[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.

                          ____________________