[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6993-H7001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 568, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 112) making further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

                              {time}  1145

  The text of House Joint Resolution 112 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 112

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 107-229 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 11, 
     2002''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
568, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 112 is the second continuing resolution for 
fiscal year 2003. It will extend the current CR until next Friday at 
midnight, October 11.
  The terms and conditions of the initial CR will remain in effect. All 
ongoing activities will be continued at current rates under the same 
terms and conditions as fiscal year 2002.
  I will briefly mention them again for Members. It will continue all 
ongoing activities at current rates, including supplementals, under the 
same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2002.
  The term ``rate for operations not exceeding the current rate'' 
continues to be defined as stated 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 continues the eight funding or authorizing anomalies in the 
original CR.
  Mr. Speaker, this CR is non-controversial. I urge the House to move 
this legislation to the Senate so that the government can continue to 
operate until we have that glorious day when we conclude all of the 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be thankful that the millions of American 
children who just started the new school year have better things to do 
than to watch proceedings on the House floor, because if they were, 
they would be learning some terrible lessons from the Republican 
leadership.
  Lesson 1: 2 plus 2 equals 3. That is what we call the GOP's ``fuzzy'' 
math. And that is what enabled our Republican friends to enact enormous 
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while still pretending that they 
are committed to a balanced budget, deficit reduction and priorities 
like education.
  Lesson 2: Say one thing, do another. Our Republican friends have 
voted 7 times over the last 3 years to put our Social Security 
surpluses in a so-called lockbox, and then they have turned right 
around and passed a budget that raids those surpluses to the tune of $2 
trillion.
  Lesson 3: Do not do homework because, as this Republican leadership 
has demonstrated, we do not even need to worry about completing the 
basics.
  While our Republican friends act like they are on a permanent summer 
vacation, the truth is they simply have become congressional truants. 
On this, the third day of the new fiscal year, this House has failed to 
complete work on even 1 of the 13 appropriations bills.
  Since Members returned from the August district work period, we have 
not considered one spending bill on the floor of this House. Not one. 
Rather than bring up the energy and water bill, we are loading up the 
suspension calendar. Rather than consider the foreign operations bill, 
we are spending time on sense of House resolutions. Rather than doing 
the work that the American people expect to be done, we are in session 
for only 3 days again this week.
  While we dither, the American people suffer the consequences, and our 
economy is tanking. A real Patients' Bill of Rights, stalled by the GOP 
leadership. A real prescription drug benefit for seniors under 
Medicare, blocked by the GOP leadership. Pension reform that protects 
workers and legislation to eliminate offshore corporate tax havens, 
disregarded by the GOP leadership. An increase in the minimum wage and 
an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits, a critical step 
that we ought to be taking, ignored by the GOP leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, this leadership would even undo important bipartisan 
legislation that we have already passed. After all the fanfare about 
the No Child Left Behind Act, our Republican friends would slash 
spending on the act's programs by $90 million, and they call for the 
smallest increase in education spending in 7 years.
  Today, as we pass this second continuing resolution, let us be 
thankful that America's children are hard at work at school doing what 
is expected of them, because we are not. Unfortunately, the same cannot 
be said of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from California on the floor, and 
with the last remaining seconds I have, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) may speak. The gentleman will come up here and say, ``Look at 
what the Democrats did.''
  Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1981. For the next 6 years with a 
Republican President and a Republican United States Senate, we ran up 
the largest deficits in the history of America. From 1993, under Bill 
Clinton, until the time he left, for 8 straight years we brought the 
deficit down and came into surplus. We have now squandered that $5.6 
trillion, and we are down to zero, and the economy is hurting. Let us 
do better.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I seldom try to put words in the mouth of other Members, 
but I listened carefully to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
and I think he did misspeak on one particular issue. The gentleman 
emphasized that the House had not considered one appropriations bill. 
The fact

[[Page H6994]]

of the matter is that we have sent to the Senate the Defense bill, the 
Legislative branch bill, the Military Construction bill, the Interior 
bill, and the Treasury-Postal Service bill. We have passed those 
through the House.
  In addition, I would add that the Agriculture bill, the District of 
Columbia bill, the Energy and Water Development bill, the Foreign 
Operations bill, Transportation bill, and the Labor-HHS-Education bill 
are all ready to be considered at a moment's notice. We will mark up 
the VA-HUD bill next week. The committee has been very aggressive in 
meeting its responsibilities.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The chairman of our 
committee, and our committee, in my opinion, has tried to act as 
responsibly as we possibly can, and I count myself advantaged by having 
the opportunity to serve on the gentleman's committee, one of the 
fairest people on the floor of this House.
  However, I think I did not misspeak, and what I said was during the 
month of September, the month before the end of the fiscal year, we 
have not considered one appropriation bill on the floor of this House. 
I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young). My bill was 
one that passed. But in September not one bill have we considered on 
the floor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I appreciate the gentleman's tireless efforts as chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, never giving up and never stopping trying, 
even though some Members of this body and the other body would try to 
present him with an impossible task.
  Mr. Speaker, we know it is a challenge, especially since 9/11, with 
the increased costs of national security, of fighting the war against 
terrorism, of homeland security, and the domestic needs of this Nation, 
we know it has been a terribly difficult task to try to come up with 
budgets. Nevertheless, this House has risen to the occasion and has 
followed the law requiring us to adopt a budget and then to specify the 
details of how we are going to allocate the overall spending among the 
various subcommittees.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has mentioned, we have been 
responsible in doing that in this House. The bill for which I have 
responsibility through the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
General Government cleared this House July 24, 2.5 months ago. The 
other body has yet to bring its counterpart to the floor. We cannot 
proceed on that bill because only one House of Congress has acted. We 
see that pattern, unfortunately, repeated over and over. The law 
requires both Houses of Congress to enact a budget so that we know how 
much we have to spend so we can divvy it up.
  This body, the House of Representatives, has done so. The other body, 
despite the legal requirement that it do so and should have done it 
back in April, still has not done it. No wonder we have gridlock and 
deadlock.
  I would call upon Members of this House that has a complaint to talk 
to their Member of the other body, to talk to the people who bear the 
title of Senator and tell them we need their help. We need them to be 
constructive. We need them to talk about the overall numbers.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman and all 
Members that it is not in order to characterize the Senate, or the 
``other body,'' for any inaction or all other inappropriate remarks 
should be avoided.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, that is why I talk about the law, because it 
is certainly appropriate for the other body to follow the law, as this 
House has done and as we hope both bodies would.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Out of an 
abundance of caution for the debate, and to clarify, any inference to 
the other body as breaking the law would be inappropriate under the 
same rule of the House.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, that is why I characterized it as being 
totally appropriate for the other body to follow the law.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the 
rules of the House are specific, and oblique references will be 
recognized when appropriate by the Chair.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, what we do in our everyday lives as 
families, we sit around the kitchen table and we say, this is how much 
we have, and this is what we would like to accomplish. And we make 
decisions, tough decisions. I would like for every Member of this House 
to help us in making these difficult decisions.
  We did not know we were going to have the attacks of 9/11. We did not 
know we were going to be looking at another war on the other side of 
the globe. We did not know that we would have the economic problems 
that have surfaced, and yet we are trying to do our best. But some 
Members, their only answer is whatever we are doing is not good enough, 
because the only answer is to spend more money. That is not always the 
answer.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, we have got to have people who take a constructive look 
at things rather than being naysayers. We have got to have people who 
say, look, this is where we will have to cut back if we want to get 
back to a balanced budget instead of having deficits return and 
continue; if we want to make sure we follow the policy that the 
majority in this House has done for the last several years, balancing 
the budget without using Social Security receipts to do so. We have 
increased in recent years education spending some 150 percent since the 
majority changed in this body. Yet some people accuse us of not being 
sensitive toward education. That is just not so.
  I appreciate the efforts of the leadership of this House and the 
gentleman from Florida. I suggest that we should adopt this continuing 
resolution and have every Member of this body stop the naysaying and 
get constructive.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The Chair would remind all 
Members that are on the House floor that they need to be dressed in 
appropriate attire for them to be on the floor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the gentleman who just spoke the 
``Alibi Ike of the Cosmos'' award. He is essentially saying, ``Gee 
whiz, folks, the reason that we can't pass these eight appropriation 
bills is because if we do, the other body won't have passed them, and 
so therefore it's them there other guys' fault.''
  I do not think that is a very impressive argument. I know of 
absolutely no reason whatsoever that the House has not been able to 
deal with the HUD appropriation bill, with the transportation 
appropriation bill, with the Labor-H bill, the Commerce-State-Justice 
bill, the agriculture bill, the foreign ops bill, the energy and water 
bill, and the District of Columbia bill. Nothing whatsoever is 
preventing this House from taking up those bills and sending them to 
the other body except the internal war which is going on in the 
majority party caucus which has created a situation in which the 
gentleman from Florida is not being allowed to bring these other bills 
to the floor.
  So I would suggest, folks, nobody is going to be impressed by blaming 
somebody else for your own inaction. Once you have passed those bills, 
then you will have a right to squawk at the Senate. Until then, who are 
you kidding? You are just passing the buck, and you know it as well as 
I do.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise to support, obviously, the continuing resolution, and I want 
to commend Chairman Young for all the hard work that he has put into 
this year's appropriations process. I think he has

[[Page H6995]]

one of the most difficult jobs of anybody here in the House, but he 
continues to do an outstanding job. I salute him.
  This continuing resolution is an essential bill, and I strongly urge 
my colleagues to support it. The appropriations process is not an easy 
one. I do not think it ever has been. All we can do is take the 
situation we have and do the best we can. The Committee on 
Appropriations has produced a series of excellent bills that are ready 
for the floor and that we will bring to the floor when the leadership 
of this House determines that it is time. We have done our job and they 
are doing theirs.
  I, myself, chair the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and we 
had a bill pass committee this last week. Working closely with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), I believe we have produced a 
bill that is bipartisan and one that this House can support. I know it 
will move through the legislative process in due course.
  I am not going to engage in any blame game today, and I do not think 
it benefits anybody in this House for any of us to do so. We all want 
to pass the appropriations bills. But even if this House had passed all 
13 bills, we would still be here to pass a CR, since many of the bills 
would undoubtedly still be in conference. That is a fact. It is hard to 
gain consensus within this House and Congress. We have not stopped 
trying. We will finish our work; but in the meantime, we will pass this 
CR to ensure that no Federal program will go without any funding and 
that no Federal agency will shut down.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the continuing resolution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the 
chairman for all the good work and his patience in dealing with a very, 
very difficult issue. I just heard the gentleman from Michigan say 
about blaming. I really think it is inappropriate to kind of start 
blaming people, and I think it is important that we work together. The 
good news is we will resolve the issue. I think what is complicating 
this matter is that we are coming close to an election time and 
generally that sometimes creates problems here in this body which is in 
essence a political body. The chairman has been working very hard. All 
the subcommittees have been working hard. I think the leadership on 
both sides will come together after we finish the election in November, 
and I think we will leave here doing the people's business. I am 
optimistic with regard to that.
  This resolution is important because, in our area, we are going to be 
funding embassy security which everyone wants to do and do well so we 
do not have another Tanzania or another bombing in Kenya or Karachi, 
which we had. We also are funding the FBI. The FBI obviously is a 
fundamental backbone of the homeland security issue. Within that we 
have language training. We have the technology for Trilogy so the FBI 
can share the data, the information. We are also funding the INS. Who 
would not want to do that particularly at this very, very difficult 
time? Also, this money will be very helpful in these days of hearing 
about Enron and WorldCom, the Securities and Exchange Commission is 
funded through this. This is a good thing to do. It ought not be 
controversial. This is not new. No one should assume that this is the 
first time that this has ever happened, that the Congress has passed 
continuing resolutions. My sense is that we may actually pass fewer 
continuing resolutions this year than has been done in the past.
  Let us do this. Let us find a day that we can recess, come back and 
finish the people's business before the end of the year so the 
government can work well. I think we will do that. I again thank the 
chairman for his patience in a very, very difficult job and all the 
Members that are working together, knowing that we will resolve this 
and do the people's business.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker has just revealed what the 
problem is in this place. We are being told that we will eventually get 
together after the election and get these problems solved. The fact is 
that when we come back after the election, we will have a huge Iraq war 
supplemental facing us, we will have the need to pass next year's 
appropriation bills, and we will never get to these unless we do our 
work now.
  The second point I would make is that much has been made of the fact 
that the other body has not passed a budget resolution. In fact, in 
fiscal year 1999, this Congress never agreed to a budget resolution. 
Despite that fact, by October 1, the House had passed 12 of its 13 
appropriation bills. So that demonstrates to me that if there is a will 
to address issues rather than avoid them, that you can get things done. 
It happened in 1999.
  The only reason we are wrapped around the axle now is because the 
hard right of the majority Republican caucus does not want to pass any 
education bill except the President's budget-level bill, and a lot of 
other Members in the Republican Party recognize that that would be 
politically disastrous to them because the public does not want to 
bring to a screeching halt the 5-year progress we have made in 
expanding education resources all around the country. They do not want 
to put a freeze on per-pupil education spending after 5 years of 
strengthening spending for education.
  And so we get all these red herrings. People say, ``Oh, we have not 
passed a budget resolution,'' or ``The Senate has not acted.'' The fact 
is we are here stuck for only one reason, because the majority party 
leadership has lost control of its own caucus, they do not know what to 
do, and as a consequence they are punting. That may not hurt in a 
football game, but it eventually will hurt every single school district 
that needs to know how to plan, it is going to hurt students who need 
to know what they are going to get on Pell grants, and in addition to 
that it is going to hurt the country if we do not move on to do our 
other jobs, such as expanding unemployment insurance, doing something 
to help small business with the cost of their health care plans. I 
cannot walk into a small business in my district where someone does not 
say to me, ``My God, I don't know how we can afford to keep our health 
insurance for our employees because of the cost.''
  This place has been in a shutdown since Labor Day. We all came back 
here with the expectation we would be dealing with appropriation bills. 
The gentleman from Florida has been blocked from doing his job, and I 
have been blocked from doing my job because of an internal war in the 
majority party caucus. It would be good for the country if that war 
would end. Now. Not after the election. The public has a right to know 
where we stand on education, where we stand on the environment, where 
we stand on housing before the election, not after the election. We are 
hell-bent to have a vote on Iraq 2 or 3 months before anybody thinks 
that we are going to war; but, no, we cannot have a vote on the budgets 
that are already expired for the year so we can deal with our own 
problems here at home.
  I have one message to the majority party leadership in this House: 
Shape up. Do your job. Meet your responsibilities instead of running 
away from them and trying to hide until after the election. You must 
think you have a pretty lousy case if you are hiding it until after the 
election.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side would 
lead us to believe that Republicans are mean, that they do not care 
about education, that they do not care about a prescription bill, that 
they do not care about health care. They say, Oh, well, it's your 
leadership. You are okay. Like our leadership does not care about those 
issues. Our leadership and our Republican Members have children and 
families just like you do. We have grandparents and we have our mothers 
and our fathers to take a look at. I resent the implications of my 
colleagues on the other side.
  It is an election year. We are weeks away from an election. We watch 
every speaker on that side of the aisle come up with partisan attacks, 
either about education or health care or prescription drugs, tax breaks 
for the rich,

[[Page H6996]]

which is a socialist mantra that they have taken on. We did put Social 
Security in a trust fund. For 40 years they used every dime out of the 
Social Security trust fund. But we are in a wartime, ladies and 
gentlemen. We are spending a lot of money. Alan Greenspan and the 
economists said that the tax relief that Republicans put through 
actually accounts for 1.5 percent of the 3 percent growth that we are 
having in our economy. Interest rates are low. Inflation is low. The 
one area that is lacking is the stock market. The Senate has not passed 
the security act that will protect those people, and they have not 
passed that bill. The House has. As for a patients' bill of rights, we 
passed prescription drugs. The other body has not. At least if they 
pass it, we could come to a conference on it. It has not happened.
  As for pension reform that was badmouthed by the gentleman from 
Maryland, 118 Democrats voted for it along with Republicans on pension 
reform. The other body has not acted upon that bill. I would tell my 
colleagues on the other side, your leadership did not vote for pension 
reform.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from yielding 
me this time.
  It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we are here again today 
once again extending the time limit on the passage of the 
appropriations bills under the guise of a CR. When we passed No Child 
Left Behind, we told the school districts of this Nation and the States 
of this Nation that if they would engage in the most dramatic reforms 
of this program in 30 years, that we would adequately fund those 
reforms in terms of professionalization of teachers, teacher 
recruitment, on directing more money to poor children and schools that 
do not have adequate resources to provide a first-class education.
  Last year's funding level does not do the trick. School districts 
have already started this school year that carry them through our 
fiscal year. School districts in March will have to make 
determinations, certainly in California, about laying teachers off. If 
we have a CR that goes to March, if the Federal money is not 
forthcoming, then we start the process once again of starting and 
stopping reforms.
  We have laid out a 12-year timetable to have all of our children 
proficient. We have laid out a timetable for schools to make adequate 
yearly progress in improving the test scores and proficiency of each 
and every student in the schools. That is the commitment we make; those 
are the reforms we imposed. But the other part was accountability. It 
was about schools being held accountable, about teachers being held 
accountable, about students being held accountable. But where is the 
accountability when the Congress cannot pass the Health and Human 
Services appropriation which includes the Department of Education? 
Where is the accountability when we do not have the fund for the next 
fiscal year in place so the schools can count on that and make the 
changes that are going to be required?
  These reforms are very expensive. We believe they are worth it. We 
believe on a bipartisan basis they are worth it. We believe as a 
Congress with the President of the United States that they are worth 
it.
  But we have no education bill. We simply do not have it. It is not a 
political trick. We do not have the bill. It is not here. It was 
promised to us, the first bill up when we returned from the August 
break. It is now October and no bill. It is not that the Senate does 
not have it; it is that we have not done it.
  We have not done it because some on the other side of the aisle are 
insisting that we go to the President's numbers, which are not 
sufficient to allow us to carry out not only the school reforms, but 
many of the other educational projects in this country. Those numbers 
are not sufficient. The President, I am sure, sent those numbers up 
here knowing that Congress would add to them.
  We think it is more important that we add to them. We have bipartisan 
agreement that they should be added to, and part of the caucus on the 
Republican side is arguing that they will not vote for the bill because 
it does not provide sufficient education funding. Another part says it 
provides too much. And for that reason we do not have a bill today.
  For that reason we are here with a continuing resolution because, if 
I understand the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
ranking member, the rest of the bills we are fairly close on. But this 
is the logjam, this is the log that is crossways in the stream on the 
appropriations bill, because until this is resolved, no other bills can 
be resolved.
  So now we have a continuing resolution. What that does is it bites 
into the planning, it bites into the reforms that we have offered for 
the Nation's schools' children, and we know as a Nation these reforms 
are desperately needed. These standards must be met if America's 
children are going to take place in the American society of the future, 
of America's future economy. If these children are going to participate 
to their full potential, these reforms are necessary, but they must be 
funded.
  In fact, the easiest thing for a State superintendent to do is say 
Congress missed the deadlines on funding; I am off the hook. We should 
not allow that to happen. We have got to have an education bill, and I 
would hope that this contest in the Republican caucus would get 
resolved and we could get on with the children's business and the 
children's education in this Nation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and 
congratulate both him and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 
dealing with what is a very difficult year. And I think part of this 
debate is a bit disjointed because we are looking at the second half of 
the process, the appropriations process, when, in fact, we know the 
first half of the process, the budget process, has fallen apart.
  The House did its job back in April, passed our budget, made our 
decisions. Our friends on the other side of the aisle offered no 
alternative, and there was no vote, but the House did, in fact, pass a 
budget.
  The Senate has yet to pass a budget. There has been no agreement 
between the two bodies on the numbers, and as we know, the 
appropriations process without a budget resolution, without some 
agreement on the overall numbers, cannot go very far.
  But I think it is important to remind our colleagues that there was 
no budget, and I am going to remind my colleagues once again what Dave 
Broder said over the last several months when he said, ``When the House 
was debating its budget resolution, the Democrats proposed no 
alternative of their own.'' ``Rather than fake it, Democrats punted.''
  ``The budget resolution,'' he went on to say, `` . . . is designed to 
be the clearest statement of a party's policy priorities. As long as 
they are silent, the Democrats cannot be part of serious political 
debate.''
  The fact is we still have not seen a budget from the other side of 
the aisle. We still have no resolution on the budget, and as we look 
toward the issue of education, I was proud to work with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), who just spoke before me, to 
produce the No Child Left Behind Act. We have had a tremendous increase 
in education funding over the last 5 or 6 years, some 300 percent 
increase in special education funding; 113 percent increase in funding 
for Title I, the largest of the programs designed to help poor schools 
and poor children to get a better shot at a decent education.
  And my colleagues do not have to take my word for it. Let us take the 
National Journal. The National Journal points out that over the next 5 
years, if we look at the increases, education is up 40 percent. The 
only two programs that are higher over the next 5 years in the 
President's budget are Medicaid and Federal correctional activities. 
And, it goes on, the 40 percent increase over the next 5 years is more

[[Page H6997]]

than what the President calls for for increases in national defense at 
27 percent and increases in Federal law enforcement at 28.6 percent.
  Obviously two of the highest priorities that we have in the country 
today are getting significant increases, and yet education still comes 
in at a much higher increase, and we have to remember this is on top of 
what this Congress and this President have done over the last 2 years 
to meet our commitments to help poor kids.
  Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) knows, and I 
think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows, that we are going 
to meet our commitments to ensure that no child is left behind. We are 
going to meet our commitments, and we are going to make sure that this 
law works so that every child in America, regardless of their race, 
regardless of their income, and regardless of where they live, get a 
decent education. We know that all kids can learn. We have to ensure 
that all kids have an opportunity to learn.
  So I would urge my colleagues rather than to throw partisan barbs 
here on the House floor, why do you not bring a budget, why do you not 
show us how you are going to get there, why do you not help us make the 
decisions that we need to make in order move this along?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Just two points, Mr. Speaker. One is 
members of the Democratic caucus did offer a budget, or tried to offer 
a budget, the Blue Dogs. The gentleman may ask what is the gentleman 
from California doing making the case for the Blue Dogs' budget? I 
voted for it, I think, the last several years.
  And the other point is could the gentleman enlighten us as to when 
you are going to meet these education numbers? Has the gentleman been 
informed when this is going to happen?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows 
there has been no agreement between the two bodies on an overall 
spending number, and until there is, how do we move this process along?
  I have great regard for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) in the difficult task they have 
trying to move these pieces without some overall agreement on a number. 
One cannot run a household this way; we certainly cannot run a Congress 
this way.
  And I think the gentleman knows full well that there is going to be 
an agreement. I would rather have the agreement today, but when are my 
friends across the aisle going to put a number on the table and say, 
let us begin the negotiations? As Dave Broder said in his column, as 
long as the Democrats are silent, they cannot be part of a serious 
political debate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the chairman of my committee we 
have not been silent. We offered a budget alternative. We were not 
allowed to put that budget alternative in place, and the fact of the 
matter is you can keep saying that the budget is keeping you from doing 
your work, but you have already reached agreement on the military 
construction bill in defense appropriations. We are right there. That 
is done. Both Houses are working on it. So that was not an impediment 
there.
  Let us get on with the other national priority that the gentleman in 
the well just spoke about, and that is education. Let us do that. You 
were able to do tax cuts without a budget. You were able to get rid of 
all the money. You were able to take care of the wealthiest people in 
the country without a budget. But now you need a budget to take care of 
the poorest children in the country. I mean, you are starting to act 
like Enron executives. You are going to take care of us first, and then 
if there is anything left over, we will take care of the shareholders 
and employees, or if there is nothing left over, we will going 
bankrupt.
  That is kind of where we are. We have this huge debt. We have not 
taken care of the poor children in the country. We have taken care of 
the richest people, and we cannot get a time certain as to when we will 
get on with the rest of the business of this country. And you say it is 
because you do not have a budget, but without a budget you gave away 
taxes. Without a budget you arrived at defense numbers, you arrived at 
military construction numbers, but you cannot arrive at education 
numbers. The argument just does not hold. It just does not hold. And we 
ought to reject this CR, and you ought to go back to work over the 
weekend and get your work done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is suggesting that somehow 
because the budget resolution has not been agreed to by both parties, 
that we cannot proceed on appropriation bills. I would ask him when was 
the budget resolution approved in fiscal 1999?
  I guess the gentleman has left the floor. But the answer is it was 
never approved, and despite that fact, this House completed action on 
12 of its 13 appropriation bills.
  The gentleman is desperately looking for a way to blame anybody 
except ourselves for the fact that this House is not doing its 
business. We do not need to have a budget resolution passed for the 
House to pass its appropriation bills. We passed a number of 
appropriation bills already without an agreement between the Senate and 
the House on a budget resolution. Why cannot we also pass the Labor-H 
bill? It is because the majority party leadership does not know which 
way to turn, and so they are spinning in circles instead. That is the 
problem.
  Secondly, I would point out that the gentleman is talking about what 
is being promised in the future by the Republican budget. Let me point 
out I am more interested in what is being delivered, and if we take a 
look at the President's budget for Title I, the President's budget 
falls $4 billion below the promises in the bill that the gentleman from 
Ohio brought to the floor. So forget the promises, baby. Where is the 
delivery?
  Then let us take special education, both parties crying all over the 
floor about the fact we do not provide enough for special education. 
When we look at the President's budget, the President's budget for 
education falls far below, at least half a billion dollars below, where 
it would be if we were to keep the increases for special education that 
we have had the last 5 years. Then if we take a look at the kids who 
are having trouble with English and need to learn English, what do you 
do there? You cut them 10 percent on a per-student basis under the 
President's budget.

                              {time}  1230

  So do not give me this baloney about what future authorization 
propositions you are making. I am interested in what you are 
delivering, and right now you are delivering zip; you are delivering 
nothing.
  The President is suggesting we have a hard freeze on the education 
budget. If you are comfortable with that, bring it out. The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip, is standing there 
grinning. He may think it is funny that he does not have the capacity 
to bring forth an education budget; he may think it is funny that 
people are losing their health insurance and the President is cutting 
back health programs by $1.4 billion, but we do not think that is 
funny.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, in these days of ongoing concern about 
corporate accountability and the way that we handle money and the way 
we describe money, one would think that fiscal responsibility would be 
our general practice. The rhetoric has been particularly shrill, I have 
noticed from the Democrats, screaming about wanting fiscal 
responsibility; and yet it does not seem like we are consistent here 
somehow today.
  First of all, the fact is that Federal law requires the Senate to 
pass a budget resolution. The fact is that the Senate has not passed a 
resolution for the first time in 20 years. The resolution before us is 
consistent with fiscal responsibility. If we take a look at where we 
are, every person in our country owes $12,000. That is not good fiscal 
responsibility. The proposal before us is going to cut that $12,000 
down by 2; at least it is going in the right direction.

[[Page H6998]]

The Democrat plan from the Senate side says $5,000 more we are going to 
spend. That is not fiscal responsibility.
  The simple facts are that we have a very simple plan that is being 
proposed by the Democrats: if you cannot afford it, just charge it. It 
is simple, but it is not fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this CR and move our country ahead.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Appropriations met to craft this 
package, it denied Amtrak's request for $1.2 billion for the coming 
fiscal year. The chief executive officer of Amtrak, David Gunn, said 
they cannot operate a national system of intercity passenger trains for 
less than $1.2 billion; maybe $1.1 billion, but certainly not much less 
than that. The Inspector General of DOT and other individual observers 
have said, clearly, Amtrak needs that $1.2 billion simply to continue 
existing operations. More is needed to bring the system up to a state 
of good repair; yet the Committee on Appropriations approved $762 
million, far short of what is needed.
  In addition, the committee included language that limits the amount 
of funding to operate a national network of long-distance trains to 
$150 million. Now, that is micromanaging Amtrak; and that is less than 
half of what is needed and what was available for fiscal year 2002, the 
just-concluded fiscal year.
  That means that a dozen long-distance trains are going to be shut 
down in this coming fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, 13 of 18 long-distance 
trains will be shut down in order to reduce the deficit to $150 
million. That means 2,300,000 passengers will lose service: the Sunset 
Limited from Orlando to Los Angeles, the California Zephyr from Chicago 
to Oakland, the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles, the City 
of New Orleans from Chicago to New Orleans. In fact, nine of those 13 
have service running through Chicago, the heartland of America's rail 
sector, for well over a century.
  The only remaining long-distance trains will be one operating on the 
West Coast, the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago, and the New 
York-Florida service. We will no longer have a national intercity 
passenger rail system. If we simply remember and recall back to 
September 11, when all air service was shut down, the only way people 
moved, apart from personal cars and Greyhound and other intercity bus 
service, the mass transit system was our Amtrak system. And when these 
trains are gone, they are gone forever. The cost of bringing them back 
up will be prohibitive. That is not what this country needs, that is 
not what the public wants, and we should not be a Third World Nation 
when it comes to intercity passenger service. We ought to be a first-
rank Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the committee to go back, do its serious 
business, restore these funds. We have now a president of Amtrak who 
really understands railroading who, given the money, will do the job 
right and put our system back on its feet and make it operate 
appropriately.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply 
to say that based on OMB's analysis of the continuing resolution, 
Amtrak would do very well on an annualized basis; their share would be 
$1.1 billion, and I tend to be one of those who support Amtrak and 
believe that the Nation has got to maintain the ability to move goods 
and people by rail and by highways, as well as by air. But OMB believes 
that Amtrak does very well under the amortized CR.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the House Committee on the 
Budget, which, in fact, did pass a budget this year.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise reluctantly today in opposition to this resolution and I would 
like to explain why. I support Congress taking the necessary 
legislative steps, since Congress has not yet passed an appropriation 
bill for many of the subcommittees of jurisdiction, so that we can 
ensure the continuous operation of the government; but I believe there 
is a better way to accomplish this; and, therefore, I cannot support 
this resolution. It is on one principled basis, and that is that we 
need to control spending.
  The resolution provides a funding formula that I believe is flawed. 
The formula assumes that all one-time emergency spending passed by the 
Congress in response to the events of September 11 continues 
permanently. There is probably no better example of the problem and an 
illustration of this problem than the Pentagon. Under this flawed 
formula, funding for rebuilding the Pentagon would continue every year 
in perpetuity, even though the Pentagon has been rebuilt.
  Last week, when the House considered its first continuing resolution, 
I raised this very issue in a colloquy with the very distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I was given some 
assurances by the chairman that this issue could and would be addressed 
in future continuing resolutions; and unfortunately, this issue has not 
been addressed in the resolution before the House today.
  It is only fair to point out that there appears to be great consensus 
in the Congress and in the administration that the true one-time 
expenses for the responses to September 11 should be just that: one-
time expenses. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has 
identified $16 billion of these one-time expenses. While it is said 
that $16 billion in one-time expenditures will not be funded again 
through administrative action, Congress also needs to act. It is our 
responsibility under the Constitution.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. I hope that in future 
bills that they can recognize this better way, and I reluctantly oppose 
this continuing resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am amazed by what I have just heard from the gentleman 
from Iowa. Apparently, the gentleman is only now beginning to face what 
a miserable mess is often created when we have to run the government 
under continuing resolutions. I would simply say that there are a lot 
of things in the continuing resolution that the gentleman from Florida 
and I do not like; but the fact is, when we are prevented from doing 
our work in passing the regular appropriation bills, then, in the end, 
we are stuck with only one alternative, and that alternative is to 
simply run the government by formula until people come to their senses. 
So that is what this continuing resolution has to do.
  Apparently, the gentleman from Iowa is only now beginning to 
understand what a mighty mess he and his colleagues have created. Now, 
he was talking about one-time spending, as though that is a clearly 
defined item, and he uses as his example the Pentagon. Well, I would 
point out that the Pentagon was repaired as a result of the hit that we 
took on September 11, but the Pentagon reconstruction project was going 
on before that time as well. We were upgrading safety at the Pentagon; 
and without those upgrades, a lot more people could have died in the 
hit on September 11.
  So we have now one section of the Pentagon that is reconstructed with 
a lot more safety measures included in the rest of the building, but 
there are still four wings left to go. Now, I do not know how the 
gentleman from Iowa feels; but as far as I am concerned, we need to 
continue that reconstruction work at the Pentagon so that we can make 
all of the wings of the Pentagon as safe as the new wing has been made 
with its construction program. And I make no apology for the fact that 
that program will continue under the continuing resolution. It should 
and it must if we are concerned about the safety of people who work at 
the Pentagon.
  Beyond that, I would note that another example used by OMB of one-
time spending is the national pharmaceutical stockpile. Well, that is 
true. We spent a lot of extra money last year on that program, but now 
we are also being asked by the President to purchase anthrax vaccines 
for everybody. I assume the gentleman would like to see that continue, 
even though that would be defined as a continuation of a

[[Page H6999]]

so-called 1-year expenditure. Again, I make no apology for the fact 
that the continuing resolution will allow that to continue.
  So I think before the gentleman takes an oversimplified look at what 
constitutes 1-year spending, he ought to ask whether or not that 
spending is justifiably continued, because we have higher priorities 
such as keeping all of the people at the Pentagon more safe and seeing 
to it that this country has an adequate pharmaceutical stockpile.
  I would also note the gentleman is going to be asked to provide 
several billion dollars in directed scoring for the defense budget. I 
believe the gentleman provided that last year; and yet he did not want 
to do the same thing for highway spending. If that is the case, that is 
the gentleman's prerogative, but it means that the bill that contains 
an important bridge in his district is not going to be able to go 
forward on this House floor. So when we look at the details, I think we 
will find reasons why some of this funding continues, even though if we 
take a look at a brief staff memo on it, one might conclude that it is 
all not worth it. I think some of it is, and I think I have just cited 
several cases that are.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip; but 
before he begins, I would like to notify the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will be the last 
speaker, and then I will reserve and have a closing statement.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me this 
time.
  I have been down in my office watching this debate on television, and 
I find it very interesting. A lot of the debate is over process. Some 
are saying, we passed a budget, the Senate did not pass a budget; back 
and forth, talking about process, bringing bills to the floor, not 
bringing bills to the floor, and I decided to come up to the floor to 
try to put it all into perspective.
  The point is that, yes, in process, I congratulate the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations. He has done an incredible job in 
trying to hold down spending and bring a little fiscal responsibility 
to this process.

                              {time}  1245

  The President of the United States said when he first took office 
that we needed to get our fiscal house in order, that we needed to 
restrain spending, we needed to be fiscally responsible. We wanted to 
keep the balanced budget that we had. We wanted to continue to pay down 
the debt. That is what this Republican House has been doing for the 
last 8 years.
  I have heard people on the floor say it was the Clinton 
administration that brought about the balanced budget and the surpluses 
that we were enjoying and using to pay down the public debt on our 
children. I see history a little bit differently. In 1993, when Bill 
Clinton became President, we found deficits to the tune of $250-, $300 
billion every year, year in and year out.
  The two budgets that the Democrat House at that time, in 1993 and 
1994, passed had deficits of $250 billion, $300 billion, as far as the 
eye could see. They never intended to balance the budget. There was no 
initiation by the President of the United States or this Democrat 
House, Democrat-controlled House, they never offered a budget that 
would get us to balance. In fact, they raised taxes as they increased 
spending, and the deficits continued.
  When the Republicans took over in 1995, they laughed at our Contract 
with America, but part of that contract was to balance the budget. They 
said that we could never do it. I remember the Washington pundits all 
saying that there was no way we could balance the budget under the 
present conditions, but we started doing things differently.
  In fact, I remember the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that the 
President vetoed, fought over, shut down the government. We fought like 
cats and dogs out here. They never voted for it. The other side of the 
aisle never voted for it; yet, we finally got it into law. That was the 
beginning of fiscal responsibility initiated by this Republican House, 
pushed by this Republican House, and fought for by this Republican 
House, which was a great signal to the economy, by the way. That along 
with the growth in the economy is what created the balanced budget that 
we were enjoying. We did it in the face of opposition like I have never 
seen before; yet, after it was done, even this morning, they took 
credit for it.
  Now, the problem, as we have seen over the last year, as the 
President has rightly pointed out, is that we were attacked. We are at 
war. We have security issues that have driven up spending. The economy 
is slowing, so the revenues are slower than normal. There are other 
issues.
  There are other issues that have caused this problem, but instead of 
them talking about how do we get back to balance, what this argument 
has been going on, as I watched it all this morning and this afternoon, 
is they want to spend more. The reason they vote against the bills for 
the last 8 years, the appropriation bills, is because it is not enough 
spending for them. What we are trying to do here during this whole 
process is to bring some fiscal responsibility to what this government 
does.
  They vote against bills that do not have enough spending, and they 
keep voting. They want to bring bills out here so they can continue to 
spend more. Their interest is to spend more; our interest is to bring 
fiscal responsibility to government and, most importantly, protect the 
taxpayers' money. That is what this argument is all about.
  The President of the United States said, send me a bill anywhere over 
my budget numbers, and I will veto it. Do Members know what: The 
Republicans in the House partner with the President and we say the same 
thing, so we are not going to send him a bill to veto that is 
overspending. We are bringing fiscal responsibility to this floor. They 
want to tax and spend; we are trying to do the right thing. I think the 
American people appreciate it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how we can rewrite history 
on the floor of the House, On the economy and the actions of this body 
that took place from 1990 until this year. Let me quickly review.
  The 1990 budget took Democratic support along with Republican support 
in a bipartisan way that laid the foundation on the budget rules and 
the economy that ultimately balanced the budget in 1993. The budget in 
1993, not a single Republican voted for the 1993 budget, which put the 
walls up on the economy that we enjoy today.
  In 1997, it took Democrats to work with some Republicans to pass the 
1997 budget that has gotten a lot of credit, much of which was not due, 
but it at least was part of the process. Every time we have made 
decisions that move the country forward, we have done it in a 
bipartisan way.
  I, again, have no quarrel with the appropriators, the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young), or the manner in which the chairmen and the 
ranking members are proceeding forward. My quarrel is with the economic 
game plan that has gotten us to the point that we have borrowed now 
$440 billion, $440 billion during the last year.
  The majority whip just stood up here and defended the economic game 
plan that he is proud of, that he is responsible for, for making 
certain that this Congress does not do anything other than what he 
wants to do, and he refuses to take the credit for that which he has 
wrought.
  What is interesting today is we look at corporate America and the 
unfunded liabilities of pension plans all over the country which 
corporate America is having to come up with the money to fund, but yet 
we in this House refuse to come up with the money to fund the unfunded 
liabilities of the Social Security system, the Medicare, the Medicaid, 
the veterans, all of this. We refuse to because that was not in the 
budget that everybody over here is so proud of.
  I wish Members would quit coming to the floor and saying there was no 
Democratic alternative, because they know it is not true; there was a 
Democratic alternative. We offered it. We lost. We lost. We did not 
have the votes. When we do not have the votes, we lose; but quit saying 
we had no alternative. We did have an alternative,

[[Page H7000]]

and if we followed it, we would not be in quite as deep a hole as we 
are in today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous Republican speaker is the majority party 
whip. It is his job to line up votes to pass every bill that the 
Republican leadership brings to the floor.
  The reason we are seeing no appropriation bills come to the floor is 
because he cannot find the votes in his own caucus for the President's 
education budget, so his answer to everything is, delay and delay and 
delay.
  What I would suggest to the gentleman, he is absolutely right: On 
this side of the aisle, we do want to provide more money for education 
than the President; we do want to provide more money for environmental 
protection; and we do want to provide more money for health care, 
because too many people are losing health coverage, and we need to do 
something about it.
  Now, I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), he gives 
great speeches about how the Democratic position in wanting to do those 
three things is irresponsible. If Members think it is, put it to the 
test: Bring the bill out. It is their bill, they are in the majority, 
and they ought to have the votes to pass their bill. If they do not, it 
is because people in their own caucus are telling them it is 
cockamamie.
  If Members want to see movement in this House, bring the bills out, 
and they should take their chances. If they have the best arguments, 
they will whip us. But just because they think we in the minority are 
wrong is no excuse for their doing nothing at all.
  Right now that is what the majority party whip is leading his caucus 
to do: no action on education; no action on health care; no action on 
housing; no action on environmental cleanup; no action on agriculture; 
nothing but delay, delay, delay, and duck. What leadership. It is 
dazzling in its irresponsibility.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to explain to the Members why my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), is in such a good 
mood today: Today is his birthday; and he is not getting much older, 
but he is getting a little older.
  I remember one night we kept him here late on an appropriations bill, 
and it was his wedding anniversary. We all had to call and apologize to 
his wife. But anyway, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, happy 
birthday.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is not a tax bill, it is 
not a budget resolution, and unfortunately, it is not even an 
appropriations bill, one of the 13 regular bills; it is a continuing 
resolution that just continues the same CR that we passed last week. It 
merely extends the date, it does not change anything else.
  Some things have been raised here today that have to do with the 
Committee on the Budget. I thought I might want to respond to that. For 
example, it was suggested by a member of the Committee on the Budget 
that we were going to rebuild the Pentagon twice. That is not true. We 
are not going to do that.
  First of all, the money to rebuild the Pentagon was in the initial 
$40 billion emergency supplemental that we passed in a bipartisan way 
with the help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to fight back 
against terrorism, to recover in New York, and to rebuild the Pentagon, 
so that was in that bill. It is not an issue.
  We do work with OMB as we deal with the numbers on appropriations 
bills, and the letter here from Mr. Daniels talking about the CR, the 
language of the CR, and Mitch Daniels is the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget. He said, ``Consistent with past practice, we 
will reduce one-time nonrecurring costs. Example: We will not rebuild 
the city of New York twice, we will not rebuild the Pentagon twice.''
  So based on the Office of Management and Budget's preliminary 
spending on this resolution, spending on an annual basis would be below 
the 2003 budget that was submitted by the President and below the 
House-passed budget resolution. So I do not know where the excitement 
comes from from members of the Committee on the Budget.
  Now, another issue was raised, and I am glad my friend, the gentleman 
from Texas, is still on the floor. He did talk about pay-go. Pay-go has 
to do with mandatory spending. Pay-go is a requirement in mandatory 
spending that the salaries would have to be increased based on the law, 
but that that cost would have to be offset. But that is not in this 
bill, because this is not a budget resolution.
  If the Committee on the Budget is concerned about pay-go, they ought 
to put a resolution on the floor and deal with pay-go. Those rules, 
they did expire on October 1.
  I brought up the issue of pay-go not so much to talk about that, but 
to talk about mandatory spending. For those who are concerned about 
what we are doing or not doing on appropriations bills, and for those 
who are concerned about the fact that the government spends too much 
money, let me suggest that discretionary spending, the appropriations 
that I deal with as chairman, that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) deals with as the ranking member, we deal with one-third of the 
overall budget. Two-thirds, two-thirds of the government spending is 
mandatory, over which we as appropriators have no involvement whatever, 
except our vote on the floor. If we are serious about containing and 
constraining spending, we had better deal with mandatories.
  One of the big issues that Members have heard me talk about on the 
floor before was the agriculture bill that went $100 billion over the 
baseline, and some of the very people concerned about the levels of 
spending on the discretionary accounts voted for that bill.
  Now, if Members are going to be concerned about too much spending, 
pay attention to the mandatories, the back-door spending. Pay attention 
there as much as they do to the discretionary spending. Then we will 
have a fair and equal, balanced debate. But until we pay attention to 
mandatory spending, there is not a whole lot of room to talk on 
discretionary spending.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday of this week, the 2003 fiscal 
year began and Congress has not yet completed a single appropriations 
bill. The Republican party's split among its conservative members 
continues to stall the appropriations process. This failure to complete 
our budget and funding responsibilities leads to more strain on our 
fragile economy. I again support this short-term resolution to keep 
agencies operating, but I urge leadership to move the appropriations 
process along so we can find the education programs we promised in the 
No Child Left Behind Act; so we can find the technology and new-hires 
needed for seaport and airport security; and, so we can find the many 
other priorities and commitments that the American people expect of us.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The joint resolution is 
considered as having been read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 568, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 404, 
nays 7, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 439]

                               YEAS--404

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski

[[Page H7001]]


     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     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 (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     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 (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--7

     DeFazio
     McDermott
     Miller, George
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baker
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Callahan
     Clement
     Cooksey
     Deal
     Fattah
     Green (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Mascara
     Roukema
     Schrock
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tierney

                              {time}  1320

  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.

                          ____________________