military COLAs, if you want to talk 
about history.
  And I want to tell you, I would question somebody who used our 
military as White House waiters. I would question someone who would 
send our people into harm's way. I questioned a Republican President 
who sent our people over in Lebanon and let them sit there. But I sure 
question President Clinton on a lot of the things he did that in my 
estimation were not right.
  Why are they doing this? Well, it is an election year, Mr. Speaker. 
Have you ever heard the name of James Carville and his colleagues? We 
have got the ``Carville Report.'' What does he recommend to his 
Democrat pollsters? For the Democrats to stick close to the President 
on the war because if they do not, the numbers will go down. But they 
also requested that the Senate hold up bills, because in a bad economy 
they can hang on to the Senate. They also said we can pass things here 
like tax relief but to blast the Republicans on these issues. And I 
think you have heard every speaker over here do that. And it is just 
not the case.
  We have passed prescription drugs here. The Senate has not. We have 
passed homeland security. And I tell you, I would question somebody 
that holds up a homeland security bill insisting on union workers 
filling those billets instead of passing a homeland security bill. I 
think that is wrong. And I think it should be questioned.
  I heard about border patrol. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) on this floor, when I first came, we fought to get more border 
patrol and we were turned down until we took the majority. And slowly 
in a bipartisan way in many cases, we got more border patrol to secure 
our borders.
  It is sad to watch the things that are going on tonight because as a 
group we have done so many things. This President is a caring 
President. I want to tell you, he has brought credibility, he has 
brought character to the White House that was not there before. Is it 
not nice to see a President who can actually look at his wife and say, 
I love you and mean it?
  The economy is growing. It is growing by 3 percent. Alan Greenspan 
said that the economy has grown by 1.5 percent because of tax relief 
for working families. My colleagues say it is just for the rich; it is 
an election year.
  Inflation is low. Interest is low. But yet there is not confidence in 
the market. The Senate has not passed the Employee Protection Act that 
would protect them from cases of Enron and WorldCom. We need to pass 
that bill, to bring that confidence up. And that has not been passed by 
the other body; and I think that is wrong.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.

[[Page H6759]]

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the speaker has just violated the rules of 
the House with regard to references to the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The characterizing of the Senate inaction is 
not in order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, they have not passed the bill that 
should be in order. They have not passed the bill.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the point of order I raised was not when the 
gentleman referred to inaction, but when the gentleman characterized 
that inaction and gave a value judgment to the inaction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman in 
the well will proceed in order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do not believe I have done that, Mr. Speaker.
  But I will tell you, an energy bill is critical. The Senate has not 
passed that bill. An economic stimulus package is critical which helps 
us in education. The Senate has not passed that bill.
  The Senate according to the Carville memo did not pass its budget, 
not mine. Why? Because they can offer a trillion dollars in a 
prescription drugs program.
  MR. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished whip.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me time and for his great leadership on behalf of America's 
families. I also commend the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations for his leadership and the two of them for bringing this 
continuing resolution to the floor.
  The sadness of it all, though, is that the continuing resolution is 
needed at all. For the weeks that we have come back here from the 
summer August break, this Congress has been in session from Tuesday 
night until Thursday afternoon. We have had plenty of time if we had 
worked a full week to do the people's business, to pass the 
appropriations bills that are our responsibility by the end of this 
fiscal year and the start of the new one.
  Instead, we are here passing a short-term continuing resolution, and 
there will be another one and there will be another one because this 
House has ignored the needs of the American people, the needs for a 
growing economy, for prescription drug benefits, for access to quality 
health care, for educating our children; and that is the point on which 
I would like to focus.
  I rise on behalf of America's children who deserve every opportunity 
we can give them and on behalf of their parents who deserve to know 
just where the parties really stand as opposed to what they say they 
stand for.
  Nowhere is the contrast between Republican rhetoric and Republican 
reality so stark as in the oft-repeated promise to ``leave no child 
behind.''
  The reality is that the Republicans want to cut our investment in 
education to a level far below what is authorized in the Leave No Child 
Behind Act, $7 billion less of an investment than that which was 
promised by the President. Despite countless Presidential photo ops and 
despite the little red school house built outside the Department of 
Education at massive tax payer expense, I might add, the reality is 
that the Republican Party plans to leave millions of children behind.
  The fact is that the Republicans do not want to debate appropriations 
bills because they do not want the public to see that their education 
budget would underfund the No Child Left Behind Act, which the 
President heralded as his great achievement by $7.2 billion, and that 
is the President's recommendation and that is why some Republicans will 
hold up this bill from coming to the floor.
  The President's education budget stops in its tracks 6 years of 
steady progress in Federal support to local schools, dead in its 
tracks. The investments in education under this budget are down to less 
than 1 percent. How are we going to grow our economy if we will not 
grow our investment in public education?
  There is no tax cut you can name or benefit or credit or anything 
that you could name that grows the economy more than investing in 
education. There is nothing that is more dynamic to the budget than 
investing in education. We are not only doing a disservice to the 
children, we are doing a disservice to the taxpayers. There is nothing 
you can name that would grow the economy more than investing in 
education.
  All the research, Mr. Speaker, tells us that children do better in 
smaller classes and, indeed, they do better in smaller schools. And yet 
the Republicans want to freeze funding for these cost-effective 
programs. What they have in the budget is enough to provide, for 
example, after-school programs to only 8 percent of the 15.2 million 
low-income children who could benefit from them.
  I refer you to this chart. Look at this. We are gaining in 
enlightenment. We are giving after-school guidance for children. It is 
good for their education. It is good for their health. It is good for 
their future. And here we come into this budget and take a downturn in 
after-school programs for America's children. This is really, really a 
tragedy. We cannot turn our backs on the millions of children who just 
last year we were promising to rescue, and we cannot turn our backs on 
the economic future of our great country. When we make a decision in 
this body we should think of America's children. We should think of 
growing our economy. There is a commonality of interest.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is the chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce and who authored the 
outstanding education bill last year, H.R. 1.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric we are hearing from our 
friends across the aisle is not about children. This is all about 
politics. And when it comes to education funding or any other kind of 
funding, our Democrat friends this year have no budget, no plan, and no 
credibility.
  Now let us just look at the facts. In the House the Democrats voted 
against the President's budget but did not even offer an alternative of 
their own. In the Senate they even failed to pass any budget at all. 
The first time since 1974 that has happened.
  Now, let us take a look at what columnist David Broder wrote 
recently: ``When the House is debating its budget resolution,'' Broder 
wrote, ``the Democrats proposed no alternative of their own.'' He went 
on to say, ``Rather than fake it, House Democrats just punted,'' Broder 
wrote. ``The resolution is designed to be the clearest statement of a 
party's policy priorities, and as long as they are silent the Democrats 
cannot be part of a serious political debate.''
  I think David Broder is right.
  So I say to my Democrat friends, if you are going to stand here today 
and say you are for additional education spending, you better be 
prepared to tell the American people how you plan to get there. 
Fortunately, President Bush has given us a budget this year that 
continues to make education a priority even in the face of war and 
economic turmoil.
  As you can see by this chart, President Bush's budget this year 
proposes far more for education than the last budgets proposed and 
signed by President Clinton. In fact, Federal funding for education has 
more than doubled over the past 6 years. Discretionary appropriations 
for the Department of Education have climbed from $23 billion in fiscal 
year 1996 to $49 billion this year, an increase of 113 percent.
  Now, as you can see by this chart, special education, the Republican 
budget provides for another billion dollars' increase in special 
education grants to the States, and calls for full funding of IDEA over 
the next 10 years. This is almost a 300 percent increase over the last 
7 years.
  Democrats did not offer a budget to help children with special needs. 
They have no budget. They have no plan, and they have no solution.
  Now, let us look at title I for a moment. For disadvantaged students 
in school, the Republican budget provides for a billion dollars' 
increase in title I grants. Now this is on top of the $1.6 billion 
increase that we passed and was signed into law earlier this year. 
These resources are focused in on high-poverty schools and kids who are 
in poor

[[Page H6760]]

neighborhoods who need our help. Democrats have not offered a budget to 
help low-income school districts or kids. They have no budget. They 
have no plan and they have no solution.
  Now, here is something else to consider. As this chart shows, under 
the first 2 years of President Bush's Presidency, we will have seen 
greater increases in title I funding than in the previous 7 years 
combined.

                              {time}  1800

  The last 2 years of the President's budget, last year and this year, 
are greater increases than in the last 7 years under the previous 
President.
  Let us not forget about teachers, the people responsible for our kids 
in the classroom. For teachers, the Republican budget provides $2.85 
billion, matching the historic increase the President signed into law 
last year. This is a 38 percent increase over the last Clinton budget.
  Democrats have offered no budget to help America's schoolteachers. 
They have no plan, they have no budget and they have no solution. 
Despite the twin challenges of war and economic recovery, the 
President's budget this year expands funding for all of our educational 
priorities, and so I say to my friends on the other side, if they have 
got a better plan, why do they not show us?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. The previous 
speaker leaves a false impression in the House because of his constant 
reference to budget resolutions rather than appropriations. Budget 
resolutions do not provide one dime for students. Appropriations bills 
do.
  The fact is despite the fact that the President of the United States 
made a big thing out of being for the No Child Left Behind 
authorization bill, there will be hundreds of thousands of children 
left behind under the budget that he proposed, which does not in any 
way match that original legislation. Example: Special education, the 
budget he proposed this year is one-half billion dollars below what it 
would have to be to meet the promises of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act.
  In Title I, they are $4.6 billion below where they would have to be 
in order to meet the promised funding level under the No Child Left 
Behind Act, and even the small $1 billion increase in that package is 
paid for by cuts in other programs that affect the very same children 
who need help the most, and then you have in addition the President 
cutting the comprehensive school reform program by 24 percent, 
eliminating the smaller schools appropriations.
  So then if you take the children who are most at risk, because they 
have difficulty with languages, this budget on a pupil basis provides a 
10 percent real reduction in programs to help children who have trouble 
with the English language. No child left behind, it sounds nice. Why do 
you not back it up with your money?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is so proud of that which he 
has done in his budget and his bill, why does he not bring the 
appropriations bill to the floor? Why does it languish for the last 8 
months in committee? Why do they say to me we do not have the votes for 
the bill on our side of the aisle if what he says is so true?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to my colleagues and say 
that we worked closely together in a bipartisan way to produce the No 
Child Left Behind Act, and it was truly the most bipartisan bill this 
Congress has produced, and I am proud of my relationship with my good 
friend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who worked 
closely with me and all of my colleagues to produce it.
  We put huge increases in place last year, and my colleagues have to 
understand that the increases that are in this year's budget are on top 
of the increases in last year's budget. We have offered a budget. We 
have a plan. My colleagues have no plan. They brought no budget to the 
floor. They are ducking and hiding from the issues how.
  Now where is the bill? The fact is we have a plan. We have a budget. 
Show us yours. We have not seen it yet.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a strong member of the strong leadership team 
in the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida's work and what he has been able to accomplish, and I 
understand the dilemma that he is facing, and I can answer the question 
where is the bill.
  You cannot reconcile with an addict. The Senate did not pass a 
budget. Therefore, they are spending with addiction. They are addicts. 
They are spending like I have never seen before. When we have a budget 
that we have to adhere to in the House, you cannot reconcile.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Members will avoid improper 
references to the Senate during this debate.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
  When you try to reconcile a bill against with having a budget, it 
cannot be reconciled with a bill that has increased spending with 
abandon. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, that they do not understand that.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will 
avoid improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this surge of aggression from the other side 
of the aisle is simply the bitter fruit of a strategy to stymie, 
frustrate and defeat fiscal discipline at every turn. My colleagues 
from the other party are infuriated.
  Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about Members of this House.
  My colleagues from the other party for this House are infuriated that 
our Republican House majority is a dike holding back waves upon waves 
of new Democrat nonsecurity spending. That is not how it used to be 
around here. They ache to restore the tax and spend policies that 
robbed the Social Security Trust Fund for decade after decade after 
decade after decade when the Democrats controlled this Congress.
  The Democrats ran the House and they fueled an irresponsible culture 
of spending that drove America's books deep, deep, deep into the red. 
They spent with abandon. They spent without restraint. They spent 
blindly. They spent more than the country could bear. They ignored the 
economic damage that their spending lust had created. They balanced 
their budgets on the backs of future generations.
  The other party understands that they have to raise taxes to fund the 
huge new spending programs that their big spending caucus demanded. Our 
Republican insistence on lowering, not raising, taxes makes them livid. 
They complain that lowering taxes causes the deficit, and one made 
mention that Reagan's tax cut in the eighties created the deficit. For 
every dollar, revenues actually went up after that tax cut. The problem 
is for every dollar of new revenues coming in they spent two dollars.
  The other party understands that and has a single all-consuming 
ambition, separating the taxpayers from more of their hard-earned 
dollars and swelling the size of government with waves of new spending, 
waves and waves of new spending.
  The Democrat House leadership embraced the decision by the other body 
to proceed with no governing fiscal oversight called a budget. They 
attempted to do the same thing here, but unfortunately for the big 
spenders, the House of Representatives passed a budget. Let us shift 
our attention away from the specific points at issue. Let us consider 
things in the realm of the theoretical.
  For any theoretical elective body, the decision to proceed forward 
without a governing budget would be foolhardy and grossly 
irresponsible. It would be a blunder of rank stupidity and extreme 
fiscal wantonness for any conceivable legislative body to rashly 
conclude it could sustain fiscal discipline without a guiding and 
governing budget.
  Our House Republican majority brought America back into the black. We 
brought back fiscal discipline. We

[[Page H6761]]

even started paying down the debt. We are working with the President to 
hold the line on excessive nonsecurity spending, we are holding firm, 
and we are motivated by an undeniable truism: The dollars that 
Washington spends belong to the taxpayers. We respect their hard work. 
We appreciate the taxpayers' ability to spend their own money better 
than Washington, D.C., and we are extremely hostile to any scheme that 
would separate a single taxpayer from any additional dollar.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle see 180 degrees 
differently. The truth is the House Republicans are completing 
America's business and we are doing it responsibly within a fiscal 
framework that preserves fiscal freedom.
  The hostility directed against us today flows from the bitter hunger 
pains of an insatiable appetite for new wasteful spending.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just been told by the majority party whip that 
he is holding back an ocean wave of spending. Well, what is it that he 
is holding back? What is he using his hammer to hold back in his own 
caucus? He is using his hammer in order to prevent this House from 
voting on the education and health appropriations bill. He has his 
ideological views and he has assessed the votes in his own caucus and 
he has decided he does not even have the votes in his own caucus to 
squeeze down education as much as the President wants to do in his own 
budget.
  If The Hammer, as he is known on that side of the aisle, if the 
gentleman is so confident that he can prevail, then why do you not 
allow the committee to bring up the Labor-Health-Education bill? I 
wrote to the Speaker and I said, Mr. Speaker, you have got a fight 
between your conservatives and your moderates and so you are hung up 
and so you do not want to bring a bill up because you cannot guarantee 
an outcome, why do you not simply bring the bill to the floor and let 
us let the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) offer the President's 
budget, which he tried to do, let your Republican caucus offer any 
other alternative they want, and then let us offer an alternative we 
want and let us see which package wins? The reason you will not bring 
the Education bill to the floor is because you know you cannot win it.
  It is also because you know that your Members desperately want to 
avoid voting on the President's Education budget before the election. 
Why? Because in the last 5 years, we have delivered on average a 13 
percent increase for education each year, and now you want to freeze 
it. Now you want to freeze it and your moderate Members know that that 
will not fly with the American people. It will not do any good for 
America's kids. It will not help build America's future, and it will 
not help you in the election.
  Bring the bill out. That is what we are asking.
  As for the Senate being responsible, the fact is that 90 percent of 
the domestic budget has not passed, and that is no fault of the Senate. 
You have only produced on this floor the smallest of the domestic 
appropriation bills and only the Treasury-Post Office bill has become 
law.
  We are going to have a conference on Defense next week but you have 
abdicated your responsibility. The gentleman from Texas, I say to you, 
you have abdicated the responsibility as majority party whip to do the 
Nation's business. You say you have completed the Nation's business. 
Then why is it that 90 percent of the domestic appropriations are being 
bottled up by the majority party? Why do you not do your duty and bring 
those bills to the floor?


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to remind Members to 
please avoid improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
29\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 29 
minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  One item that has been lost in this debate, which is truly important, 
I think one of the proudest moments in this House of Representatives 
was in 1996, when we passed a welfare reform bill. As a result of that, 
almost 3 million kids are now out of poverty. Millions and millions of 
people who otherwise would be on the welfare roll are on the payroll, 
and the welfare rolls in this country have been reduced by 60 percent, 
and that is why at the same time we are reducing poverty among kids. 
What greater accomplishment have we had?
  That bill runs out the end of this month.

                              {time}  1815

  There will be no welfare and welfare reform can be forgotten. The 
$4.8 billion in child care will no longer be there. Four months ago on 
the floor of this House, we passed the extension. The Senate has not.
  Part of this bill is to extend welfare reform so that the checks will 
continue to go out. The child care will continue to be there, the job 
training will still be there, and all of the good things that we passed 
in 1996 will remain with us. But it is going to be absolutely vital 
that we pass this continuing resolution because this would extend it 
for 3 months into next year. That is tremendously important because if 
we do not, there will be no checks going out.
  The prediction that was made in 1996 when we passed welfare reform 
would come true and the poverty levels would skyrocket, the job 
training and all of the good that we did would be undone. The Senate 
has not acted on this most important piece of legislation, and it is 
one that I think all Members in one degree or another can support.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the House for passing welfare 
reform, and also urge that all Members tonight vote for this continuing 
resolution so that all the good that we did in 1996 is not lost.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the 
continuing resolution that is before us today, but I must say that the 
administration's budget proposal in this body has not lived up to the 
commitment that we made to leave no child behind.
  Yesterday, the Census Bureau stated that the proportion of Americans 
living in poverty rose significantly last year, increasing for the 
first time in 8 years. At the same time, the Bureau said that the 
income of middle-class households fell for the first time since the 
last recession ended, in 1991. In the last 2 years, 2 million more 
Americans have lost their jobs, and economic growth is at an anemic 1 
percent, the slowest growth in over 50 years.
  What has been the House's answer to this: Tax cuts, the ability to 
find another $100-200 billion for a possible war in Iraq.
  A strong economy depends on a strong workforce, and that means 
educating all Americans and providing them with skills they need to be 
productive workers. Some Members of Congress seem to have a single 
focus, and that is keeping America strong abroad. But we have a dual 
responsibility, keeping America strong abroad and also keeping America 
strong at home. Education is the key to keeping America strong at home, 
and that is why I think we must finish our work here before we adjourn 
for the elections in November.
  The title I program provides funds for school districts to help 
disadvantaged children obtain a high-quality education, and at a 
minimum, to achieve proficiency on challenging academic achievement 
standards established by the States.
  The President's request for title I education is $4.56 billion below 
the $16 billion he supported and Congress supported in the Leave No 
Child Behind Act. The administration refused to request funding for 
title I school improvements funds, and last year over 8,600 schools, 10 
percent across the country, were identified as failing to meet the 
State standards. With the additional funds promised by the Leave No 
Child Behind Act, school districts would have been able to hire an 
additional 92,000 title I teachers.

[[Page H6762]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this continuing resolution, 
but let us also focus on the need to fully fund education for our 
children.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a sinkhole on the Capitol, not 
over here, but over there, a giant growing sinkhole. It is particularly 
hazardous to judicial nominees, to presidential appointees, and to 
presidential ideas or initiatives in general. It is very hazardous to 
legislation, hazardous to the budget. In fact, the only thing that 
seems to get through this giant sinkhole are memos from Barbra 
Streisand; but that is an improvement, I would say, over contacting 
Eleanor Roosevelt, as we were doing a couple of years ago to get our 
instructions.
  Now, this sinkhole ate up the budget this year. There is no budget. 
Where there is no budget, every day is Christmas.
  I have four wonderful children. I love my children, like just every 
Democrat and Republican here. We all love our kids, but my kids have 
all kinds of ideas about how I ought to be spending my money. For 
birthdays, they want a golf cart, Jetskis, CDs, and if they are older, 
they want a car. None of them quite wanted the pair of tennis shoes 
that I bought and wrapped so carefully. The reality is, they think I am 
a U.S. Senator, and every day is Christmas when we do not have a 
budget.
  So here we are forced to pass a continuing resolution because we 
cannot deal with some group that does not have a budget. That is bad 
enough, but here are some other bills. We are at war. As I speak, as we 
sit here, we have troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan and all over the 
Middle East, and yet we cannot get a homeland security bill passed. We 
cannot get faith-based initiatives passed. The House has passed 51 
bills which have not been passed by the other body. There is no 
bipartisan Patient Protection Act. There is no human cloning bill. I 
can understand that because some of them do not want more of us, and a 
lot of us do not want more of them. Maybe that one I can understand 
their hesitancy.
  They have not passed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family 
Promotion Act, or welfare reform. We had 14 million people on welfare 3 
years ago.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Georgia will 
suspend.
  Members must avoid improper references to the other body. That is the 
rule of the House.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Now there is no doubt 
who I am referring to; and that same other body has not passed the 
Child Custody Protection Act, the Internet Freedom and Broadband 
Deployment Act, the Small Business Interest Checking Act, the Sudan 
Peace Act, the Coral Reef and Coastal Marine Conservation Act, the Rail 
Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act, the Medicare Regulatory and 
Contracting Reform Act, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection 
Act, the Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act, the Class Action Fairness Act, the 
True American Heroes Act, the Jobs for Veterans Act, the Social 
Security Benefit Enhancement for Women Act, the Child Sex Crimes 
Wiretapping Act.
  Mr. Speaker, all this stuff the House has passed, 51 pieces of 
legislation which languish in this giant sinkhole on the other side of 
the Capitol. It is disgraceful.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members not to 
characterize action or inaction in the other body.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not the other body that has prevented this House 
from bringing out the Labor-Health and Education budget, or the Science 
budget, or the Housing or Transportation budget. It is the fact that 
the majority caucus is wrapped around the axle because they cannot get 
an agreement on any approach that will bring those bills to the floor 
and allow them to pass them. That is what the problem is.
  Now we have an effort to shift the blame somewhere else. I guess that 
is the normal course of action around here. That does not make it 
right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I love this House of Representatives, but 
I do not like us when we do not do our work. The reason we are here 
tonight is because we have not done our work. We have not passed the 13 
appropriation bills in this body, and we would have all of the 
complaints in the world had we done our work. We have not done our 
work.
  It is amazing the speeches I have heard defending the budget and the 
fact that we do not have a budget on this side of the aisle. Some of us 
did. We were denied an opportunity to debate it on the House floor. 
Some of us had a budget. We did not like the budget that has now given 
us $317 billion of new deficits.
  Conveniently, the majority whip came on the floor and talked about 10 
years ago. What about right now? We are here tonight discussing a 
budget that has given us $317 billion of new deficits and will spend 
Social Security trust funds for the next 10 years. Forget the last 40, 
worry about today. That is when we can do something about it. The other 
side is in the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) or the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), but the 
gentleman from Texas who stood down here a moment ago and made that 
eloquent speech of untruths reminded me of the Will Rogers quote when 
he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it's 
them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.''
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about the Reagan tax cuts. I was here. For the 
12 years of Reagan-Bush, never did the big spending Democratic 
Congress, other than 1 year, spend more than Presidents Reagan and Bush 
asked us to spend; and yet, conveniently, the rhetoric tonight says it 
was us that did it.
  Conveniently, we are letting some of the real budget rules that 
allowed us to do some good things on budget expire September 30, and 
the same leadership that comes down and makes the speeches they made a 
moment ago are directly responsible for allowing pay-go to expire, to 
allow discretionary caps to expire.
  Let me make out one relevant point tonight when we talk about 
spending, as so many Members on the other side of the aisle keep 
talking about Democratic spending, the difference between the House and 
the Senate; the difference we are talking about on the appropriators is 
$9 billion. That is the difference that has kept the leadership from 
bringing the 13 appropriation bills to the floor of the House and 
letting the House work its will.
  We should at least keep the spending caps in. I feel kind of 
ridiculous arguing for that because we have ignored them all year, but 
if the other side had enforced the pay-go rules, we would have never 
passed the budget because we could not have passed the budget. 
Increasing the debt ceiling for our country was passed at midnight 
because the majority party did not want to stand up and acknowledge the 
fact that as they talk about paying down the debt and deficit 
elimination, the debt is going up. We are going to have to do it again, 
under the budget that everybody over on the other side is bragging 
about. If they are bragging about it, spend the appropriation bills out 
and pass them; but do not keep complaining about somebody else's fault. 
This House has not done its work. It is not the minority party's fault; 
it is the majority party's fault.
  As a child, I always knew that if I started criticizing some trait 
about one of my playmates, Mother would soon be talking about ``your 
own plank.'' Her shorthand reference was to the scripture which warns 
against pointing out the ``speck'' in someone else's eye when there was 
a huge ``plank'' in your own. I think we could use my mother on the 
House floor these days. There has been a lot of rhetoric about what the 
other chamber has not done but not much attention to some of our own 
shortcomings right here in the House. One of those shortcomings--the 
failure to renew budget enforcement rules--is very near and dear to my 
heart and, after years of defending those rules, I cannot remain silent 
today.

[[Page H6763]]

  Circumstances have changed dramatically since we passed the 
Republican budget last year. The projections turned out to be too 
optimistic, revenues are much lower than expected, and we face 
tremendous new expenses for homeland defense and the war on terrorism 
and a possible war with Iraq.
  Now that those projections have proven to be nothing more than empty 
hopes and unfulfilled promises, some of us think we should look 
honestly at our economic situation rather than continuing to view the 
world through faulty rose colored glasses. But the leadership on the 
other side of the aisle refuses to consider any adjustments to their 
budget policies.
  At the very least, we should take action to make sure we don't dig 
the deficit hole still deeper. Instead, the Republican leadership is 
allowing the existing budget enforcement rules which impose some fiscal 
discipline on Congress to expire.
  Over the previous decade, the budget enforcement rules were one of 
the more successful tools for establishing fiscal discipline and 
helping bring about budget surpluses. These rules set limits on the 
amount of discretionary spending Congress can approve and prohibited 
legislation which would have increased the deficit.
  When these rules expire five days from now, there will be no limits 
on spending and no restrictions on the ability of Congress to pass 
legislation which makes the deficit even worse.
  Considering spending bills during a lame duck session after the 
election without any rules imposing budget discipline is a recipe for 
runaway spending and higher debt.
  Unless we renew our budget discipline, Congress will continue to find 
ways to pass more legislation that puts still more red ink on the 
national ledger.
  Alternatively, enforceable spending limits would serve as a fiscal 
guardrail to help keep our spending within our means.
  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Budget 
Committee that ``Failing to preserve (budget enforcement rules) would 
be a grave mistake . . . the bottom line is that if we do not preserve 
the budget rules and reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility, 
years of hard effort could be squandered.
  Leon Panetta, who served as Chairman of the House Budget Committee 
and Bill Frenzel, the former Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee 
wrote a letter on behalf of the Committee for a Responsible Federal 
Budget warning that: ``The expiration of Budget Enforcement Act 
constraints on spending and revenue legislation is an open invitation 
to fiscal irresponsibility and an embarrassment to all that care about 
the budget process. . . . To let them expire now would send a terrible 
signal to an economy that is struggling for stability.''
  The Concord Coalition has warned that allowing budget enforcement 
rules to expire is ``an open invitation to fiscal chaos.''
  Despite these warnings about the harm that could be done to the 
federal budget and the economy if we allow these rules to expire, the 
House leadership has resisted any efforts to extend these rules.
  In my book, that's a mighty big ``plank'' in the House's eye.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this continuing 
resolution so that America's critical welfare reform programs and 
support for low-income families can continue. Welfare reform should not 
be forced to be part of this discussion today. The House passed a 5-
year welfare reform extension bill this May. Fourteen of my colleagues 
across the aisle joined us in approving that bill. Now more than 4 
months later, the Senate has still failed to act.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from California is reminded to avoid improper 
references to the other body.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for this continuing 
resolution, the greatly successful 1996 welfare reforms would expire 
just 4 days from now. What makes this prolonged lack of action so 
frustrating is that welfare reform has helped literally millions of 
families achieve remarkable progress in the last 6 years.

                              {time}  1830

  The 1996 welfare reforms were the greatest social policy change 
success story in history. The success is indisputable. Nearly 3 million 
children have left poverty. Employment by mothers most likely to go on 
welfare rose by 40 percent. Welfare caseloads fell by 9 million.
  The continuing resolution before us extends for 3 months the 
important welfare programs depended upon by millions of low-income 
families. We should not have to be here today extending welfare 
programs, but the other body has failed to act; so we have no other 
choice. I encourage my colleagues to support this continuing resolution 
so millions of low-income families can continue to be supported in 
their efforts to work and support their families.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Chair reminds the Members 
again that characterizing Senate inaction is not appropriate and is 
against our rules.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am going to confess our inferiority. We 
have been here denouncing this continuing resolution, but we are not as 
good at denouncing continuing resolutions as some of the great figures 
in America's past.
  I was here when Ronald Reagan really talked about a continuing 
resolution, when he said Congress should not send another one of these, 
when he belittled a continuing resolution of 5 days and 8 days and 9 
days, then denounced the fact that Congress had passed none of the 
appropriations bills. That was Ronald Reagan holding up that continuing 
resolution as an example of government at its worst. How the Republican 
Party has fallen away from that ideal. Ronald Reagan was the one who 
said let us get the people's work done in time to avoid a foot race 
with Santa Claus. Santa Claus has gained on the Republican Party since 
he left.
  The Republican Party is usually quite respectful of Ronald Reagan. 
Why this great falling away from the teachings of President Reagan to 
which they are usually so obedient? Do the Members know why? I hope 
Members listened to the speech from the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, who boasted about 
increased government spending, and then heard the speech from the 
majority whip, who denounced all those people who boast about increased 
government spending. That is the problem when the chairman of the 
Appropriations subcommittee gives a speech which is in fact denounced 
by the majority whip. That is why the bill cannot come up.
  Let us be clear. There is no rule, there is no principle, there is no 
Constitution, there is nothing that interferes with this House bringing 
something up, and Members can violate the rules by denouncing the 
Senate all they want. It is irrelevant to anything except their 
disrespect for the rules of this House. It has nothing to do with 
whether or not we vote on bills. Indeed, they are illogical by their 
own rules because they ultimately boast about passing some 
appropriations bills and then complain that some mystical force has 
kept them from passing the others.
  The fact is that rarely, rarely do I have to dissent even mildly from 
the gentleman from Wisconsin who has been such a magnificent 
articulator on this issue, but he said the problem is a fight between 
the moderates and the conservatives of the Republican Party. He knows 
that is a fight between Mike Tyson and Grandma Moses. The moderates in 
the Republican Party are lucky if they get the water cooler turned on. 
It is not the moderates. Here is the problem: it is the Republicans who 
voted for a tax cut, and then we had Afghanistan and Iraq and homeland 
security, and we now have demands on expenditures that are greater than 
the revenues.
  I will pay tribute to those like the majority whip in his fervor and 
venom against government spending. He is prepared to bring government 
spending down to the level that would be consistent with the tax cut, 
but the other Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to vote 
for a tax cut, which reduces government revenue; and then they do not 
want to vote for a bill that would bring down the spending. So that is 
why we do not have the bill. We do not have the Health and Human 
Services bill or the HUD bill because they cannot admit how much they 
have made it impossible for the government to spend responsibly.

[[Page H6764]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who is a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time, and I feel compelled to share a few words in 
this debate tonight.
  I have dealt with budgets all my life. For 26 years I operated a 
business and I had a budget. In the family I had a budget. For 19 years 
I was in State government and we passed a budget every year. For 10 
years I was a State appropriator; so I was very involved in the State 
budget. It had taken me a while since my 6 years in Washington to 
figure out our process because it is a lot more complicated, and I have 
often wondered why it was so complicated. But we all know the basic 
principles, that the House has to pass a budget and the Senate has to 
pass a budget, and we have to bring that together. And the process that 
I have learned to understand is the budget first is the framework of 
how much money we should spend. The Senate figures out how much money, 
and then we reconcile that figure and then we are all working off of 
the same spending plan. We only argue about how we spend it.
  This is the first time that process has fallen apart. Our friends 
have not played in this process and so they have no rules of conduct, 
they have no limits on spending, so their proposals from the figures I 
have when you use the budget gimmicks of advance spending is up to 
close to $15 billion above the President's proposal.
  We have had the war on terrorism; we had the rebuilding of our 
defenses. We have a stellar record of spending in the last few years 
for education which increased education spending 132 percent.
  It seems to me it is the year that we both need to have a proposal 
that limits spending because we have a war to fight, we have our 
defenses to rebuild; and if we do not have some rules of spending, we 
will have deficits as long as we are around. The debate is about do we 
want to have deficits forever, or do we want to have deficits 
temporarily and get past deficit spending back to budgets that are 
surpluses? That is the big argument. If the other body plays by no 
rules and we have no way to reconcile how much money we are going to 
spend together, we can never reconcile our appropriation bills at the 
end of the process, in my view. That is pretty simple adding up the 
numbers.
  So we now have a process where we have rules, they have no rules. We 
have a limit on how much we will spend so we can get beyond deficit 
spending down the road. They have taken the rules away so they can 
spend for anything they want to spend no matter what it costs so it 
will sound good for the election. Their process is about electing 
people. It is not about having our budget process work so the American 
people can know that we have been a little cautious in our spending 
because we have a war to fight and so that we can bring realism back to 
our budget process in the future and we can get back to surpluses where 
this country needs to be.
  I rise tonight to say that it is time for these two bodies to 
reconcile their differences and get down to a budget process that has 
rules for both bodies.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For the benefit of the Members, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 18 minutes and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 21 minutes.
  The Chair again reminds Members to please not characterize the 
actions of the Senate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would simply like to say to the gentleman who just spoke, the worst 
thing that can happen in this town is when we believe our own baloney, 
and the fact is I have just heard a lot of it.
  We hear speech after speech from the majority side of the aisle 
saying, It's them thar other guys on the other side of the Capitol 
what's caused this problem.
  That is really not the problem. The problem can be summed up in a 
quote from Shakespeare: ``The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars 
but in ourselves.''
  I would say to my friends in the majority, you are in the majority. 
Act like it. Bring the bill to the floor. If you have got the votes, 
you have got the votes. If you do not, we will reach some other result. 
But do not stymie the Congress into paralysis and then govern by 
continuing resolution because you do not have the courage of your 
convictions. Bring the bills up and see whether the majority whip or 
other factions in the caucus win. The only reason the majority whip 
does not want to bring the bill up is because he knows he does not have 
the votes in his own caucus. I dare him to bring the Labor-Health-
Education bill up. I dare him to put the President's budget on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a sad, duplicitous argument from 
my colleagues on the other side as this one of why they cannot get 
their work done, why they cannot do the job that they were elected to 
do. They come out here and suggest that somehow it is everyone else's 
fault, but the fault lies within the Republican caucus.
  I find it rather interesting on the eve of the time when so many in 
this House are so anxious to send our troops into harm's way to 
establish democracy and defend democracy, they are so afraid of 
democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. Bring the bill 
out and let us vote. Somebody will win and somebody will lose. It may 
be a bipartisan coalition of moderates and Democrats or right-wing 
conservatives and conservative Democrats, I do not know. But bring the 
health and human services appropriations bill to the floor and let us 
vote. That is democracy.
  This is supposed to be the most democratic of all places on the face 
of the Earth, and you want to manage it because you are afraid to be 
accountable for your votes. It was not too long ago when the President 
of the United States said when he signed the No Child Left Behind 
education reform that I had the honor of working with him on, along 
with the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
(Chairman Boehner), he said to the American public and he said to every 
audience as we flew around the country as he had multiple signings, if 
you will, he said, This is the way Washington should work. This is the 
way Washington should work.
  The basic tenet of that bill at the request of the President of the 
United States was accountability. That bill holds State offices of 
education accountable, school districts accountable, chief State school 
officers accountable, teachers accountable. But now we have the 
Republican caucus, rather than bring out the funding for that bill, 
seeking to duck the accountability for the savage cuts that are going 
to happen if we kick this all over to March.
  This is not theoretical. My colleagues in California on both sides of 
the aisle know that in the middle of March, if we have not done this 
bill, tens of thousands of teachers in California will get pink-
slipped, their lives will be disrupted, school budgets will be 
disrupted. Most of these local governments and school districts will 
start the budgetary process in January; and by March, April and May 
they will be deep into their budget. But there will be no education 
budget. There will be no education budget allowing for the additional 
billion dollars for special education on which we have bipartisan 
agreement. There will be no education budget for the 350,000 additional 
title I children, the children in most desperate need of this money to 
get a decent education in this country. There will be no education 
budget for them. There will be no education budget for 350,000 children 
with disabilities.
  Can you not see it in your heart to bring this budget to do your work 
to carry out the promise of the President of the United States, the 
promise of this Congress to the parents and to the children of this 
Nation that there would be a new day for education, there would be a 
system of standards and goals and accomplishments and, more importantly 
than anything, of accountability to the children and to the parents?

[[Page H6765]]

  When? When will this Republican caucus get the courage and the pride 
to do the Nation's business?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the audacity of the House 
Republican leadership in blocking the entire Federal budget in order to 
spare the President embarrassment and to cater to their most extreme 
right-wing members goes beyond anything I have ever seen or experienced 
in this body.
  I was amazed in July when the House leadership caved in to the 
Conservative Action Team, putting the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill in jeopardy. I wondered, how are Republican leaders 
going to pass this bill within the President's inadequate numbers? How 
would we get past this bill to the rest of the appropriations agenda 
before the new fiscal year began?
  But, Mr. Speaker, it never occurred to me that Republican leaders 
would simply disregard the start of the new fiscal year and let the 
entire budget come crashing down, all to appease the most right-wing 
members of their caucus.
  It is equally amazing that the President and his OMB Director are 
complicit in this strategy, apparently, or perhaps it is a lack of 
strategy, for in fact this is irresponsibility and dereliction of duty 
on a monumental scale.
  What I never dreamed would happen has indeed happened, and the 
continuing resolution we are voting on today, covering not one bill or 
two, but the entire discretionary budget, is a monument to an 
extraordinary failure of leadership and responsibility.
  This institutional breakdown is fraught with real consequences for 
real people. The No Child Left Behind Act, for example, was signed by 
the President amid great bipartisan fanfare in January. Yet, just weeks 
later, the President submitted a fiscal year 2003 budget that would cut 
the very education programs authorized in the new law. A continuing 
resolution will stall education funding and negate the effects of No 
Child Left Behind while the Bush budget would actually take us 
backwards.
  The Bush budget reduces by 82 percent promised support for needy 
schools and students. Instead of increasing funding to help school 
districts meet the mandate that all teachers be highly qualified, the 
President's budget cuts teacher quality funding by 4 percent, 
eliminating training for 18,000 teachers.
  Instead of providing increased support for after school centers to 
increase enrollment by 580,000, the President's budget would actually 
force 50,000 children to be eliminated from programs that provide safe 
places to learn after school.
  Mr. Speaker, the House leadership has allowed a willful group of 
right-wingers to hold the entire budget process to their ideological 
agenda. This budgetary breakdown is a disaster, not only for this 
institution, but for the people we represent.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting on the floor now for 
hours, as many of you have as well. I do not relish saying the 
following, but I think that we have hit one of our all-time lows.
  This is the House of Representatives, the place of the people. We are 
the political descendants, every single one of us, of this man here, 
George Washington, of Lafayette, of Lincoln, of Kennedy, of Reagan, of 
all of them. What has come of us, that we have descended into this?
  I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I respect you. You 
are a gentleman. You are a decent man. I respect the mainstream 
Republicans who have to deal with this nonsense daily by the only wing 
that dominates your party now, the right wing.
  But the right wing is the wrong wing. The people of this country 
deserve to have their families taken care of by us. That is why we ran. 
We said to our respective constituents, whether they were Republicans, 
Democrats, Independents, we want to fulfill the dream of America for 
you.
  Now, whether we agree or disagree about the approaches, we have the 
collective responsibility to bring the vehicles to this floor, and a 
continuing resolution means that there has been a collapse, a collapse 
of leadership.
  I do not want to think of what Lincoln would say about the Republican 
whip and what he said. He is too busy hating Democrats. What about 
loving our country and moving an agenda forward?
  I feel ashamed tonight. I feel ashamed that there is not enough 
leadership. Where is the Speaker? Where is the majority leader? We can 
do better than this. We can do better than this, and the American 
people will hold us accountable. This is a sad evening.
  I will vote for the resolution, so the government does not shut down.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to serve in the people's 
House and have taken such great pride in my service here over the past 
12 years. I will soon be casting my last vote in this historic Chamber, 
and I remember casting my first 12 years ago on whether or not to go to 
war in the Persian Gulf. Members sat attentive, listening, applauding 
one another, Republican and Democrat. Whether or not they agreed with 
the Member's position, there was respect and comity.
  Now, when this Chamber should be united, when that respect should be 
at an all time high, when we should be productive and working into the 
night, we are questioning one another's patriotism and calling one 
another names.
  What is happening to this great institution? That night we went into 
the night, we worked for days. We did the people's work. Now we work 2 
days. We cannot bring a housing bill to the floor, we cannot bring an 
education bill to the floor, we cannot have the great debates that this 
body has had over centuries.
  Why can we not rise to the occasion, rather than putting this great 
body into reverse and going backwards at one of the most momentous and 
important times in our Nation's history? Let us pull together and work 
together and bring glory and hope to what Abraham Lincoln said was the 
last best hope of mankind. Let us come together and work together in a 
bipartisan way and do the people's work.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, I am reminded of the coffee shop 
breakfast table where I ate breakfast every morning for 27 years. We 
have a motto, ``Often wrong, but never in doubt.''
  It is a sad day, as previous speakers, have mentioned. We are 
Americans. We can do better. We can do anything. All we have to do is 
work together and do the right thing.
  The facts are we have got more people in poverty now than we had 2 
years ago. Middle income has gone down. The debt is $440 billion 
greater. The American people continue to get robbed every time they go 
to the drugstore by the criminal acts of the prescription drug 
manufacturers.
  We have spent all of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. It 
is all gone. We collected that money with a promise to the American 
people that we would take it and it would be there to pay your benefits 
when your time came. It is all gone. Those are facts. You cannot hide 
from them. You cannot make up something else. You cannot blame it on 
somebody else. That is the way it is.
  It is also a fact, as I said in the beginning, that we are Americans. 
We can do better. This is a shameful event in the history of this 
House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
allowing me the time to speak on this very important subject.
  That we are asked to vote on a continuing resolution to continue 
something implies that which is in progress to reach a reasonable end, 
a resolve. I remember my father saying, ``Don't start a job you can't 
finish.'' Well, that is what we are doing, if we are not careful. It is 
my hope that we can come together and resolve the differences before we 
throw in the towel.

[[Page H6766]]

  I am not a quitter. I want to do everything possible that we can to 
come to a positive end.
  Circumstances have changed drastically since we enacted the budget 
last year, the Republican budget last year. The projections turned out 
to be too optimistic. Revenues are much lower than expected, and we 
face tremendous new expenses for homeland defense and the war on 
terrorism and a possible war with Iraq.
  But we have got to acknowledge that there is a problem. New 
situations call for new solutions. Do not point fingers at each other 
and say it will work itself out. We came here to do a job, the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, to debate the very differences that we 
have. Maybe it is about unions in one respect and business in another, 
but that is why we came here. Can we not as reasonable people reach a 
resolve on behalf of the American people, whom we are going to ask in a 
few days to reelect us? It is shameful if we cannot.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, like every one of you, I love 
my country, but I do not think we serve our country when we lie to the 
people who sent us here.
  In the past month I have heard no one less than the Speaker of this 
House and the majority whip tell the American people we are paying down 
the debt. A question I pose to the both of you, if that is so, then why 
did this body schedule a vote in the wee hours of the morning when our 
constituents slept to raise the debt limit over $6 trillion? If that is 
so, why is our Nation $440 billion deeper in debt than 1 year ago 
today, and en route within the next week to have the single largest 
increase in our Nation's debt in one fiscal year?
  Mr. Speaker, we have to pass this resolution tonight. But I want to 
very much commend the people in that party and the people in this party 
who are working with our budget chairman to try to rein in spending, 
because not one of you would go buy a car and say, ``Let my kids pay 
for it.'' Not one of you would go buy a house and say, ``By the way, I 
don't care what it costs, let my kids pay for it.'' That is precisely 
what you are doing.
  By the way, it was a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a 
Republican President who signed the budget bill last year. Please do 
not tell me and please do not tell the people I represent that somehow 
your magical budget is going to solve that, because it was your budget 
that put us $440 billion deeper in debt in the past 12 months.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, while American servicemen and women are 
fighting the war against terrorism in Afghanistan tonight, and 
preparing for possible war against Iraq, it seems to me that the House 
could at least extend its present 3-day work week in order to keep from 
undermining the education of military schoolchildren. By not passing 
our education appropriation bill and by relying on this continuing 
resolution, this bill will basically prevent hundreds of millions of 
Federal dollars from going in November to public schools that have 
large numbers of military schoolchildren in them.
  How can the House leadership explain to soldiers fighting 7 days a 
week in Afghanistan that the House cannot pass an education 
appropriations bill important to their children's education because 
that might just require Members of Congress to work more than 3 days a 
week? If the top Republican leadership has time to campaign in my 
district in Texas this weekend, then surely they can find time to 
schedule more than a 3-day work week in the House so that we can pass 
an education appropriations bill that is vital to thousands of Army 
parents in my district.
  We have an obligation, Democrat and Republican alike in this House, 
to pass appropriation bills. That is our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, 
even if it requires more than a 3-day work week. We owe it to our 
military children and to their parents who sacrifice so much for our 
Nation to put this continuing resolution aside, get back to work, and 
pass an education appropriation bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, after 6 years on the Committee on the 
Budget, I am amazed at the debate I have heard tonight. I did not 
realize just how powerful that committee is. In the 6 years I have been 
on that committee, I have seen Members of the other party in this body 
and the other body waive the pay-go rules, waive the spending cap rules 
to accomplish whatever goal they want. But tonight, tonight we hear, 
because we do not have a budget resolution of both bodies, we cannot 
bring appropriations bills to the House floor.
  Why is it that we can have an ongoing conference on the defense bill 
and the military construction bill but, somehow, we cannot even bring 
the Labor-HHS-Education bill to the floor, we cannot bring the science 
bill or the housing bill or any of those other bills, because the 
majority whip tells us, if we bring them to the floor, then we will 
have to go to conference and then the spending will go up?
  But we are already in conference on other bills. It seems rather 
illogical to this Member that if we can do it on some bills, why we 
cannot do it on other bills.
  What it is, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a small cadre in the House 
on the Republican side that are the last to realize that the economic 
program of this administration has been a failure, and rather than 
leaving us in surplus, we have wiped out over $5 trillion in surplus 
value, including that in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. 
They are the last ones to realize it. The American people and the 
majority in the House and the Senate long ago did. We ought to bring 
those bills to the floor and finish our work for the American people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible for Congress to put off 
doing the people's business; it is irresponsible for the Republican 
majority to continue to ignore America's unmet needs, particularly our 
commitment to educating our children. From Head Start to teacher's pay, 
America's children, teachers and schools are being severely 
shortchanged by President Bush's budget and the majority's inaction. 
Mr. Speaker, 18,000 fewer teachers being trained, 33,000 fewer children 
in after-school programs, zero funds for repairing our crumbling 
schools, and only 9 months ago, we heard so much talk about how 
Congress and the administration would leave no child behind.
  But now, with the smallest proposed increase in education since 1996, 
the President and the Republican majority are doing just that. Leaving 
our children behind is what happens when we underfund education by $7.2 
billion.
  This year programs funded under the No Child Left Behind Act are cut 
by $87 million, no additional resources to purchase books, to invest in 
teacher training. The President does take a lot of photographs with 
young children. When it comes to early childhood learning, we have 
heard soaring rhetoric, but not much else. Nowhere in the Bush budget 
does the Republican rhetoric ring more hollow. They have cut the Even 
Start program, supporting projects that combine early childhood 
education for children and literacy training for parents. By gutting 
Even Start, we leave whole families behind.
  What we need to do is to stop taking pictures with children and 
provide them with the tools they need in order that they might succeed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, the gentleman from Florida 
has the right to close; he still has a lot of time remaining, and so 
much may be said which we will not be able to respond to. But having 
said that, let me simply say that I think every Member of the House 
wishes the chairman well. He is being honored tonight for his 
leadership on bone marrow research, and I hope we do not tie him up too 
late here so that he can receive that award. I want to congratulate him 
for it. I think all of us in the House know

[[Page H6767]]

that he deserves it, and his mother will be proud.
  Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, we are simply here because this 
resolution will extend the ability of the government to function until 
October 4. It is then my understanding there is another plan to move us 
to October 11; and then after that, evidently, an effort will be made 
to move us past the election. I want the majority leadership to 
understand, I will not vote for a resolution that moves us past the 
election without doing our duty to pass the education bill, to pass the 
science bill, to pass the other appropriation bills that this House has 
a duty to pass. We should not sneak out of town before we have done our 
duty, especially our duty by the children of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House leadership to take the time afforded by 
this resolution to face up to their responsibilities to bring the 
Labor-Health-Education bill to the floor, as well as the other bills, 
so that the House can finish its business.
  When we finish our business, then we can squawk about the other body. 
Until then, we have no claim in the world to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone observing our debate this evening would think 
that we were engaged in some great political activity and that this 
bill on the floor was going to affect the politics of this body.
  The fact of the matter is, we are only talking about a 4-day CR, and 
I would suggest that maybe some of us should save our ammunition for 
next week, because we are going to have to go through this all again 
next week, probably.
  As far as it being a CR, someone might get the idea that it is a 
sinister development or a sneaky procedure. Except for the year that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin chaired the Committee on Appropriations, 
we have used CRs around here forever. So this is not something that is 
new; it has been used before, a number of times, many times.
  But as strange as it might seem from all of this debate, this really 
is a bipartisan bill that we are debating here tonight. It is 
bipartisan because the gentleman from Wisconsin has worked closely with 
us to fashion this bill, and I do not want to get in trouble here with 
the rules of the House, but as well as the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations in the other body, and the ranking Republican member of 
the other body; we all worked together to fashion this nonpartisan, 
bipartisan continuing resolution.
  As I said, we are probably going to have to do this again next week, 
so if my colleagues have some other ammunition that they want to throw 
out, save it. Although I think everything that needs to be said has 
probably already been said, but let us see.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman very, very briefly, 
because I have said there would be no other speakers.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would tell my friend from Wisconsin, if I was fighting in combat, I 
would want to fight against the best MiG driver there is; and as a 
political opponent and a friend, I think we have fought against one of 
the best MiG drivers here on the floor tonight, and I salute the 
gentleman.
  I would just like to answer, and I do not think they will be 
controversial, two questions real quick. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) asked how can we increase the debt. If you inherit a debt that 
is $5 trillion and you nearly spend $1 billion a day on just the 
interest of the debt, it grows. You can pay down $490 billion; but if 
it grows over the years, over $1 billion a day, it is going to get 
bigger.
  The other thing I would say is to my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), whom I am very proud of as a colleague 
in California, who worked on the education bill, but I would ask him to 
take a look at what Governor Gray Davis is doing to education in 
California where every single district is being cut millions of dollars 
because of the energy crisis that was mismanaged.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing 
resolution to keep the government funded until October 4, which is 4 
days into the fiscal year. It is a bipartisan bill, and I would urge 
that we vote it quickly, send it down to the other body so that we can 
get it to the President's desk.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have not been 
able to deal meaningfully with the appropriations process. The fiscal 
year ends in a few more days and we have not completed our 
appropriations work. Indeed, we have barely begun. The Republican part 
has a split between its conservative and its more conservative members, 
which is keeping the remaining appropriations bills from being brought 
to the House floor for debate and action.
  The funding of our federal departments and program is one of the most 
important jobs of Congress. We must honor our commitments to defend our 
country, educate our children, and protect the environment. I am 
willing to support this short-term continuing resolution. However, we 
must, sooner rather than later, face up to the consequences of a 
massive tax cut, more demands for security, and the impact of the 
wasteful farm bill, and get on with the job the American people expect 
of us.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to express 
my strong opposition to the idea of a long-term continuing resolution.
  My colleagues, what have we done over the last few weeks? We've 
passed resolutions critical of the other body. Day by day, however, the 
start of the fiscal year approaches and the possibility looms that our 
inaction on the Labor-HHS bill will be felt in classrooms throughout 
American and by every school-age kid.
  The House Republican leadership ought to stop pointing the finger at 
the Senate, and start crafting appropriations bills that are palatable 
to their own party.
  Last year we passed and the President signed into law the landmark 
reauthorization of the ESEA, which calls for substantial increases in 
funding to ensure a quality education for every American child. The No 
Child Left Behind Act marked a new federal commitment to the education 
of our children.
  It seems, unfortunately, that the Republican Leadership suddenly 
forgot everything it said as soon as we passed this bill.
  The new ESEA law promised to provide school districts with 40% of the 
nation's average per pupil expenditure for each low-income student. 
Title I funding already does not meet the overwhelming need across the 
country, particularly in urban school districts, but ESEA was a step in 
the right direction.
  The Republican budget, however, provides a mere $1 billion increase 
in Title I funding. This funding level is $16.7 billion below ``full'' 
funding for Title I under the new education law. Not only does this 
increase come on the backs of other programs, but it does not even keep 
up with inflation.
  In New York City alone, only 30% of eligible low-income students were 
served by Title I in the last school year. This means that 326,000 
students are being left behind. Under the Republican budget, even with 
the $1 billion increase, 256,000 eligible students will still miss out.
  The failure to provide adequate Title I dollars runs counter to the 
historic No Child Left Behind Act, which promised to provide greater 
federal assistance to those schools serving the highest concentration 
of poor students. Regardless of location, the costs of educating 
children are similar in all schools. Under the Republicans' education 
spending bill, children will continue to be deprived of critical 
academic services.
  Now it is the number one victim of Republican delays and intra-party 
squabbles.
  Democrats will not allow after-school, teacher training, and school 
construction programs be put aside and underfunded until the spring of 
next year. Clearly, education must remain a recession-proof priority.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, although I support this continuing 
resolution, I want to sound a warning to my colleagues.
  Last year, many of us proudly went to the White House and stood with 
the President as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act. That bill 
instituted many needed reforms and authorized additional funding to 
help poor and disadvantaged children.
  I was very disappointed when the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget 
did not provide the money necessary to fulfill the promise of that 
historic bill. Yet today we are heading down a path that will be even 
more tragic.
  No matter how inadequate the President's budget, it at least provided 
some minimal increases to several critical programs. If in the next few 
weeks, however, we agree to a long-term continuing resolution, even 
those scant increases will be gone.
  What does this mean to our children? It means that states with 
sizeable Hispanic student populations like Texas, California, New

[[Page H6768]]

York and Florida will lose almost $2 billion in funding for Title I.
  California, Texas, New York, Arizona, New Mexico and Illinois will 
lose $63 million just under the English Language Acquisition State 
Grants program. This program serves 950,000 limited-English proficient 
and immigrant children. These are the children who need the most help, 
yet we will be denying them access to education they deserve.
  If we pass a long-term CR will be freezing funding for TRIO, GEAR-UP, 
Migrant Education, drop-out prevention, and the College Assistance 
Migrant Programs. All of these programs heavily impact Hispanic 
students nationwide. A long-term CR will leave thousands of Hispanic 
children behind.
  We do not need a long-term continuing resolution, we need a fully 
funded education appropriations bill for all the children in this 
country. I urge my colleagues to take heed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). All time for debate has 
expired.
  The joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and pursuant 
to the order of the House of today, 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 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 370, 
nays 1, not voting 61, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 423]

                               YEAS--370

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--1

       
     DeFazio
      

                             NOT VOTING--61

     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barcia
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Deal
     Delahunt
     Dooley
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Gallegly
     Green (TX)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Keller
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Murtha
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Paul
     Quinn
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Stump
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Visclosky
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1935

  Ms. CARSON of Indiana changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. McCarthy of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 423, 
H.J. Res. 111, continuing Appropriations for FY03 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________