[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.
____________________