[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23614-23624]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 637 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 637

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1415

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 637 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.J. Res. 114, a resolution making further continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001. H.J. Res. 637 provides for 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit 
as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of 
the day and a further continuing resolution is necessary to keep the 
government operating while Congress completes consideration of the 
remaining appropriations bills.
  H.J. Res. 114 is a clean continuing resolution that simply extends 
the provisions included in H.J. Res. 109 through October 25.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it takes a lot of hard work and 
tough decision-making to fund the Federal Government. While I share the 
regret of many of my colleagues that the negotiations have stretched on 
this long, we are now very close to completing the appropriations 
process. We have successfully resolved many of the hurdles in our path 
with hours of hard work. As we enter the final stretch, we remain 
dedicated to passing sensible and fiscally responsible appropriations 
bills. I am confident that this fair, clean and continuing resolution 
will give us the time we need to fulfill our obligations to the 
American people and complete the appropriations process in an even-
handed and conscientious manner.
  This rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules on 
yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with 
the general debate and consideration of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; 
and I thank my colleague and my dear friend, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder), for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is the fourth continuing 
resolution to come before the House this year. Apparently number three 
was not the lucky charm. This is the fourth time that we have had to 
extend the appropriations deadline and this time through October 25, 
because my Republican colleagues just have not finished their work; and 
I do not think it is going to be the last time.
  Despite the promises to finish all 13 appropriation bills on time, my 
Republican colleagues are still very far behind.
  Mr. Speaker, from where I sit, the end is not even in sight. Each 
time we pass another continuing resolution, we grant another reprieve. 
Congress goes back in a recess. We all go back to our districts and 
nothing gets done here in Washington. So I think enough is enough. I 
think we should do shorter

[[Page 23615]]

continuing resolutions. We should get the appropriation bills finished. 
These week-long continuing resolutions are not working. Congress should 
stay here and work.
  Mr. Speaker, at this moment only 3 of the 13 appropriation bills have 
been signed into law. The rest are awaiting action either by the House 
or the Senate or by both. My Republican colleagues could have finished 
the appropriations bills by now. They could have approved education. 
They could have done a lot more but they just did not.
  Despite the pressing needs for more classrooms, more teachers, 
repairs to our schools, my Republican colleagues continue to put 
education on the back burner.
  So I think it is time for my Republican colleagues to get down to 
work. I think it is time our Republican colleagues make education a 
priority and put American children before the powerful special 
interests. Democrats want to stay in Washington and strengthen the 
American public school system. Democrats want to fund school 
modernization and construction, and we also want to hire new teachers 
and reduce class size. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think Congress should 
head back home when so much important work is left undone. If we have 
time to move the appropriations deadline again, we really have time for 
America's children. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous 
question in order to get the work done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules, said, here we go again. For the fourth time this month, the 
Congress is considering a resolution to temporarily fund the 
government. Now, Republicans claim that they are working very hard to 
get these appropriations bills passed, but the American people should 
know that today is our only full day of work in the Congress this week. 
The Republicans will send us home tonight, and we will not be back 
again until next Tuesday night. And I think the Republicans should be 
embarrassed. They simply cannot govern. Keep in mind that between today 
and next Tuesday, the Republicans are deploying their members to go out 
and campaign. They are not hunkered down in some room trying to figure 
out the appropriations bills. No, they are going out to fund-raisers 
and political events rather than doing the work that they were elected 
and paid to do.
  Bowing to the will of special interests, Republicans have stopped 
their work on HMO reform, on prescription drugs, on gun safety, on 
education. They simply cannot get the job done.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention the education issue in particular 
today, because that is one of the ones that is supposedly going to be 
addressed in an appropriations bill next week; but so far the 
Republicans have been unwilling to bring up the Democratic initiative, 
which says two things. One, that we want to send more money back to the 
local school districts around the country so that they can hire more 
teachers and reduce class size. We know that smaller class sizes are 
great for discipline, great for a learning experience. But, no, the 
Republicans do not want to do that. They do not want to provide the 
money.
  The second education initiative the Democrats have stressed is that 
they want to provide some funding back to the local school districts to 
help defray the costs of school modernization. We know that many 
schools are falling apart. They need renovation. Some need to be 
upgraded for computers, for the Internet. Many times there is 
overcrowding, and new schools need to be built. Well, the Democrats 
have been saying and the President and Vice President Gore have been 
saying let us provide some money back to the towns, back to the local 
school districts to accomplish that goal but, no, the Republicans do 
not want to do that.
  Basically, they are saying that these are not important. We should 
not provide money to reduce class size, to hire more teachers, to 
provide for school modernization. Democrats are saying, let us stay 
here and get the job done. We are not going to leave until the job is 
done and those two education initiatives are passed.
  Let me mention some of the other issues. Prescription drugs, Governor 
Bush, the Republican candidate for President, said the other day that 
he was very concerned and wanted to provide some sort of benefit of 
prescription drugs, but I do not see it happening here. The Democrats 
have been saying they want a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Put it 
up. Let us vote on it. Same thing with HMO reform. We passed a good HMO 
reform bill here, the Norwood-Dingell bill, the Patients' Bill of 
Rights. It went over to the Senate and it died there. It died in 
conference. The conference has not even met. I am a member. I am one of 
the conferees. The conference has not met in several months. These are 
the kinds of things that the American people want done. They want HMO 
reform. They want the Patients' Bill of Rights. They want a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. They want to do something about education.
  What is more important to this country than good public schools? But 
we do not see any action on these things. We do not see any action. We 
say, go home. Come here one day. We will pass another continuing 
resolution, keep the government going for another 5 days or so. I have 
said before and I will say again, I am not going to support these long-
term continuing resolutions for 5 days or a week. We should not allow 
continuing resolutions for more than one day at a time because we need 
to force the Republican leadership to get the job done. That is what 
they came down here for. We should insist and all should insist on 
staying here through the weekend every day until these appropriation 
bills are passed.
  There are 13 appropriation bills that make up the budget effectively, 
and only three have been signed. The rest are still languishing here. 
Some of them are moving now but not enough, certainly not enough for us 
to go home for the weekend until next Tuesday.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say the Republican majority seems to be good at 
doing only one thing, and that is going home. Well, then the American 
people should send them home for good this November.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this continuing 
resolution really should not be approved, and it should not be approved 
because it is not going to allow us to get the work of this country 
done in this Congress because it simply postpones the date at which we 
are going to be held responsible for getting that work done.
  I would hope the President does not grant this continuing resolution 
because a continuing resolution should only be granted so we can get 
our work done. This continuing resolution is being granted and then 
everybody is going to go home. Everybody is going to leave here tonight 
and come back Wednesday, and the continuing resolution runs until 
Wednesday.
  Now we have heard weekend after weekend how the Republicans are going 
to stay here and work, but nothing happens. No meetings take place. 
Nobody works. No progress is made, and I think it is time to say enough 
is enough. The President ought to give us a continuing resolution until 
Monday and we ought to stay here tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday and 
get the people's business done.
  There is a great deal at stake here. There is a great deal of concern 
in this country; and we have expressed it on both sides of the aisle, 
about our education system, about the resources that are necessary for 
our education system. We strongly believe certainly on this side of the 
aisle that we ought to increase the expenditures for special education. 
We ought to increase the expenditures for school construction, for 
modernization; and we ought to get on with it. We ought to get it done 
because this is what the people want for their children.

[[Page 23616]]

  We ought to make sure that clearly the funds are in place for teacher 
quality, to lower class size, and supposedly both sides of the aisle 
are for that, except it just is not being done. The President has asked 
us now, point blank, to get it done and yet we find out that the 
meetings are not taking place; that the Republican leadership in the 
Senate and in the House are not coming together to present that plan 
and that proposal.
  So what do we see? We drag on day after day, week after week, and the 
continuing resolution now, instead of forcing us to get things done, 
becomes an excuse for which we do not get things done, and meetings do 
not take place.
  So I think we would be much more honest to the people we represent 
and to the people who are concerned with these issues in the country if 
we would shorten this continuing resolution; if in fact we would 
require people to stay here and work. Maybe we ought to go back to open 
conference committees where people are held accountable for the work 
product of those committees. I know that this extends in other areas, 
but I have worked very hard on some of these education bills. We have 
talked about the help that we can give to many districts that need 
additional financial assistance for special education, and yet we see 
that that is bogged down. That cannot be that difficult to resolve, 
these education issues and to resolve them on behalf of America's 
families, on behalf of America's children and our local schools.
  They need these resources to do the job. They should be given these 
resources to do the job, and we should do it now.
  I would hope that later on when we are asked to vote on the 
continuing resolutions that people would reject this, and we would get 
on with a continuing resolution that puts some pressure on the Congress 
to get done with the people's business and to resolve these issues on 
health care.
  I do not know if we have run out of time, but I would also hope that 
we could address the problems of prescription drug benefits, that we 
could address the problems of a Patients' Bill of Rights, that we could 
address the problems of the minimum wage for millions of workers who 
need additional financial resources to hold their families together, to 
provide, hopefully, themselves with the wherewithal to buy some kind of 
health care policy.

                              {time}  1430

  But these are people who are going to work every day, they are 
working hard, and, at the end of the year, they end up poor. They end 
up without health care, they end up without decent housing, they end up 
without decent educational opportunities for their children, and we 
ought to raise the minimum wage. But we ought to do it now, and we 
should not continue to provide excuses another 4 days, another 5 days, 
another 6 days, when everybody just goes home, they hold fund-raising 
events, they go campaign, they go to golf tournaments, they do all the 
rest of it. They just forget to do the people's business. And that 
ought to stop, and we ought to stop that now by defeating this 
continuing resolution, and maybe give us the continuing resolution to 
finish this weekend and get the people's work done and go home.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that the 
use of personal electronic equipment in the Chamber of the House is 
prohibited under the rules of the House, and Members are to disable 
wireless telephones on the floor of the House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address why this CR, this continuing 
resolution, is necessary. What it does is it allows our government to 
keep functioning. Now, there are those who do not want one. That would 
mean the government shuts down. I do not know if they have quite 
thought that through, but we do not want the government to shut down.
  Now, why is the budget not signed? There are a couple of reasons that 
we think this is necessary to do today. Number one, we are at the point 
in the budget where the leadership on the Committee on Appropriations 
is working directly with the White House.
  Now, the President has been out of town. The President has been in 
the Middle East. I think it is important for the President to be in the 
Middle East. I think it is important for America to be doing what 
America has been doing in the Middle East, to try to get Chairman 
Arafat and Prime Minister Barak together, because what is going on in 
the Middle East is not just about the Middle East, it is about the 
whole globe; and I respect the President for dedicating the time that 
he has to try to resolve that. But obviously the President cannot 
negotiate the budget and the appropriations bills when he is out of 
town, so we are having to wait.
  Now, the President is in town today, but then again tomorrow, Mr. 
Speaker, he will be at the funeral of his friend, the Governor of 
Missouri. Many of our Members, Republican and Democrat, including the 
distinguished Democrat leader, will be there for that important funeral 
of a very important, well-respected national figure. So there are a lot 
of Members of Congress who are going to be in Missouri tomorrow. We 
respect that. That is a bipartisan thing.
  But during that period of time, there will still be a crew here 
negotiating on the budget, a crew here talking. There will be people 
working through the weekend, and that is what the leaders on the 
Committee on Appropriations and the leadership in the House have been 
doing and will continue to do.
  So all of this finger pointing, that we are in this situation because 
somebody has done something wrong, I guess that is what George Bush was 
talking about the other day when he said it is time to get some people 
together who have a can-do attitude in Washington, who want to solve 
problems, who will reach out to the other side, reaching out to the 
Senate and the White House.
  I do not think the American people want to hear all this partisan 
sniping today. The Members on the other side know that we passed the 
majority of the Committee on Appropriations bills, I think 12 out of 
13, before we left town for the August work period, and we feel good 
that those were passed.
  But this is a bicameral process, there are three branches of 
government; and just because the House passes the bill does not mean it 
ends there. It goes to the Senate, and the Senate has different visions 
and different ideas. Then we know also in order to have the White House 
sign it, they have their own visions and ideas. So we are in this very 
complicated process of resolving a $1.8 trillion budget for a country 
of 275 million people, and it should not surprise anybody that it takes 
a long time.
  What is it that the House Republicans are trying to do? What is our 
vision? Well, our vision is simple. We want to pay our obligations 
first for Social Security. It was the House Committee on Appropriations 
that said we are going to quit using the Social Security trust fund for 
general operating expenses. After all, no business in America can mix 
its pension plan with its operating expenses. Who would do that? Who, 
but the U.S. Congress? Four years ago we stopped that process, and that 
has been one of our highest priorities.
  Our second priority, of course, has been to protect and preserve the 
insurance policy for our seniors, the Medicare program, and we have 
done that. You will remember that 3 or 4 years ago the bipartisan 
Medicare trustees appointed by the President said it is going bankrupt 
if we do not act to preserve and protect it. We did, and now Medicare 
is on more solid footing.
  This year our budget called for a prescription drug benefit for 
American seniors; not one that would insure Ross Perot and Bill Gates 
and other people who do not need the benefit, but targeting those who 
are in the most economic need of a prescription drug benefit. We have 
done that. We had a program that gave our seniors choices, not

[[Page 23617]]

a universal required mandatory plan, and yet that was not passed by the 
Senate.
  Well, again, that is what bicameral legislation is about. We are 
going to continue working on that.
  I am happy to say that this House Committee on Appropriations in the 
agriculture bill did do something very significant to bring down the 
cost of prescription drugs, and that is the Drug Reimportation Act. The 
Drug Reimportation Act allows our seniors to buy lower-cost American 
manufactured drugs in other countries, such as Canada and Mexico, and 
take advantage of savings that they can get in those countries that 
they are not able to get right now, because, if they do, the Clinton-
Gore FDA says no, you cannot go to Canada and buy your Zocor.
  But I will tell you the case of a woman in our office, Myrlene Free. 
Her sister is on Zocor. If she buys it in Texas, it is $97; but if she 
goes to Mexico, it is $29. Now, this Republican Congress reached out to 
people like her and said we want you to be able to do that, and we put 
some language in the agriculture appropriation bill to allow that.
  But, better than that, we said this is great news for people in 
boarder States, but what about the interior States? We are going to let 
them do it through the Internet, and also let their neighborhood 
pharmacist reimport drugs. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, these are 
American-made and American-manufactured drugs, the same dosage as they 
are already taking, and at as much as a 40 to 50 percent savings. That 
not only helps millions of American seniors, but millions and millions 
of young mothers raising kids.
  I have four children. I know how expensive it is to keep a family in 
good health, and prescription drugs is part of our budget. This bill 
will bring down the cost of it. Now, we did get an agreement with the 
Senate on this, we do have an agreement with the President on this, and 
I think that has been worth fighting for. I think it has been worth the 
negotiating process.
  There are other issues out there, such as trade opportunities for our 
farmers with Cuba. That is still out there.
  Then we are going to be debating what to do about funding 
international abortion agencies. Mr. Speaker, that is always a 
controversial issue, and it is a bipartisan issue. You have pro-lifers 
and pro-choicers on both sides of the aisle. But this takes time.
  We have another amendment out there that deals with the situation in 
Yugoslavia. Should we withhold funds from Serbia? Should we withhold 
funds from Montenegro because they are having elections out there that 
have turned out on a positive note right at this point? We want to 
support Mr. Kostunica; but, on the same hand, what do you do with Mr. 
Milosevic? That is pending in front of the Committee on International 
Relations right now.
  There is another piece of legislation introduced by many Members from 
the Democrat side, with some bipartisan support from the Republican 
side, that takes a similar approach in Palestine and says do we want to 
give Palestinians foreign aid money in the face of what appears is 
going on in the peace process, or should we use that money as a tool to 
get both parties back at the table with maybe a more cooperative 
attitude?
  These, Mr. Speaker, are important issues. These are bipartisan 
issues. These are not things that, well, we are going to haggle over 
and see who can claim victory on this or that, but things that sincere 
Members of Congress with serious legislative proposals have come to the 
floor and said, you know what, the appropriation bills are somewhat the 
last train leaving town, can you put these amendments on the bills? We 
are narrowed down to the home stretch, and that is what takes so long.
  But this is America. This is a Republic, where everybody has 
opinions. That is why it has taken so long for us to adjourn.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reconsider their positions and support 
this continuing resolution, so that we can keep the government 
operating, not have a shutdown, and finalize these very, very important 
issues.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now 6 weeks beyond the deadline for completing 
our work on the budget. The main reason we are that far behind is not 
because of what is happening now; it is because for 8 months this 
Congress proceeded under false pretenses, and the majority party 
pretended that there was enough room in the budget to pass their 
gigantic tax package, most of which favored the most well-off and the 
most privileged among us.
  Now, one by one, the appropriation subcommittees are finally being 
allowed to produce bills that reflect in real terms what both parties 
recognize needs to be provided for science, for transportation, for 
housing. We finished a bill just a few minutes ago that finally 
recognized reality.
  But for 8 months, because of the political pretense that the 
surpluses were going to be large enough that you could make all of 
these wild tax promises to everybody, we have proceeded on the 
assumption that this Congress is going to spend about $40 billion to 
$50 billion less than it will wind up spending. Now, in fact, 
ironically, some of the appropriation bills are coming back in excess 
of the President's request; and some of that is justified, in my view, 
and some of that is not.
  But now we have a real problem, because we are down to the last few 
issues. And, yes, there is an issue remaining on family planning; and, 
yes, there are a couple of other issues remaining in other bills, but 
essentially there are very few differences remaining between the 
majority party and us.
  The main issue that remains is education, and, to a secondary extent, 
what we are going to spend on health programs and on worker protection 
and worker training programs.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen a lot of talk in the press about the 
legislative chaos that has produced the requirement for a series of 
continuing resolutions. I do not believe that that is the case. I am 
coming increasingly to believe that these delays are purposeful, and I 
would like to explain why.
  This calendar shows in red seven days a week, a normal weekly 
schedule. This calendar shows in red the times that we have been in 
session since Labor Day. I want to walk you through it.
  The week after Labor Day we were in for less than 24 hours. We came 
in after 6 o'clock on Wednesday and left before 6 o'clock on Thursday.
  The next week we were in about 48 hours. We came in at 6 o'clock on 
Tuesday and were gone by that time on Thursday.
  The next week we were here, as you can see, parts of 4 days, but, 
actually, in terms of real time spent, about 3 days of work.
  If you get down to the week of October 2, that is the only week since 
Labor Day that we have put in a 5-day week here.
  Do you see what happened last week? We came in late on Tuesday; the 
week was foreshortened by the unfortunate death of our colleague, Mr. 
Vento.
  This week we were in session for a couple of hours yesterday, 
starting very late in the afternoon, around 5 o'clock, and we will be 
out of session by sometime between 6 and 7 o'clock tonight.

                              {time}  1445

  It is a little over a day today, and then people will be at another 
funeral Friday. I think what this schedule does is to make it easier 
and easier for the majority party to avoid ever having to face up and 
actually vote on the issues that divide us on the issue of education.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what I think is going on, and so now what is 
going to happen is when this CR is passed to keep the government open 
another week, what will happen is we will have a brief meeting around 
4:00 or 5:00 today in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education. There may be another meeting after that; but I 
will tell you something, I have been stuck here, I feel

[[Page 23618]]

like a fugitive on a chain gang, because as the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Appropriations, I have been here 3 weekends out of the 
last 4 weekends through the weekend, so has Mr. Lew from the White 
House.
  The President has always been a phone call away, and yet while we 
have been waiting for something to happen, nothing has happened. Why? 
Because the leadership of both Houses refused to delegate the decision-
making power fully to the committee with the responsibility to get the 
work done, that is the Committee on Appropriations. That is the 
problem. Well, I will tell you something, I have got some things I want 
to do in my district, too.
  I see the leadership going all over the country campaigning for 
marginal Members. In my view, if I have to stay here, they ought to 
stay here. So if you want me to stay in town this weekend, I want to 
know that the Speaker, the floor leader, the deputy floor leader and 
all of the people making the real decisions are going to stay here, 
too, but they are not going to. They will be out of town while the 
appropriators will be stuck here pretending that something real is 
going on.
  Now, to me, if you want to get a decision made, delegate it to the 
people who know how to work it out. If you do not trust their judgment, 
then stay in town yourselves and sit down with your opposite Members 
and our leadership and get the job done, but do not ask the 
appropriators to stay in town to give the rest of the leadership cover 
while they go off to campaign around the country.
  If we pass resolutions like this, we are going to be here until next 
Saturday and probably the following Saturday, and that will get us so 
close to the election that, in the end, what you will have been able to 
do is to avoid voting on the issues on education that divide us. That 
is what I believe the game plan is. That may suit your partisan 
purposes, but it does not suit the needs of the country or this 
institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this continuing resolution 
because we ought to have one that makes us be back here Sunday or 
Monday for everybody to get the work done.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I really had not intended to speak 
on the rule, but my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has excited my 
imagination here. When I saw his chart, I decided to bring out a larger 
chart that, more or less, reinforces what the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has said, but I am going to take a little different spin on 
it.
  My spin is the Committee on Appropriations has done its job in the 
House. The House appropriators have done their job. I hope that we can 
focus on this fiscal year calendar, which is a little easier to 
understand than the one that the gentleman had. If you look at all of 
the red colored days in October, November, December, January, February, 
March and part of April, that is how much time all of the fiscal year 
that is gone before the Committee on Appropriations ever gets a budget 
resolution, which is when we can begin our work appropriating, which is 
what the Constitution tells us to do.
  The blue colored days are the days that the House has not been in 
session. And in order to get 13 bills through 13 sets of hearings, 
meaning 200 to 300 hearings and 13 subcommittee markups and 13 full 
committee markups and 13 bills on the Floor, we have only the green 
colored days available to do that. That is part of the problem.
  The budget resolution does not get adopted until after these red days 
are all gone leaving only the green days, that is a problem with the 
budget process.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the gentleman the only 
difference between his chart and mine is that his chart in the green 
gives credit for the entire day even if we have only been allowed to be 
in session for a couple of hours. So the charts are essentially in 
agreement.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I do admit 
that the gentleman's chart did go down to the hour. I was tempted to 
make mine go down to the minute to compete with his, but I thought just 
days would be good enough.
  But the point is that despite this problem of time, the House did its 
job. We got our bills out of here, and the 13th bill, which was for the 
District of Columbia, was on this floor in July before we went to the 
August recess. Now, that bill was not completed at that time. It was 
pulled off the floor, and we did not get back to it until August.
  The gentleman is correct that there is a problem of time here, but 
other things needed to be done. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston), I thought, made a good point. Once we did our job, that 
was only part of the process, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has told us so many times there is no use getting to first base 
if you cannot get home.
  The truth of the matter is you cannot get home if you do not get to 
first base. And so getting through our committee work was first base; 
going through the House floor that was second base; then you have to go 
through the other body. We have a bicameral legislature. The other 
body, the United States Senate, has to do the same thing that we do, 
they have to pass all the bills too.
  Well, this year they did not pass all their bills. This year they 
still have not passed all of their bills, and so we have to come up 
with creative ways to pass a bill through the system that has not 
passed in the other body. And so far we have done that.
  We did a bill today that, more or less, went through that creative 
process. The VA, HUD bill went through that process. But now then where 
does that leave us? Even after the other body passes the bills, their 
priorities may be different than ours, and most of the time they are. 
So we have to sit down together and reason together to figure out what 
is a responsible way to present this package to both the House and the 
Senate, so that we can get it passed in both the House and Senate. That 
takes a little bit of time.
  We have been spending a lot of time, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) said. Appropriators have been here day after day after day, 
whether they were colored red, blue or green on my calendar. 
Appropriators have been here dealing with these differences. But then 
there is another factor before you get to home base, that is the 
President of the United States. When a bill gets to his desk, he has a 
power that is the same as two-thirds of the House and the Senate, 
because if that one person, the President of the United States, does 
not approve of the bill and he vetoes it, it takes a two-thirds vote in 
both the House and Senate to override the veto.
  Well, we have a small majority in this Congress. We do not have a 
two-thirds vote; although, we did override the President's veto on the 
Energy and Water bill in the House just a few days ago, but, 
nevertheless, because we have a small majority, we have to work with 
the President and with his staff to try to send bills out of here that 
he will sign, so that we do not have to be here week after week waiting 
for those vetoes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the education bill. We have been 
meeting with the White House on the education bill now for weeks, and 
we still have not come to a conclusion with the President on what is 
going to be in that bill. What will he sign? Earlier there was a 
strategy to send him a bill and let him veto it and send it back.
  We rejected that strategy. We thought we should work with the 
President, work with the minority party, and that is what we have been 
trying to do. The minority staff has been involved in every meeting 
with the majority staff, but those things take time.
  And I am as frustrated as my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. I wish this work 
would

[[Page 23619]]

have been done in July when the House finished passing the bills but we 
only control one-third of the process. And that is one reason that it 
is taking more time.
  I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
in as friendly a way as I can say it that we have spent many days on 
appropriations bills in this House that were unnecessary. The majority 
party allowed the minority party hour upon hour of debate on amendments 
that we all knew were not in order; that were not protected by the 
rule; that were subject to a point of order, but yet we allowed the 
minority party all of that extra time because they wanted to make their 
arguments.
  We believe in freedom of speech. This is a debating society in this 
House. So we allowed many, many days of debate on appropriations bills 
that really were not necessary, except for the political debate that 
was going on. Had we not done that, had we just decided to jam the 
minority party, we would not have allowed those amendments to even be 
discussed. We would have raised a point of order against them 
immediately, but we allowed them to go on for hour upon hour upon hour 
before finally raising the point of order or before they were withdrawn 
by the sponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, when we get right down to it, time is a problem. But I 
would suggest that the majority party is not any more guilty of 
absorbing and using the time than the minority party or the President 
of the United States. You see it seems in this process everybody has to 
have it their way or no way, but when we are dealing with a bicameral 
legislature and a President of the United States, we have to come 
together.
  It is amazing. On the bill that we just passed, we passed it with a 
large vote. It was a good bill, because we finally came together, and 
we made it happen. We had the Agriculture appropriations bills a few 
days ago. We came together. We worked together. And we produced a good 
product.
  We do not need to have political rhetoric. We do not need that. The 
political points ought to be made back home on the campaign trail. In 
here, we should do the people's business. In here, people should come 
before politics. Back home is where we do our politics. Here we do the 
people's business.
  We should expedite this business the best we can, and we should be 
thorough, and we should be responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me as much time as he 
did.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) says that the majority gave us 
a lot of time to talk about issues that concerned us. They gave us a 
lot of time, but they did not allow us to get any votes on the issues 
that demonstrated where we wanted to take this country on education, on 
health care and a whole range of other issues.
  The gentleman used the Committee on Rules and you used the budget 
resolution to prevent us from ever having votes on our alternatives 
while you were free to put yours on the floor. If you want me to change 
time for votes any time, I would be happy to do that. We would have had 
much the better deal.
  Secondly, I would point out, that is consistent with what you have 
done across the board. You did not give us an opportunity to have a 
vote on our version of a prescription drug bill under Medicare, so we 
wound up with your bill of goods rather than our bill being on the 
floor.
  On the tax bill, we were not allowed to have a vote on our 
alternative, so we had to reshape our alternative to fit it into your 
rules.

                              {time}  1500

  The fact remains, in the last 6 years they have tried to cut 
education $13 billion below the President's budgets, and they have 
tried to cut education below previous year's spending levels by $5.7 
billion over that time period, and it has been only because of the 
fights that we and the White House have waged that we were able to add 
$15 billion over that period of time to the various appropriation bills 
for education.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record  an insert on Republican 
attacks relating to education and a number of charts illustrating 
education numbers:
  The material referred to is as follows:

             Efforts To Attack Education--1994 Through 2000

       Across the nation Republican Congressional Candidates are 
     giving speeches and running ads pretending to be friends of 
     education. Those speeches and ads fly in the face of the 
     historical record of the past six years. That record 
     demonstrates that education has been one of the central 
     targets of House Republican efforts to cut federal 
     investments in programs essential for building America's 
     future in order to provide large tax cuts they have been 
     promising their constituents.
       Six years ago in their drive to take control of the House 
     of Representatives, the Republican Leaders led by Newt 
     Gingrich produced a so-called ``Contract with America'' which 
     they claimed would balance the budget while at the same time 
     making room for huge tax cuts. They indicated that one of the 
     ways they would do so was by abolishing four departments of 
     the federal government. Eliminating the U.S. Department of 
     Education was their number one goal. They also wanted they 
     said to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Commerce and 
     HUD.
       Immediately upon taking over the Congress in 1995 they 
     proposed cuts below existing appropriations in a rescission 
     bill, HR 1158. That bill passed the House on March 16, 1995 
     reducing federal expenditures by nearly $12 billion. 
     Education programs accounted for $1.7 billion of the total. 
     While the budget of the Department of Education totaled only 
     1.6% of federal expenditures in fiscal 1995, it contributed 
     14% to the spending reductions in the House Republican 
     package. The package was adopted with all but six House 
     Republicans voting in favor. (See Roll Call #251 for the 
     104th Congress, 1st session--Congressional Record, March 16, 
     1995, page H3302)
       Next, legislation (HR 1883) was introduced which called for 
     ``eliminating the Department of Education and redefining the 
     federal role in education.'' The legislation was cosponsored 
     by more than half of all House Republicans including as 
     original cosponsors, current Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority 
     Leader Dick Armey, and Majority Whip Tom Delay.
       The desire to eliminate the Department of Education was 
     stated explicitly in both the Report that accompanied the 
     Republican Budget Resolution passed by the House and in the 
     Conference Report on the Budget that accompanied the final 
     product agreed to by both House and Senate Republicans. The 
     Conference Report for H. Con. Res. 76 (the FY 1996 Budget 
     Resolution) states flatly, ``In the area of education, the 
     House assumes the termination of the Department of 
     Education.''
       That FY96 Budget Resolution not only proposed the adoption 
     of legislation to terminate the Department organizationally, 
     but put in place a spending plan to eliminate funding for a 
     major portion of the Department's activities and programs in 
     hopes of partially achieving the goal of elimination even if 
     the President refused to sign a formal termination for the 
     Department. The Conference Agreement adopted on June 29, 1995 
     proposed cuts in funding for Function 500, the area of the 
     budget containing all federal education programs, or $17.6 
     billion or 34 percent below the amount needed to keep even 
     with inflation over the six-year period starting in Fiscal 
     1996. The House passed Resolution had proposed even larger 
     cuts. Every House Republican except one voted for both the 
     House Resolution and the Conference Report.
       That Budget Resolution established a framework for passage 
     of the 13 appropriation bills. The Labor-HHS-Education 
     appropriations bill, which contains the vast majority of 
     funds that go to local school districts, was the hardest hit 
     by that resolution. The Fiscal 1996 appropriations bill for 
     labor, health, and education was adopted by the House on 
     August 4th 1995. It slashed funding from the $25 billion 
     level that had been originally approved for the Department in 
     fiscal 1995 to $20.8 billion for the coming year. This $4.2 
     billion or 17 percent cut below prior year levels was even 
     larger when inflation was considered and was passed in the 
     face of information indicating that total school enrollment 
     in the United States was increasing by about three quarters 
     of a million students a year. The programs affected by these 
     cuts included Title I for disadvantaged children (reduced by 
     $1.1 billion below the prior year), teacher training (reduced 
     by $251 million), vocational education (reduced by $273 
     million), Safe and Drug Free Schools (reduced by $241 
     million), and Goals 2000 to raise student performance 
     (reduced by $361 million). Republicans voted in favor of the 
     bill, 213 to 18. (See Roll Call #626 for the 104th Congress, 
     1st session--Congressional Record, August 4, 1995, page 
     H8420) The bill was opposed by virtually every national 
     organization representing parents, teachers,

[[Page 23620]]

     school administrators, and local school boards.
       The Republican Leadership of the House was so determined to 
     force the President to sign that legislation and other 
     similar appropriations that they were willing to see the 
     government shut down twice to, in the words of one Republican 
     Leader, ``force the President to his knees.'' Speaker 
     Gingrich said, ``On October 1, if we don't appropriate, there 
     is no money * * * You can veto whatever you want to. But as 
     of October 1, there is no government * * * We're going to go 
     over the liberal Democratic part of the government and then 
     say to them: `We could last 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, five 
     years, a century.' There's a lot of stuff we don't care if 
     it's ever funded. (Rocky Mountain News, June 3, 1995) It is 
     clear that the Labor-HHS-Education bill, and education 
     funding in particular, was at the heart of the controversy 
     that resulted in those government shutdowns. Cutting 
     education was an issue that Republicans felt so strongly 
     about that they literally were willing to see the government 
     shut down in an attempt to achieve this goal. Speaker 
     Gingrich said, ``I don't care what the price is. I don't care 
     if we have no executive offices, and no bonds for 60 days--
     not this time.'' (Washington Post, September 22, 1995) House 
     Republican Whip Tom DeLay said, ``We are going to fund only 
     those programs we want to fund * * * We're in charge. We 
     don't have to negotiate with the Senate; we don't have to 
     negotiate with the Democrats.'' (Baltimore Sun, January 8, 
     1996)
       When the government shut down, the public reacted strongly 
     against Republican House Leadership hard-headedness and that 
     led to the eventual signing of the Conference Agreement on 
     Labor HHS-Education funding as part of an omnibus 
     appropriations package on April 26, 1996, more than halfway 
     through the fiscal year. That action came after 9 continuing 
     resolutions and those two government shutdowns. That 
     agreement restored about half of the cuts below prior year 
     funding that had been pushed through by the Republican 
     Majority, raising the original House Republican figure of 
     $20.8 billion for education to $22.8 billion.
       Later in 1996 the Republican House Caucus organized another 
     attempt to cut education funding below prior year levels in 
     the fiscal 1997 Labor-HHS-Education bill. Only July 12, 1996 
     the House adopted the bill with Republicans voting 209 to 22 
     in favor of passage (See Roll Call #313, Congressional 
     Record, July 11, 1996, page H7373.) The bill cut Education by 
     $54 million below the levels agreed to for fiscal 1996 and 
     $2.8 billion below the President's request. During the debate 
     on that bill Republicans also voted (227-2) to kill an 
     amendment specifically aimed at restoring $1.2 billion in 
     education funding. (See Roll Call #303, Congressional Record, 
     July 11, 1996, page H7330).
       As the fall and election of 1996 began to approach, the 
     Republican commitment to cut education began to be 
     overshadowed by their desire to adjourn Congress and go home 
     to campaign. As a result, the President and Democrats in 
     Congress forced them to accept an education package that was 
     more $3.6 billion above House passed levels.
       1997 brought a one-year respite from Republican efforts to 
     squeeze education. For one year, a welcome bipartisan 
     approach was followed and the appropriation that passed the 
     House and the final conference agreement were extremely close 
     to the amounts requested by the President and the Department 
     of Education.
       Conflict between the two parties over education funding 
     erupted again in 1998 when the President requested $31.2 
     billion for the Department for fiscal 1999. In July, the 
     House Appropriations Committee reported on a party line vote 
     a Labor-HHS-Education bill that cut the President's education 
     budget by more than $660 million. But the bill remained in 
     legislative limbo until after the beginning of the next 
     fiscal year. Then on October 2, 1998 Republicans voted with 
     only six dissenting votes to bring the bill to the floor. 
     (See Roll Call #476, Congressional Record, October 2, 1998, 
     page H9314). The leadership then reversed itself on its 
     desire to call up the bill and refused to bring it to the 
     floor. The House Republican Leadership finally grudgingly 
     agreed to negotiate higher levels for education so they could 
     return home and campaign. The White House and Democrats in 
     Congress were able to force them to accept a funding level 
     for education that was $2.6 billion above the House bill.
       Last year, in 1999, House Republican Leaders again directed 
     their Appropriators to report a Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriation bill that cut education spending below the 
     President's request and below the level of the prior year. 
     The FY2000 bill reported by the Appropriations Committee on a 
     straight party line vote funded education programs at nearly 
     $200 million below the FY1999 level. The bill was almost $1.4 
     billion below the President's request. Included in the cuts 
     below requested levels were reductions in Title I grants to 
     local school districts for education of disadvantaged 
     students ($264 million), after school programs ($300 
     million), education reform and accountability efforts ($491 
     million), and improvement of educational technology resources 
     ($301 million). Because inadequate funding threatened their 
     ability to pass the bill, House Republican Leaders never 
     brought it to the House floor. After weeks of pressure from 
     House Democrats they ordered a separate bill that had been 
     agreed to with Senate Republican Leaders to be brought to the 
     House floor. The bill contained significantly more education 
     funding than the original House bill but still cut the 
     President's request for class size reduction by $200 million, 
     after-school programs by $300 million, Title I by almost $200 
     million and teacher quality programs by $353 million. The 
     bill was opposed by the Committee for Education Funding which 
     represents 97 national organizations interested in education 
     including parent and teacher groups, school boards, and 
     school administrators. It was adopted by a vote of 218 to 211 
     with House Republicans voting 214 to 7 in favor. (See Roll 
     Call #549, Congressional Record, October 28, 1999, page 
     H11120) It was also promptly vetoed by the President. After 
     further negotiations, they agreed on November 18th to add 
     nearly $700 million more, which we were requesting to 
     education programs.
       This year the President proposed a $4.5 billion increase 
     for education programs in the FY2001 budget. The bill 
     reported by House Republicans cut the President's request by 
     $2.9 billion. Cuts below the request included $400 million 
     from Title I, $400 million from after school programs, $1 
     billion for improving teacher quality and $1.3 billion for 
     repair of dilapidated school buildings. It was adopted by a 
     vote of 217-214 with House Republicans voting 213 to 7 in 
     favor. (See Roll Call #273, Congressional Record, June 14, 
     2000, page H4436).
       When the FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education bill was sent to 
     conference a motion to instruct Conferees to go to the higher 
     Senate levels for education and other programs was offered. 
     It also instructed conferees to permit language insuring that 
     funds provided for reducing class size and repairing school 
     buildings was used for those purposes. It was defeated 207 to 
     212 with Republicans voting 208 to 4 in opposition. (See Roll 
     Call #415, Congressional Record, July 19, 2000, page H6563).
       In summary, the record clearly shows that over the past six 
     years House Republicans set the elimination of the Department 
     of Education as a primary goal. Failing that, they attempted 
     to reduce education funding to the maximum extent possible. 
     In every year since they have had control of the House of 
     Representatives they have attempted to cut the President's 
     request for education funding. Appropriations bills passed by 
     House Republicans would have cut a total of $14.6 billion 
     from presidential requests for education funding. In three of 
     the six years that they have controlled the House, they have 
     actually attempted to cut education funding below prior year 
     levels despite steady increases in school enrollment and the 
     annual increase in costs to local school districts of 
     providing quality classroom instruction.
       The education budget cuts have not been directed at 
     Washington bureaucrats as some Republicans have tried to 
     argue but mainly at programs that send money directly to 
     local school districts to hire teachers and improve 
     curriculum. Programs such as Title I, After School, Safe and 
     Drug Free Schools, Class Size Reduction, and Educational 
     Technology Assistance all send well over 95% of their funds 
     directly to local school districts. While zealots in the 
     Republican Conference drove much of this agenda it is clear 
     that they could not have succeeded without the repeated 
     assistance from dozens of Republican moderates who attempt to 
     portray themselves as friends of education.
       The one redeeming aspect of the Republican record on 
     education over the last six years is that in most years they 
     failed to achieve the cuts that they spent most of each year 
     fighting to impose. When a coalition between the Democrats in 
     Congress and the President made it clear that the bills 
     containing these cuts would be vetoed and that the 
     Republicans by themselves could not override the vetoes, 
     legislation that was far more favorable to education was 
     finally adopted. For Republican members to attempt to take 
     credit for that fact is in effect bragging on their own 
     political ineptitude. The question concerned Americans must 
     ask is: What will happen if the Republicans find a future 
     opportunity to deliver on their six-year agenda? They may 
     eventually become more skillful in their efforts. They may at 
     some point have a larger majority in one or both Houses or 
     they may serve under a President that will be more amenable 
     to their agenda. All of these prospects should be very 
     troubling to those who feel that local school districts 
     cannot do the job that the country needs without great 
     assistance from the federal government.
       This is not an issue of local versus federal control. 
     Almost 93% of the money spent for elementary and secondary 
     education at the local level is spent in accordance with the 
     wishes of state and local governments. But there are national 
     implications to failing schools in any part of the country. 
     The federal government has an obligation to try to help 
     disseminate information about what does and does not work in 
     educating children, and it has an obligation to respond to 
     critical needs by defining and focusing on national 
     priorities. And that is what the other 7% of educational 
     funding in this country

[[Page 23621]]

     does. Education is indeed primarily a local responsibility, 
     but it must be a top priority at all levels--federal, state, 
     and local--or we will not get the job done.
       The House Republican candidates now shout loudly that they 
     can be trusted to support education, but their record over 
     the last six years speaks louder than their words. Their 
     record shows that in three of the last six years, House 
     Republicans tried to cut education $5.5 billion below 
     previous levels and $14.6 billion below presidential 
     requests. It shows that the more than $15.6 billion that has 
     been restored came only after Democrats in Congress and in 
     the White House demanded restoration. That is the record that 
     must be understood by those concerned about education's 
     future.

  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION APPROPRIATION CUTS COMPARED TO
                              PREVIOUS YEAR
                          [Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Prior year  House level   House cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 95 Rescission.................       25,074       23,440       -1,635
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education........       25,074       20,797       -4,277
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education........       22,810       22,756          -54
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education........       33,520       33,321         -199
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION CUTS BELOW PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
                          (Millions of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           House                Percent
                               Request     level    House cut     cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education...     25,804     20,797     -5,007        -19
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education...     25,561     22,756     -2,805        -11
FY 98 Labor-HHS-Education...     29,522     29,331       -191         -1
FY 99 Labor-HHS-Education...     31,185     30,523       -662         -2
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education...     34,712     33,321     -1,391         -4
FY 01 Labor-HHS-Education...     40,095     37,142     -2,953         -7
    Total FY96 to FY01......    186,879    173,870    -13,009         -7
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--EDUCATION FUNDING RESTORED BY DEMOCRATS
                                              (Millions of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      House      Conf.                  Percent
                                                                      level    agreement  Restoration   increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 95 Rescission..................................................     23,440     24,497       1,057           5
FY 96 Labor-HHS-Education.........................................     20,797     22,810       2,013          10
FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education.........................................     22,756     26,324       3,568          16
FY 98 Labor-HHS-Education.........................................     29,331     29,741         410           1
FY 99 Labor-HHS-Education.........................................     30,523     33,149       2,626           9
FY 00 Labor-HHS-Education.........................................     33,321     35,703       2,382           7
FY 01 Labor-HHS-Education.........................................     37,142     40,751       3,609          10
    Total FY95 to FY01............................................    197,310    212,975      15,665           8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Wisconsin what 
the Committee on Rules did on the appropriation bills was to use the 
standing rules of the House. Those who were offering amendments germane 
to the subject matter were allowed votes, those who did not were not 
allowed votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  I have enjoyed this collegial debate between the Chair and the 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I only wish the rest 
of the House worked as well.
  The gentleman from Georgia stated that the government functions. The 
government functions just fine. The Republican leadership is what is 
dysfunctional in this town.
  For example, there is no one in this room, there is no one in this 
country, particularly the seniors, who do not know that it is time to 
have a prescription drug benefit for the seniors. We who legislate in 
other committees and have the responsibility for a prescription drug 
benefit have not been allowed to participate in any of that discussion.
  For example, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) who serves on the 
Committee on Ways and Means with me has voted two or three times, along 
with every other Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means, to deny 
the seniors in this country a discount on their prescription drugs. 
Just think, being from Florida, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) is with lots of seniors, how could the gentleman vote two or 
three times to deny even bringing to the floor for discussion a 
discount for seniors for their prescription drugs? Those are the kinds 
of things that are being held up.
  This House passed a Patients' Bill of Rights, a bipartisan Patients' 
Bill of Rights to bring under control the managed care plans, the HMOs 
that provide service to our citizens. That bill is tied up. It is dead 
in the water because the Republicans refuse to move it along.
  What have they done instead? In a balanced budget give-back bill, as 
it is called, a bill that helped our health care providers and to some 
extent our beneficiaries, they are rewarding the managed care plans 
with somewhere between $6 and $30 billion.
  Why do I not know why? Because no one will tell the Democrats what is 
in the bill. The bill is in the Speaker's office. Lobbyists are 
parading in and out of the Speaker's office working on the Republican 
bill, and not telling the rest of the Members.
  At any rate, as near as we can determine, there is somewhere between 
$6 and $30 billion going as a reward to the managed care plans, 
regardless of whether they provide a prescription drug benefit or 
maintain the effort of keeping their plans open in rural areas; no 
strings attached, take the money and run. They give a reward of that 
magnitude to the very people that we voted to regulate.
  What would we do if we did not give that money to the managed care 
plans? We would give 2 extra years of update to the hospitals, we would 
help home health care, and we would provide more benefits for our 
beneficiaries. That is what is going on under all of this as the 
Republicans stall the work of this Congress.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the continuing resolution because I 
think it is time we got about the people's business. The decisions that 
we will be making in the next few days and next week are about our 
national budget, the appropriation of funds to meet the needs of the 
American people.

[[Page 23622]]

  I believe that our national budget should be a statement of our 
national values. What we think is important is what we should put our 
resources to. So we are coming down to the last few or several 
appropriations bills. One of them is Labor, Health, and Human Services, 
which is the lion's share of our domestic budget. In that budget we 
fund the Department of Education and the Federal role in education. In 
that bill we also fund the National Institutes of Health.
  All of the studies that we receive from the National Institutes of 
Health and other research organizations that are funded by the Federal 
government tell us that children learn better in smaller classes. 
Indeed, we are even learning that some children do better in smaller 
schools.
  We pay for this research. We have the best scientists in the world 
applying their intellects to it. They give us their conclusions. Then 
this body chooses to ignore those conclusions about smaller classes and 
smaller schools.
  President Clinton has an initiative on the table which has been 
rejected by the Republican majority. The President's proposal would 
provide interest-free loans for localities to have bond measures for 
school modernization, for smaller classes, and rewiring schools.
  If we are going to have smaller classes, we need more classrooms and 
we need more teachers. If we are going to have our children prepared 
for the future, we need to have these schools modernized, wired for the 
future.
  It is really very, very difficult to understand how the Republican 
majority can reject such a reasonable proposal, a proposal based on 
science and for the well-being of America's children. That by and large 
is the main argument that is keeping us here.
  At the same time, the Republican majority has chosen to take four- or 
five-day weekends, instead of attending to a prescription drug benefit 
for our seniors, a real prescription drug benefit for our seniors; 
instead of a subsidized premium for insurance companies, which they may 
or may not even decide to offer; and to attend to a real Patients' Bill 
of Rights.
  But it is about the children that we are here. The Republican 
majority is asking us to vote for a continuing resolution, not so that 
we can continue our work until we are finished, but so that we can go 
home for 4 or 5 days, come back with work unfinished, and ask for 
another continuing resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
CR.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we are having an argument that is worth having. The 
argument is predicated on this, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) just said.
  In the springtime, the majority passed a budget that was predicated 
on the proposition that we should pass sweeping tax cuts in this year's 
budget. We disagree with that. That is an argument worth having. We 
believe that the principal fiscal focus of this country should be on 
reducing the national debt.
  Beyond that, we are having another argument that is worth having 
about whether we should invest in education more or less, yes or no. We 
believe, and I think a majority of this House believes, Mr. Speaker, 
that investment in education should happen.
  The reason we are having this argument, the reason we have overshot 
our deadline by 2 weeks, is that we will stand on principle.
  We believe that assistance for school districts around this country 
in modernizing their schools and building new ones is worth fighting 
for.
  We believe that putting a qualified teacher in every classroom in 
America, so that particularly in the primary grades children get more 
one-on-one attention, is worth staying and fighting for.
  And we believe that programs like after-school programs, drug and 
alcohol education, are worth funding to their highest and most 
practical level. It is an argument worth having.
  I commend the Committee on Appropriations for their diligence in 
moving the process forward, but we will stick to our principles and 
invest in debt reduction and education improvement for the benefit of 
the people of this country.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wishes to stick to his principles with 
respect to debt reduction, he can support these bills, because each of 
these appropriation bills has a special line item for debt reduction.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to move the 
end of the continuing resolution up 2 days from Wednesday, October 25, 
to Monday, October 23. If we do not move the deadline, there will be no 
pressure to work, and American families will continue to get short 
shrift from this Republican Congress.
  We need to rebuild our schools. We need to hire new teachers. We need 
to stay in session until we get the work done.
  The text of the amendment, if offered, is as follows:

       On page 2, line 4, strike ``and (2)'' and add after the 
     semicolon, ``(2) the amendment printed in section 2 of this 
     resolution which shall be considered as adopted; and (3) ``
       At the end of the resolution, add ``Section 2. The 
     amendment to H. J. Res 114 Strike ``October 25, 2000'' and 
     insert ``October 23, 2000''

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the previous question so 
we can move on with the vote on the rule and get the continuing 
resolution on the floor to keep the government open, running, and 
responsible until we finish our work, our very difficult work this 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 193, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 537]

                               YEAS--212

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh

[[Page 23623]]


     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Hansen
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Shays
     Spratt
     Talent
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner
     Weygand
     Wise

                              {time}  1529

  Messrs. ROTHMAN, UDALL of New Mexico, EVANS and Mrs. MEEK of Florida 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 187, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 538]

                               AYES--209

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--187

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clement
     Conyers
     Davis (VA)
     Dunn
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Hansen
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     McCollum

[[Page 23624]]


     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Oxley
     Pickering
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Shays
     Spratt
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner
     Weygand
     Wise

                              {time}  1538

  Mr. DIXON and Mr. CONDIT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________