[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 133 (Thursday, October 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7825-H7836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1845
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2003
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580,
the rule just adopted, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122)
making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 122, as amended pursuant to H.
Res. 580 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 122
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 ``October 18, 2002''.
Sec. 2. Section 101(2) of Public Law 107-229 is amended by
striking ``section 15'' and all
[[Page H7826]]
that follows through ``(Public Law 103-236), and''.
Sec. 3. Section 114 of Public Law 107-229 is amended by
inserting before the colon at the end of the first proviso
the following: ``: Provided further, That section 3001 of the
21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act (H.R. 2215) is amended by striking
subsection (d), and such amendment shall take effect as if
included in such Act on the date of its enactment''.
Sec. 4. Section 117 of Public Law 107-229 is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 117. (a) The Congress finds that section 501 of
title 44, United States Code, and section 207(a) of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993 (44 U.S.C. 501
note) require that (except as otherwise provided in such
sections) all printing, binding, and blankbook work for
Congress, the Executive Office, the Judiciary, other than the
Supreme Court of the United States, and every executive
department, independent office, and establishment of the
Government, shall be done at the Government Printing Office.
``(b) No funds appropriated under this joint resolution or
any other Act may be used--
``(1) to implement or comply with the Office of Management
and Budget Memorandum M-02-07, `Procurement of Printing and
Duplicating through the Government Printing Office', issued
May 3, 2002, or any other memorandum or similar opinion
reaching the same, or substantially the same, result as such
memorandum; or
``(2) to pay for the printing (other than by the Government
Printing Office) of the budget of the United States
Government submitted by the President of the United States
under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.''.
Sec. 5. Public Law 107-229 is amended by adding at the end
the following new sections:
``Sec. 120. For entitlements and other mandatory payments
whose budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts
for fiscal year 2002, and for activities under the Food Stamp
Act of 1977, activities shall be continued at a rate to
maintain program levels under current law, under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, to be continued
through the date specified in section 107(c): Provided, That
notwithstanding section 107, funds shall be available and
obligations for mandatory payments due on or about November
1, and December 1, 2002, may continue to be made.
``Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, the annual rate of operations for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Salaries and
Expenses Account shall not exceed $71,960,000 and shall
include the cost of lease of office space for the CFTC's New
York regional office at an annual rate not to exceed
$1,949,000.
``Sec. 122. In addition to funds made available in section
101, the Department of Justice may transfer to the
Immigration User Fee Account established by section 286(h) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(h)) such
sums as may be necessary from unobligated balances from funds
appropriated to the Immigration and Naturalization Service by
Public Law 107-77 and division B of Public Law 107-117, at a
rate not to exceed $90,000,000 for the first quarter, through
the date specified in section 107(c): Provided, That the sums
transferred under this section shall be reimbursed from the
Immigration User Fee Account by not later than April 1, 2003.
``Sec. 123. Notwithstanding section 105(a)(2), in addition
to amounts made available in section 101, and subject to
sections 107(c) and 108, for purposes of calculating the rate
of operations of General Legal Activities (GLA) in the
Department of Justice, $7,300,000 available during fiscal
year 2002 from the Executive Office of the President shall be
credited to GLA for purposes of administering the Victims
Compensation Program.
``Sec. 124. Activities authorized by the Parole Commission
and Reorganization Act, P.L. 94-233, as amended, may continue
through the date specified in section 107(c).
``Sec. 125. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, in addition to amounts made available in
section 101, and subject to sections 107(c) and 108, such
funds, from fee collections in fiscal year 2003, shall be
available for the Securities and Exchange Commission to
continue implementation of section 8 of Public Law 107-123.
``Sec. 126. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, except section 107, the District of
Columbia may expend local funds at a rate in excess of the
rate under authority applicable prior to October 1, 2002 to
cover payments that would be funded under the heading
`Repayment of Loans and Interest'.
``Sec. 127. No funds appropriated in this joint resolution
or any other Act may be used to implement any restructuring
of the Civil Works Program of the US Army Corps of Engineers
which would involve the transfer of Civil Works missions,
functions, or responsibilities from the US Army Corps of
Engineers to any other executive branch agency or department
without explicit congressional authorization.
``Sec. 128. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, during fiscal year 2003, direct loans under
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act may be made
available for Poland, gross obligations for the principal
amounts of which shall not exceed $3,800,000,000: Provided,
That such loans shall be repaid in not more than 15 years,
including a grace period of up to 8 years on repayment of
principal: Provided further, That no funds are available for
the subsidy costs of these loans: Provided further, That the
Government of Poland shall pay the full cost, as defined in
section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as
amended, associated with the loans, including the cost of any
defaults: Provided further, That any fees associated with
these loans shall be paid by the Government of Poland prior
to any disbursement of loan proceeds: Provided further, That
no funds made available to Poland under this joint resolution
or any other Act may be used for payment of any fees
associated with these loans.
``Sec. 129. Notwithstanding section 1(c) of Public Law 103-
428, as amended, sections 1(a) and (b) of Public Law 103-428
shall remain in effect until the date specified in section
107(c).
``Sec. 130. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, there is hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for payment
to John F. Mink, widower of Patsy Mink, late a Representative
from the State of Hawaii, $150,000.
``Sec. 131. Notwithstanding section 105(a)(2), in addition
to amounts made available in section 101, and subject to
sections 107(c) and 108, for purposes of calculating the rate
of operations for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
amount transferred by Public Law 107-206 from TSA to FEMA
shall be credited to TSA, and such amount shall be deducted
from FEMA.
``Sec. 132. Activities authorized by section 24 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (24 U.S.C. 1437v) may
continue through the date specified in section 107(c) of this
joint resolution.
``Sec. 133. (a) Each specified department or agency shall,
by December 6, 2002, submit directly to the Committees on
Appropriations a report containing an evaluation of the
effect on the specified management areas of operating through
September 30, 2003, under joint resolutions making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 that fund programs and
activities at not exceeding the current rate of operations.
``(b) For purposes of subsection (a):
``(1) The term `specified department or agency' means a
department or agency identified on page 49 or 50 of the
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003 (H.
Doc. 107-159, Vol. I), except for the Department of Defense.
``(2) The term `specified management areas' means the
following management priorities described in the President's
Management Agenda (August 2001): strategic management of
human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial
performance, expanded electronic government, and budget and
performance integration.
``Sec. 134. (a) The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations a
monthly report on all departmental and agency obligations
made since the beginning of fiscal year 2003 while operating
under joint resolutions making continuing appropriations for
such fiscal year.
``(b) Each report required by subsection (a) shall set
forth obligations by account, and shall contain a comparison
of such obligations to the obligations incurred during the
same period for fiscal year 2002.
``(c) Reports shall be submitted under subsection (a)
beginning 1 month after the enactment of this section, and
ending 1 month after the expiration of the period covered by
the final joint resolution making continuing appropriations
for fiscal year 2003.
``(d)(1) Each report required by subsection (a) shall
include a list of all executive branch accounts for which
departments and agencies are operating under apportionments
that provide for a rate of operations that is lower than the
current rate, within the meaning of sections 101 and 105. For
each such account, the report shall include an estimate of
the current rate for the period covered by this joint
resolution and the estimate of obligations during such
period.
``(2) By December 6, 2002, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report
identifying executive branch accounts for which
apportionments made from funds appropriated or authority
granted by this joint resolution provide for a rate of
operations that differs from the current rate, within the
meaning of sections 101 and 105.
``Sec. 135. Appropriations made by this joint resolution
are hereby reduced, at an annual rate, by the amounts
specified and in the accounts identified for one-time, non-
recurring projects and activities in Attachment C of Office
of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 02-06, Supplement No.
1, dated October 4, 2002.
``Sec. 136. Activities authorized for 2002 by sections
1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) and 1933 of the Social Security Act, as
amended, with respect to individuals described in section
1902(a)(10)(E)(iv)(I) of such Act may continue through 60
days after the date specified in section 107(c) of Public Law
107-229, as amended.
``Sec. 137. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
joint resolution, except sections 107(c) and 108, during
fiscal year 2003, the annual rate of operations for the
Federal-aid highways program for fiscal year 2003 shall be
$31,799,104,000: Provided, That total obligations for this
program while operating under joint resolutions making
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003
[[Page H7827]]
shall not exceed $27,700,000,000, unless otherwise specified
in a subsequent appropriations Act. This section shall not
affect the availability of unobligated balances carried
forward into fiscal year 2003 that would otherwise be
available for obligation.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 580, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would announce to the House that the legislation
before us, H.J. Res. 122, is the third continuing resolution for fiscal
year 2003. It extends the date of the original CR that took us to
midnight tomorrow night until midnight, Friday of next week, October
18th. The terms and conditions of the CR, the original CR remain in
effect. We have gone over these terms twice already, so I will not go
through them again. However, because the calendar has caught up with us
a bit, we did have to add some new anomalies.
First of all, we provided funding to meet the fiscal year 2001
caseload for all appropriated entitlements, including child nutrition
programs, food stamp programs, Medicaid grants to States, payments to
Medicare trust funds, trade adjustment assistance programs, veterans
entitlements, and supplemental security income payments. One of the new
anomalies also provides for a 60-day window to process Medicare part B
premiums for certain Medicaid-Medicare dual eligibles under a provision
that expires on December 31, 2002.
In addition, new anomalies would provide funding adjustments for the
following programs to ensure sufficient resources when we calculate the
operating rate for the period of the CR, and those include the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Immigration User Fee Account,
Victims Compensation Program, Securities and Exchange Commission,
District of Columbia repayment of loans and interest, Transportation
Security Administration, and the Federal Aid Highway program.
This particular CR also provides legislative authorization to
implement a new, no-subsidy cost to the United States, $3.8 billion
foreign military financing 15-year loan to the Government of Poland so
they can purchase 48, F-16 aircraft from the United States. And it is
important that we do this in a timely fashion because there is
competition; and if, by a certain date in November, this financing
arrangement has not been agreed to, the Poles are going to another
buyer or provider.
It extends the otherwise expiring authorizations for the U.S. Parole
Commission and the HOPE 6 revitalization of severely distressed public
housing program through the date of the CR, and prohibits the transfer
of civil works missions of the Corps of Engineers to other agencies. It
reinstates the dual-use authority, through the date of the CR, to allow
the Export Import Bank to make loans that may include military
equipment. It includes a correction to the Department of Justice
authorization bill as passed by the House in H. Con. Res. 503, and
provides a gratuity to the widower of our late friend and colleague,
Patsy Mink, the late Representative from the State of Hawaii. It
requires reports from agencies of the executive branch on the effects
of operating under a full year CR and monthly reports on obligations;
and I certainly hope that a full year CR does not happen.
Mr. Speaker, there are some other comments that I could make about
what we are doing here, why we are here and why we are not doing
something else, but I will reserve for now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this House has precious little time left
in this session. Today we finished important business on Iraq. We
worked across the aisle with Republican colleagues to come up with that
resolution. We could use that same type of framework to get more of the
Nation's business done if the Republican leadership would put aside
their my-way-or-the-highway attitude and reach across the aisle to work
out a bipartisan economic plan for our country.
We should not be passing 7-day CRs when the Republican leadership has
no plan to actually complete the Nation's business when people are
looking to us for leadership.
I will vote against this continuing resolution.
Since we returned from our August recess, we have done nothing,
practically nothing of substance aside from the Iraq resolution. We
have had nothing on the schedule. We have spent all of our time, the
people's time, on meaningless ``Non-Sense of the House'' resolutions
urging the Senate to pass tax cuts for the wealthy beginning in 2011.
Their resolutions have no legal force. Their so-called economic program
would affect no one until 2011. What are people going to do between now
and 2011? People are suffering today. They are receiving their 401(k)
statements this week. The stock market is falling like a lead balloon.
People are out of work, and they are giving up hope of finding new
jobs.
This economy is in the tank and some people have been put out of work
through no fault of their own and many cannot find a new job. The
Republican leadership has a failed economic plan that has contributed
to the conditions that we are living with today. Republicans cannot
even pass a budget to provide for the Nation's critical priorities. A
responsible House right now would be addressing the people's serious
concerns that they face in their day-to-day lives.
In the few remaining days, this Congress should extend unemployment
benefits for people who are still trying to find work in a struggling
economy, pass a real pension bill that helps secure people's retirement
savings against future Enrons, close the loophole that allows
corporations to incorporate overseas to avoid paying taxes. We could
pass a good generic drug reform bill that will help lower the cost of
prescription medicine now, and we could finish our legislation for
education, health care, worker programs so that we can make good on our
commitment to actually leave no child behind, and we could provide
adequate resources to ensure excellent health care for our Nation's
seniors and provide our workers with adequate help to weather these
rough times.
If Republicans continue to duck their responsibilities, there will be
serious consequences in people's lives. Their inability to act will
lead to cuts in education, homeland defense, medical care for veterans,
and the National Institutes of Health; and the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations has made this plain.
I think the inaction today is unacceptable.
As we did earlier today, we need to come together on a bipartisan
plan of action to solve our serious economic problems and address the
most important problems people are facing right now. Let us not leave
here before we address that agenda. Let us not have a 7-day continuing
resolution. Let us have a 1- or a 2-day continuing resolution. Let us
stay here and do the people's work. We will not win the war against
terrorism if the economy of this country is imploding around our ears.
We will only beat terrorism if we have a strong economy with good jobs
and good wages for the American people.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I have to suggest to the distinguished minority leader, and he is
distinguished, and I have a lot of respect for him, and I understand
being in the minority. I served in this House for 24 years in the
minority, so I know what it means to be in the minority.
But when he says that we did not pass a budget, he is wrong. That is
not accurate. We passed a budget. And when we could not get it through
the whole process because the other body would not pass one, we deemed
our own budget. So the House did its job. It was not our fault that the
other body controlled by the other party refused to even take up a
budget. Just like in the House, their party did not offer a substitute
for our budget.
So, yes, Mr. Minority Leader, we passed a budget and when we could
not get in conference with the other body, we deemed our own budget
here in this House. So I just wanted to correct that.
[[Page H7828]]
Then I wanted to say to the gentleman about ducking responsibilities,
I have avoided getting into the partisanship and the political business
here in this House. A lot of it takes place, and that is natural. We
are approaching an election. I have done my best to keep the official
business of the appropriations process on a nonpartisan, on a
bipartisan, on a productive basis, what is good for the country. But,
Mr. Speaker, my party did not duck its responsibilities. We have had a
very productive year in this House of Representatives, only to find our
efforts stymied by the other body who refused even to take it up. One
of the appropriations bills that we passed early on they worked on for
3 weeks, and could not pass it, so they pulled it off of consideration.
Talk about ducking responsibilities. We passed that bill.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker knows, I seldom get exercised to
that extent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very honorable gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), my distinguished colleague.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again admonish Members that
it is not appropriate to characterize the action or inaction of the
Senate.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we cannot do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003.
In consultation with my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and in
consultation with the leadership, I am pleased that this resolution
ensures that the Federal highway program will continue at the fiscal
year 2002 rate of $31.8 billion. This reverses the Office of Management
and Budget's surprising decision last week to reduce the highway
program to a $27.7 billion rate of operations. This decision was
contrary to the Congress's intent that programs be continued at the
current rate until final appropriation bills can be agreed to and
enacted.
The language in this joint resolution is in no way binding with
regard to the final fiscal year 2003 transportation appropriations bill
that will eventually be enacted. This year's final highway funding
level will be appropriately determined at a later date in the context
of House and Senate negotiations on that bill.
{time} 1900
In the meantime, this resolution ensures that funding for the highway
program will continue at the fiscal year 2002-enacted rate of $31.8
billion. This will protect the good-wage jobs and make our
infrastructure whole.
Again, I want to stress this has been done with the work of the
minority on my committee and myself and the leadership of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
and the Speaker of the House.
We will continue what we said we were going to do. When there is a
budget, when there is an appropriation bill, when there are
negotiations done, that can be a different date and a different amount.
Now we are on the right track to make sure that our highways are
continuing to be built and rebuilt, and that our bridges are built and
repaired, also.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I know the chairman of the committee did not intend to
misspeak, because much of what he said I totally agree with. That is,
it is not the Committee on Appropriations that has in fact got us to
this point of impasse, but it is the leadership of their party that has
us here. It is their unwillingness to bring the appropriation bills
under the budget that passed the House, that everybody talks about.
That is what is keeping us held up.
The misspeaking, Mr. Speaker, was when he said no one on this side of
the aisle offered a budget alternative.
I do not know how many times I have to take to the floor to remind
everyone, and Members can check this in the Record, we brought a
substitute amendment, the Blue Dog Democrats, the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Moore), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Matheson), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner),
and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), we brought an alternative
budget to the floor of the House. We respectfully asked the majority to
allow us to debate that on the floor of the House, and we were denied.
So I would appreciate it if no further Members on the other side
would say that no one on this side of the aisle offered an alternative,
a substitute budget, because some of us did but were prevented by the
same leadership that has got us into the impasse tonight; and it is not
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, they would have a much stronger argument if they brought
the appropriation bills to the floor under the budget that they passed,
and they would have had a much better argument tonight and last week
and the week before that and next week if they had passed all 13
appropriation bills, because some of us on this side of the aisle will
support them, regarding that budget that everybody talks about.
I have been here 24 years, and I remember all of the years in which
appropriators said, when I was on the Committee on the Budget, we
really do not need you folks. We honestly do not need the Committee on
the Budget, because we can do the job ourselves. It is amazing here
now, suddenly listening, week after week after week, they now are
suddenly saying that the only reason they cannot do their work is
because the Senate did not pass a budget. Now everybody in here knows
better than that.
We had a very impassioned speech a moment ago from the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) talking about the transportation bill, et cetera.
Well, if we just did our work, then we could point could point the
finger to the other body, and there would be enough blame to go around.
But I will say tonight, Mr. Speaker, the only blame that can honestly
be affixed to why we are in this position tonight is on the leadership
on the other side of the aisle that have refused to do that which they
insist that the Senate do; that is, live by a budget.
We could do it, or at least we could try. Why did they not bring the
other eight appropriation bills to the floor of the House and allow
them to be discussed and debated? Where are they? If they are going to
point the finger of blame, it has to start right here, I believe.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, as it contains
a provision clarifying that, under this continuing resolution, the
Federal Highway Program will be funded at $31.8 billion. This
continuing resolution is designed to be a temporary measure continuing
funding for government programs at current levels until annual
appropriation bills for 2003 can be enacted into law.
I know the Committee on Appropriations has approved a bill with a
$27.7 billion obligation limitation for the Federal Highway Program,
while the Senate Appropriations Committee has funded the program at
$31.8 billion. A final level of funding will be decided later as the
appropriation process continues. This process in no way ties our hands
in determining what the final appropriation level should be.
Again, the purpose of the CR is to continue funding at the current
rate; and it should not be used to inhibit Congress's prerogative to
set final spending levels for this budget year, which I hope will be at
the Senate level.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, despite the comments that have been made about highway
funding levels, the language is clear. It indicates that the total
obligations will be $27,700,000,000, instead of the $31.799 billion
that were available in the previous fiscal year. That $27 billion level
cannot be changed unless a
[[Page H7829]]
subsequent appropriation bill passes to change it.
So the fact is that this bill does single out highways for a
reduction below last year, when almost no other program is asked to
bear that kind of a reduction. That will result in 200,000 fewer
construction jobs.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise because there have been references already made
to education. I know in previous CRs there have been comments about
education. I want to commend our chairman, and I want to tell the
Members why I am supporting this.
I am not at the pay grade to answer some of the questions that have
been raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and others, but
I am at the pay grade end of the knowledge to know that this Congress
increased education funding in the 2002 budget by 18 percent. Every
nickel of that under a CR is being forwarded and appropriated again in
this continuing resolution, the largest increase in investment America
has made in its poorest and most deserving students in decades.
For 35 years, we spent $125 billion on Title I, and our lowest-
performing students did not move up a percentile in improvement. But in
No Child Left Behind, 373 Democrats and Republicans, including great
leadership from the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller),
forged through No Child Left Behind. This gentleman forged through the
largest increase in education spending and funded the President's
program.
This continuing resolution brings forward every single improvement
that we made, 1 billion new dollars for Reading First, Early Reading
First; money for the testing we now require to show that we have
accountability for the performance we seek; and the $1 billion increase
we put in the supplemental just last year in Pell grants.
So while there may be arguments over leadership and timing and what
we are and are not doing, no one should tell us that we are not making
the investment in our children and that this CR somehow cuts that
investment. It brings forward the largest single increase in education
funding this Congress has made with the accountability the American
people sought and desired and wanted.
Today, in the classrooms of America, under a continuing resolution,
children are learning to read, schools are being held accountable,
performance will begin improving. When we reach a final determination
on the next budget, we will continue to do what this Congress has done,
Republicans and Democrats alike, and that is improve the lives of our
children.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most selective and interesting
rewrites of history I have heard on this House floor in at least an
hour. I would like to give a little different interpretation of what
has happened to education funding.
It is most certainly true that in each of the last 5 years we have
provided substantial increases for education. That was, and the Record
will show, that was because the Democratic Members of this House had to
pull the majority party Members of this House kicking and screaming
into supporting higher education levels.
Last year, the gentleman talks about the very large increase in
education funding we had. That is correct. That is because the
Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations again pounded the White
House day after day after day until we forced them to accept a $4
billion increase in the President's education budget.
So that means that over the last 5 years, on average, with prodding
from the minority party in this House and the then minority party in
the Senate, the Democratic minority, we had an average increase per
year for education funding of about 13 percent.
The President followed that up with the No Child Left Behind Act,
which most of us supported. That promised a continuation of that very
steep trajectory for education funding. This is too small a chart to
show it, but the chart nonetheless demonstrates what that trajectory
was. That No Child Left Behind Act promised that we would provide very
substantial increases in funding for the next 5 years to continue the
progress that we had made the last 5 years.
Instead, this continuing resolution is freezing the budget funding
for education. That means that, on a per child basis, it is cutting
education funding for the kids who need it most.
The gentleman is shaking his head no. Check the numbers on per child
appropriations for children who need funding for language programs,
children who do not speak English as a first language. They are being
cut in the President's budget by 10 percent in real terms on a per
child basis.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I think the gentleman makes an important point. If in fact the test
is whether or not we are going to go to the President's budget or
whether or not we are going to go forward with the appropriations
bills, which I think both the chairman and the gentleman from Wisconsin
would pass to increase education funding but are being held up, if we
go back to the President's budget, we have a real cut of about $90
million below last year in the No Child Left Behind Act, a real cut of
$90 million. The gentleman makes a very important point.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that if the majority
party on the Committee on Appropriations were left to its own devices
that we would have a very respectable and decent education
appropriation bill.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is a strong champion of
education, and so is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). But the
fact is when that committee began to move forward to produce such a
bill which provided those increases for education, they were cut off at
the pass by the most reactionary elements in the majority party caucus.
Those elements went to leadership and said, if you appropriate one dime
for education above the President's budget, we are going to bring down
the labor, health, education bill.
They further said that, until you produce an education funding level
freeze at the level of last year for education, that they would not
support any other appropriation bills. That is why we are wrapped
around the axle. Let me continue with other categories.
Title I, the No Child Left Behind Act promised that we would have an
increase in funding of at least $4 billion this year. Instead, they got
a $1 billion increase financed by other cuts in other education
programs aimed at the same children.
Then if we take a look at handicapped education, we increased them
annually by over $1 billion over the last 3 years. We wanted to do so
again on a bipartisan basis, both sides of the aisle. Under the
President's budget, we cannot do that. The President's budget falls
half a billion dollars below where we would be if we kept the
trajectory going that we had established the last 3 years for that
program.
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the gentleman to review the report which
we just issued called ``All Rhetoric, No Resources.'' It will
demonstrate the facts that I have tried to illustrate.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the distinguished ranking
member on the Committee on Appropriations, the chart is small. I cannot
see it. In fact, I have my glasses off, and I can hardly see the
gentleman right now.
I would ask the gentleman, is it not true that the chart that he
showed was the level of authorizations for education over the next 5
years?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISAKSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. No, it is not.
Mr. ISAKSON. I ask the gentleman, what did he show?
Mr. OBEY. This chart showed the appropriation increases that we had
the last 5 years.
Mr. ISAKSON. The last 5 years?
[[Page H7830]]
Mr. OBEY. The last 5 years. Then it shows the fact that the
President's budget essentially freezes that appropriated number.
Mr. ISAKSON. I do not want to put any words in the distinguished
gentleman's mouth, but I kept hearing the word ``cut.''
Mr. OBEY. No. What I said is that, on a per student basis, if we take
English as a second language programs, that those programs were cut on
a per child basis in real terms by 10 percent, because we have an
increasing population and inflation and the President's freeze does not
provide for that.
{time} 1915
Mr. ISAKSON. Reclaiming my time, and hoping for a brief response,
would the gentleman agree with me that in real dollars between the 2002
budget and the operation of a continuing resolution in 2003, there is
not a cut in expenditures this year versus last year?
Mr. OBEY. In real dollars, no, I would not agree with that. There is,
as the gentleman from California said, $80 million cut in real terms.
Mr. ISAKSON. Again, without getting into detail, I am talking about
overall, not in a program like bilingual or anything else, but I am
talking about overall appropriation, in the aggregate, not by program.
Mr. OBEY. You need $90 million to keep up with the No Child Left
Behind Act, and on a per-student basis, you have to look at this on a
per-student basis to see what is happening on a per-child basis.
Mr. ISAKSON. Reclaiming my time, and I am sorry to interrupt, but I
do not want to take any more time than I should, this continuing
resolution continues to fund education at the level in the aggregate,
and I am not going to yield any more time, you will have plenty more,
that we passed in the 2002 budget. The authorization levels, I will
admit, are higher. I also know the 5-year plan, and I do not have the
quote in hand, the authorization of the President is a substantial
increase over that period of time. But that is a time out in the
future.
The only point I am trying to make for the benefit of the people in
the United States of America that may be listening is that by
continuing the appropriations that we made last year this year, until
we resolve this budget, we are not reducing the amount of money that we
are investing in education.
You were making a point that by doing it and by not funding it at
either the authorization level or by taking certain programs in it, we
are reducing it. That is the only point I want to make. I appreciate
the gentleman's time. I continue to support the resolution because I
know the sincere interest this Congress has, Republican and Democrat
alike, in seeing to it that America's most disadvantaged children get
the very best shake they have ever had. No Child Left Behind did it.
And last year we made the most significant increase in education
funding, which is being continued through this CR, this Congress has
ever made.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is over the last 5 years we had average annual
increases for education of almost 13 percent. That progress is being
brought to a screeching halt. The dollar amount in aggregate is being
frozen at last year's level, which means because there are more
students, especially in these needy categories, that on a per-student
basis we have a real reduction in education at a time when State
governments and local governments are also pulling the plug on
education. The result: contrary to No Child Left Behind, there are
going to be hundreds of thousands of kids who are left behind and they
are going to be the most vulnerable kids in America.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. I want to agree with about three-fourths of what the
gentleman said.
The increase has been 13 percent over the last 5 years. The gentleman
is absolutely correct. The continuing resolution continues those
increases until we pass a Labor-HHS budget. My point is, it is unfair
to say that until we have passed that that anybody has cut anything.
And the gentleman actually verifies the point I have been making in
terms of the substantial investment this Congress has made in improving
education which is being continued.
Mr. OBEY. No, I do not grant that at all and I do not verify that.
The fact is the increases are not being continued by the continuing
resolution. The increases are being brought to a screeching halt. You
are now freezing the progress we have been making on a bipartisan basis
for the last 5 years. That is what you are doing. Your own subcommittee
on appropriations, own Republican members know that is not enough. They
want to provide more but they are not being allowed to do so by the
most right wing elements of your caucus. That has been in the
newspapers. You have all told me that. You know what the facts are.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say thanks to the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, who is in the unenviable position
of getting battered by everybody all of the time. I appreciate that of
the cardinals and our appropriators.
On the one hand, some of us most right wing elements of the
Republican Party, as I and others are sometimes called, criticize the
Committee on Appropriations for spending too much. Then others say they
are not spending enough.
The fact is that every year when we get to the final appropriations
bills, I have supported the Committee on Appropriations because they
have tried to work within a budget, and we understand that it is a
system in which the Senate is probably going to come up with a higher
number. We come in. We like to have a budget. We would like to work it
out and probably the numbers are going to be higher than our initial
numbers and lower than their numbers.
I know it is very frustrating for the appropriators because often
inside the majority will of our conference may be different than their
particular goals. They see all the requests that all of us put into the
Committee on Appropriations, and at the same time try to balance what
are the long-term goals. We have had extraordinary increases in the
amount in education. We have just heard basically 65 percent over the
last 5 years. All of the sudden we are facing a deficit in this
country. We do not want interest rates to go up. We do not want
inflation to go up. Yes, we do not want to leave any child left behind.
We are trying to work this out. This CR gives us more time to work
out a compromise with the Senate where those final numbers can be
agreed upon. Labor-HHS appropriations bill is always the toughest. It
is always at the end. It certainly will not be resolved, most likely,
in the last few weeks before an election. It is easy to be outside of
power and to criticize those who are inside power, but I want to thank
our appropriators and our leadership for trying to work this through.
Hopefully, we can finally get some of the appropriations bills
through. They are likely to be higher than some of the conservatives
would like. And they are likely to be lower than some of the liberals
would like. But that is how you get a balanced budget that does not
drive up interest rates, that does not kill inflation and also gives
children in America the best education possible.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is this continuing resolution is a cut of $372
million below the President's budget and a 2.4 percent cut in real
terms after adjusting for inflation and enrollment growth. That
translates on a per-child basis into a cut.
We can pretend it is not in Washington, but at the local level, that
is a cut that is felt.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this sham of
a continuing resolution.
We are back again for a third time because this Congress refuses to
do the work it is responsible to do. Tonight it is not only the
American taxpayer who is suffering, but specifically it is the
[[Page H7831]]
thousands of men and women, firefighters, police officers, EMT,
volunteers, iron workers, laborers who were the first people to respond
to the World Trade Center attack on September 11 of last year. These
are the men and women who responded to the attack upon our Nation, who
looked for survivors, cleared debris, and began the rebuilding process
amidst the most difficult and extreme conditions.
The President and this Congress promised $90 million for the health
care of the workers at Ground Zero. The thousands of workers who again
were the first to respond and rushed down to Ground Zero are only now
starting to show the signs of exposure to the most heinous of
contaminants. Their afflictions include asthma, sinusitis, chemical
bronchitis, and psychological distress.
Thirty-five thousand workers were exposed, but only 3,000 have been
screened. Fifty percent of those screened have respiratory illness.
Fifty percent of those screened need additional psychological
assistance. This administration said that $90 million was too much.
This was after President Bush was at Ground Zero promising $20 million
to New York to rebuild.
The most this Congress could do was $12 million for the health of
workers. But tonight in this CR they are saying to the firefighters,
police officers, those who worked 18 hours a day-plus at Ground Zero in
its darkest days, those who sifted through the debris to find their
fallen brethren and sisters, their health does not matter.
The message is loud and clear in this CR. This Congress promised the
workers at Ground Zero $90 million. The word of the Republican
congressional leadership to those heroes is worthless. The value of the
work done by those workers at Ground Zero is priceless. The behavior of
the Republican leadership in this House is simply shameless.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much, and if I
could ask the attention of the distinguished ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for just a moment if he has a
minute.
One of the things I have learned over the last 8 years being here and
getting the opportunity to preside from time to time is that there is
not a more abler Member of this body than the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) or the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) when it comes
to the appropriations process. And I am just a slug transporter who
believes in building roads and bridges and dredging harbors and things
of that nature.
When this continuing resolution came out the other day, we were very
upset on our side of the aisle, as was the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) and the Democrats on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, because we were told that the original language would
put us at the $27 billion mark for the fiscal year, which was in
violation of the $4.4 billion that we thought we restored.
We notified our leadership that we would en masse vote against the
rule for this continuing resolution unless the language was changed.
The language was in fact changed, and today we were told that this
continuing resolution spends out the transportation trust fund at $31.8
billion until October 18. I guess I am asking the gentleman because he
is a lot smarter than I am, were we hoodwinked or do we have to go back
to our leadership and say that somehow they have fooled us or is that
in fact the case?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I got the full import of the
gentleman's question. All I can say is, if we read the language of the
provision in the CR before us, it says that ``total obligations for
this program while operating under joint resolutions making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2003, shall not exceed $27,700,000,000
unless otherwise specified in a subsequent appropriations act.''
Now, there may be a deal in the works to raise that number in the
future. But the number we are voting on right now, in fact, contains a
$4 billion reduction in what can be made available to States in
comparison to the CR that we are operating under right now.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Can the gentleman tell me at all what the difference
is on the language we are voting on tonight as compared to what was in
the CR when it first came out of the committee yesterday? Because,
again, we were told that the significant changes, that this spends out
at $31.8 billion until this CR expires next Friday. And if that is not
accurate, then we have a bone, I suppose, to pick with the leadership
on our side of the aisle.
Mr. OBEY. Frankly, I do not know what the original language was that
the gentleman was shown. All I know is the language that we are voting
on right now, and it contains a $4 billion cut from the existing
continuing resolution.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I thank the
chairman for his work and for yielding me time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the majority party
in this House on the success of the Republican economic plan.
About 22 months ago the Bush administration roared into town and
rammed a record more than $1 trillion tax cut for millionaires through
this Congress, when both Houses were controlled by the Republican
Party.
What is the record since then? Unemployment is increasing, job
creation has reversed. The jobs that were created during the previous
decade have now fallen off. Poverty is on the rise. Poverty in America
is increasing again. For the previous 9 years, the poverty rate went
down in America, year after year after year. Last year, the first year
of this administration, as a result of an economic program rammed
through this House, the poverty rate is going back up again and this
year it is the same thing.
Incomes are falling. The fact of the matter is the rich are getting
richer and everybody else is getting poorer as a result of this great
economic plan. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are now filing for
bankruptcy. Mortgage foreclosures across the country are at record
highs.
The Federal budget deficit is increasing. Two years ago we had a
budget surplus of almost $87 billion. This year the on-budget deficit
will be $314 billion. That is a $400 billion turnaround in less than 2
years. This represents the largest budget decline in U.S. history in
that period of time; the third largest on-budget deficit in history,
exceeded in size only by the deficits of 1991 and 1992 when the first
Bush was the President.
{time} 1930
The continuing resolution that we are being asked to pass today has
to be seen in the context of this plan. We are passing this continuing
resolution because we have not been able to pass appropriations bills;
and we have not been able to pass appropriations bills, not because of
the work of the Committee on Appropriations, because the Committee on
Appropriations, under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member,
has done its work. We have not been able to pass the appropriations
bills because this House passed a budget resolution this year which was
unreasonable and impossible to meet because of that tax cut.
We are not able to fund the needs of the American people, and perhaps
that is why we have frozen education spending.
That is why the wanted Leave No Child program is essentially not
advancing the interests of one single child in America, because we have
not put a nickel in the Leave No Child Behind program, and this is
probably why we are reducing funding for transportation in this
continuing resolution by another $4 billion, because the budget
resolution that we have is unreasonable and unrealistic, and we are
unable to get a spending program that meets the needs of the people of
this country.
That is the problem we face right now.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
[[Page H7832]]
Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight because the other body has not had a
good year. It is a fact that the United States Senate did not pass a
budget. It is a fact that the United States Senate has not passed the
faith-based initiative. It is a fact that the United States Senate has
not passed welfare reform. The Senate has not passed pension reform.
They have not passed the energy package. And during a time of war when
an unprecedented attack on America has taken place, they have not even
been able to pass homeland security.
In fact, it appears to me that the only thing the other body has had
time to do is kill presidential appointments and judicial nominees,
something they are very proud of.
Yet we in the House, we are ready with our appropriation bills. We
are ready with our appropriation process.
As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, we cannot sit down with another
body when they do not have a budget, when there is no top end to it. If
we sit down right now with a group, the House has a budget, the House
has a bottom line and a top line. The Senate does not, because they do
not have a budget. We cannot go into negotiations with somebody like
that. It is like asking our kids to limit their Christmas list. They
are not going to do it. They are just going to keep on wishing and
wishing and wishing.
I notice something curious here tonight, Mr. Speaker. So much of the
problems seem to come back to the tax reduction for middle class
families that the President started and was overwhelmingly supported by
the American people. But if I am hearing correctly, the Democrats are
suggesting that that is the problem. Therefore, should they win the
majority back, I can only assume that their plan is to increase taxes.
Because if they do not want to increase taxes, obviously they are going
to cut Social Security or defense spending to fund these other
programs.
I know they do not want to cut Social Security and they do not want
to tax it, because they taxed it in 1993 under President Clinton when
the Democrats were in charge of this House. And we Republicans, unlike
the Democrats, we have no plans to tax Social Security. We have no
plans to cut Social Security. I am concerned that if the Democrats take
back over there might be some hidden scheme, but I am hearing over and
over again so much of this is because of the tax reduction.
So the only conclusion a logical, objective listener could come to is
that the Democrats want to increase taxes as a way to eliminate what
they consider a budget shortfall. I do not know that there is a budget
shortfall. I still am amazed that in Washington that a cut is
considered a reduction in the expected increase, and I still find that
mind-boggling in itself.
I want to say this, we are ready to roll in the House. It is just too
bad that the other body decided not to pass a budget this year, because
we cannot sit down and negotiate with somebody who does not have a
bottom line or a top line.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Members are reminded to
refrain from characterization of Senate action.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I am going to give the gentleman from Georgia my Alibi Ike of the
Cosmos Award tonight for that speech.
Let us put the record straight. The Senate has not passed three
appropriation bills which the House has sent to it, the Legislative
bill, Interior, Treasury and Post Office. That constitutes about 10
percent of the entire domestic budget. The House has not yet considered
90 percent of the domestic budget, the eight appropriation bills that
it is still to deliver.
The gentleman says, ``Oh, you cannot sit down and negotiate an
appropriations bill with the other body if they have not passed a
budget resolution.'' We just did. We just passed a DOD bill today, and
we just passed a Military Construction bill today, and both of those
passed despite the fact that, guess what, the Senate had not passed an
irrelevant budget resolution on those either.
All it proves is that when the majority party in this House wants to
pass an appropriation bill, they can find a way to do it, and to duck
it, when they want to duck it, I tell you they are World Series class
in ducking them, and that is what they have done this year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we are really living under the budget that
passed the majority in the House. We are really living under this
budget.
What has it given us? We have borrowed $400 billion over the last 12
months, enforcing the budget that passed the House, regardless of
whether the Senate passes a budget or not because we are living under
this one. That is what we are living under.
It is amazing, the gentleman from Georgia who just spoke a moment
ago, it was amazing what he said. Basically, we need to pass the
appropriation bills. It has nothing to do with a budget. Pass the
appropriation bills that my colleagues' budget called for and then send
them to the Senate. Then they can have a quarrel with the other body,
but yet we keep wanting to blame the other body for us not doing our
work.
I do not understand that, and I am on the floor on behalf of the
budget. I have no quarrel with the appropriators, but I have a lot of
quarrel with the leadership on the other side that has tried the blame
game instead of dealing with doing our work.
Just today, the same Blue Dog group asked that we be allowed to have
in the continuing resolution the PAYGO and the spending caps.
We want to enforce some level of spending. I am perfectly willing to
live with the level in my colleagues' budget. I am perfectly willing to
live with that. That is what the Blue Dogs said this year with one
exception. We said, when the new estimates came in in August, if we
were spending Social Security trust funds, let us sit down and revisit
the budget to see whether or not we really want to continue down that
road. That is what they refused to let us do.
Next week, I am told we are going to have another tax cut. Where is
that tax cut going to come from? Right out of the Social Security trust
funds, period. Any additional spending that anybody wants to spend for
any purpose is coming right out of the Social Security trust funds or
the Medicare trust fund, but yet we will have that because the same
leadership believes that is good politics, and, boy, the ads come out
at home for the opponent as we talk about this.
Let me repeat, and anyone that wants to challenge me, I would welcome
almost a little bit of debate from the leadership on that side, because
many times I make these statements and the phone starts ringing, this
guy from Texas is just shooting his mouth off about spending and what
have you, and nobody comes in and challenges it. Well, if what I am
saying is not true, I would welcome and yield to the other side.
We asked to put some restraints on it. The leadership said, no
thanks, we do not want PAYGO. We want to pass another tax cut next week
so that we can run on that, and we do not want to talk about that is
going to come out of the Social Security trust funds, which is where it
is going to come.
The Concorde Coalition has warned that, unless we put some budget
enforcement, we are going to run into bigger troubles. How much bigger
can we get? The deficit has gone up $400 billion. One would not think
so listening to the leadership on this side. One would think the
deficit has come down in the brilliant leadership of the last 2 or 3
years. It has gone up in the last 12 months $400 billion, and it is
going to go up another $300 billion in the next 12 months. That is the
fact, and yet here we are trying to do our work, a CR.
The appropriators are trying to do their work. They do not have a
chance. They have got an 8,000 pound weight tied around their neck
because of the lack of the leadership in this body to do what we should
do, is do our work. If we do our work, my colleagues would be surprised
at what might happen.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
5 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 8\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
[[Page H7833]]
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me the time.
It is really incredibly unfortunate, and when we see that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and myself, we are
arguing over education, and given the chance, all four of us would
increase this year's education budget as it should properly be
increased, as it is called for under Leave No Child Behind, and we
would be able to deal with the Senate and get an increase for America's
schoolchildren, but we are prevented from doing that because the
Republican leadership will not let that bill come to the floor.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) says we cannot do that
because we do not have a budget. We just passed a Military Construction
bill without a budget. We just passed a Defense appropriations bill
without a budget. We sent the Interior bill to the Senate without a
budget. For 200 years we did not have a budget in this country, but
this Committee on Appropriations, they fought the Second World War,
they fought the Korean War, they fought the Depression, they launched a
great society, they created Medicare, they created Social Security, and
we did not have a budget, but we built America.
All of a sudden today we feel because we do not have a budget we
cannot take care of the needs of America's schoolchildren, of America's
teachers, of our school districts, because we do not have a budget.
It is just a phony argument. The fact of the matter is, the
Republican leadership does not want to bring to the floor the Education
budget as it is being insisted on being brought to the floor by the
most right wing element of the Republican Caucus because it is an
insufficient number for Education. They do not want to admit it before
the election.
The States have cut $9 billion because of the economy from the
Education budget. The least we can do is uphold the Federal role in
that effort, but we are told we cannot do it because we do not have a
budget, and yet we are going to have a $50 billion tax cut bill out
here next week. We do not need a budget to do that.
The American public ought to be getting terribly tired of this
argument. I know the Members of Congress are getting terribly tired of
it, because most of us on both sides of the aisle would like to do our
work, finish up, go home, see if we can get our option renewed for
another 2 years with the public and get on about the public's business,
but that is being thwarted here.
The terrible thing is here it is not the punishment of us, it is not
the punishment of the President or the Committee on Appropriations or
any other committee in this Congress. It is starting to punish the
schoolchildren of this country. Because this is not the money that we
need to carry out the reforms that we have insisted upon as a Congress
on a bipartisan basis to change the educational experience of the
poorest children in this country, but that cannot be done without this
money.
School districts and States all over this country are engaging in the
most dramatic reforms of the education systems at the local level in
the last 30 years, and we told them we would give them the money to
help them do that, and this budget does not do that. In 1 year's time
we have broken faith. This was a 12-year contract with the school
districts of this country, and in the first year, in the first year,
the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and the
President's budget have broken faith with those school districts, with
those school board members, with those parents and with those children.
Give us the Health and Education appropriations bill so we can vote
on it up or down. Let us go.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I really do not feel like saying anything else. We have
chewed this cud so many times now, as they say in my part of the
country. The fact is that there are many Republicans and many Democrats
who want to do right by the children of this country, and the fact is
if the Committee on Appropriations had been allowed to proceed with its
original plans, we would have produced a budget which did, in fact,
keep the promises of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Instead, however, because of an internal war in the Republican
Caucus, the committee has been reduced to going through these motions
time and time again. We are being slow walked and slow danced to the
end of the session. The leadership desperately wants to get out of town
without ever having voted on some of these issues until after the
election.
{time} 1945
We cannot do much about that in the minority except point it out and
hope that the people who want action to improve the quality of their
schools will understand and hold this Congress accountable, even though
this Congress is turning itself into a pretzel trying to avoid
accountability on issues as crucial as education.
I regret that. I know that a lot of Members of the majority party as
well regret it, but they have a leadership which is being held captive
by their most extreme Members and they are as helpless as we are on
this right now.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for trying
to do the right thing, even though he has been blocked many times in
trying to meet his responsibility, and I thank the Chair for his
courtesy.
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 want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
and all the members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of
the aisle for having worked together so well this year to get our work
where we are prepared to move, with very little notice, to complete
this appropriations process. And it has been a good bipartisan effort.
On a bipartisan note, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm). He and I exchanged some words earlier in the debate. He
mentioned just in the last few minutes about the $400 billion increase
in the debt. I want to talk about that just for a couple of minutes.
He is right. He has been a trooper in this House ever since he came
here to try to balance the budget, as have many of us been here to try
to balance the budget. But I think the gentleman from Texas would agree
with me in what I am about to say. The discretionary appropriation
bills that the gentleman from Wisconsin and I and our chairman and
ranking members present to the House are not the real culprit in the
deficit. Mandatory spending, back-door spending, spending over which
the appropriations process has no control whatsoever, that is the
problem.
For every dollar that we appropriate through our discretionary funds,
there are two additional dollars, two additional dollars for every one
that is spent through back-door spending, through mandatory programs.
The latest example: the farm bill, the agriculture bill, which was like
$106 billion over the baseline for a 10-year period. That is a lot of
money over the baseline. But some of those who are giving us trouble on
the discretionary spending bills lined up and voted for that bill. The
director of the Office of Management and Budget, who has put such a top
line lid on discretionary spending, signed off on that big agriculture
bill.
So we have to be consistent. If we are going to control this budget
deficit, we have to turn off both spigots. We watch the discretionary;
we watch the mandatory. Because mandatory spending programs spend $2
for every $1 that we appropriate in the discretionary programs.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to agree
with him totally regarding his statement on the discretionary spending.
But I would also point out the record will show that the farm bill
the gentleman talks about this year will save $5.6 billion from that
mandatory spending as a result of the work of the Committee on
Agriculture. But I agree with the gentleman on the general gist of it.
It is ridiculous for us to be talking about discretionary spending
being the
[[Page H7834]]
culprit in the $400 billion. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting afternoon. Changes came and
went and were never implemented, but we are finally at the point to
vote on this continuing resolution to keep the government functioning
beyond midnight tomorrow night, and to keep us going until midnight
Friday of next week.
I am satisfied that between now and then we will have another
exercise very similar to this one. I look forward to that exercise, and
I am sure all the Members of the House do. But for now, I would just
ask the Members to vote this CR and let us adjourn for the night.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 122,
making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003.
While the Congressional Budget Office has yet to release an estimate
of this bill, it appears to adhere to both the letter and the spirt of
the budget resolution agreed to by the House and supported by the
President.
Even once the defense bill just agreed to and the house-passed
military construction bill became law, this CR will be fully consistent
with the budget resolution.
Under the leadership of the distinguished Chairman Young, the
Appropriation Committee has gone to great lengths to avoid carrying
forward almost $16 billion in one-time spending that was provided in
response to September 11th.
Moreover, the Appropriations Committee has accomplished this without
sacrificing Congressional prerogatives. Rather than cede authority to
the Executive branch to make these determinations, the Appropriations
Committee has wisely identified each of these one-time expenditures.
Once again, I want to commend Chairman Young and all the Members of
the Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill. I strongly
urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today marks an appropriate conclusion to
the closing days of this 107th Congress under the guidance of
Republican Leadership. First this House voted to authorize the
President for unilaterally use force against Iraq. Next, they passed
the largest Department of Defense appropriations bill ever put before
Congress. And now we are debating a resolution to put off our remaining
funding responsibilities until after the election.
The Republican Leadership continues to stymie the appropriations
process because they cannot come to an agreement within their own party
on how to fund important programs in the wake of their massive tax cut.
Simply continuing funding at fiscal year 2002 level is a way of
skirting the tough decisions before the election. However, there are
significant consequences to this strategy.
By keeping funding at 2002 levels we are compromising our Nation's
security and a host of other important programs that the American
people care about. For example, the Coast Guard is awaiting a $500
million budget increase, which would allow more hires and increased
harbor patrols. The current appropriations hold up is threatening $3.5
billion in anti-terrorism grants for emergency rescue teams. The
spending freeze represents a $372 million cut from the President's
budget, which is already grossly inadequate and falls far short of the
promises made in the No Child Left Behind Act. The Securities and
Exchange Commission will continue to wait for the funding increases
promised to protect investors and monitor corporate activities.
Many projects across the country are threatened, even though they
have agreements with the federal government, because discretionary
funds cannot be allocated without a fiscal year 2003 bill. In Oregon,
this threatens $70 million for Portland's Interstate Max, $3 million
for the Sauvie Island Bridge, and $2.8 million for Jobs Access.
The Republican Leadership should be embarrassed to turn its back on
its responsibilities to return home and campaign instead of dealing
with their unfinished business.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution, as amended.
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.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves to recommit the joint
resolution, House Joint Resolution 122, to the Committee on
Appropriations with instructions to report the same back to
the House forthwith with the following amendment:
On page 1, beginning on line 4:
Strike ``October 18, 2002'' and insert ``October 12,
2002''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, virtually all of us want to go home. I think
probably the only Member of this body who wants to stay here late into
the evening, every evening, because he enjoys it so much, is the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). But outside of him, we would
all like to go home and campaign.
Saturday I am scheduled to be in a little town called Thorp,
Wisconsin. It is my favorite political event of the year. It is the
annual Clark County Democratic dinner. We meet in the basement of the
local VFW hall, and we have the best doggone kielbasa in the United
States of America; and I always look forward to that dinner. But I
think, in light of what we are neglecting to do in this House, that we
should all be here. So I think I ought to be willing to forego that
kielbasa and sauerkraut and chicken dinner, and I think all of the
other Members of this House ought to be willing to forego what they
have planned so that we can get some of our real work done. And that is
what this recommit motion tries to accomplish.
The resolution before us is yet another continuing resolution to take
us through next Friday. That means that this House will do nothing on
appropriation bills between now and next Friday because we have not yet
caused inconvenience for Members. I think the time has come to
inconvenience Members in order to try to up the pressure on this place
to actually get our work done. So this recommittal motion simply
changes the date of the continuing resolution before us from October 18
to October 12.
That means, in essence, it is a 1-day CR. It means that I am willing
personally to vote to extend the government every day by 1 day in order
to keep people here on the job working. But I am not willing to vote
for long-term CRs in the absence of an assurance by the leadership on
the majority side of the aisle that they will schedule the education
appropriation bill, the housing appropriation bill, the agriculture
appropriation bill, and the other appropriation bills that we ought to
pass to do our duty before we go home.
We have just finished dealing with what we consider our obligations
to be with respect to our differences with Iraq. We need now to turn
homeward and deal with our obligations to deal with the problems here
at home, and the purpose of this continuing resolution is to accomplish
that. I would urge a ``yes'' vote for the motion to recommit because
that is the only way that we can force this House to actually bring to
the floor the appropriation bills that could allow this Congress to
conclude our work with a note of pride.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin does not really work. I realize that he
and I spend so much time together it is hard to create the separation,
even for a weekend; but what this would do is a 1-day CR, a 1-day CR, a
1-day CR. And if all we do is a 1-day CR at a time, that is all we do.
We would never get down to the real business.
So we cannot agree to this 1-day CR. And I hope that everybody will
vote
[[Page H7835]]
``no'' on the motion to recommit and then vote ``yes'' on the
resolution, so that then we will get back about our business, the rest
of our business, after we conclude the CR.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes 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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202,
nays 214, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 460]
YEAS--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--214
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Berman
Bonior
Cooksey
Coyne
Ganske
Hulshof
Jenkins
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Reyes
Roukema
Stump
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
{time} 2018
Messrs. FOLEY, TIAHRT, HOUGHTON, REYNOLDS, CASTLE, BLUNT, and ISTOOK
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. FORD, CARSON of Oklahoma, LIPINSKI, NEAL of Massachusetts,
HALL of Texas, OBERSTAR, MEEHAN, LANGEVIN, HONDA, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 272,
noes 144, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 461]
AYES--272
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
[[Page H7836]]
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--144
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Blumenauer
Borski
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Berman
Bonior
Burton
Cooksey
Coyne
Ehrlich
Ganske
Jenkins
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Reyes
Roukema
Stump
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
{time} 2029
Mr. HUNTER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________