[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23624-23633]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) making further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 114 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 114

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled. That Public 
     Law 106-275, if further amended by striking ``October 20, 
     2000'' in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``October 25, 2000''. Notwithstanding section 106 of Public 
     Law 106-275, funds shall be available and obligations for 
     mandatory payments due on or about November 1, 2000, may 
     continue to be made.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 637, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) 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, the CR before us now should not require much debate, 
since we did have a very lively debate on the rule on the very same 
subject, but I am sure the same subjects will be discussed again. But 
this does extend the funding for the fiscal year until next Wednesday.
  It is essential to pass this CR because, although the House has 
completed its part of the appropriations process quite a long time ago, 
the part of the process requiring the other body and the administration 
has not been completed yet, although we are getting very close. We 
moved out two more bills today, as my colleagues will remember.
  This CR does two things: One, it extends the date from midnight 
tomorrow night until midnight Wednesday night of next week. In 
addition, because we are reaching the end of the month, it is necessary 
that we make provision for funding authority for checks that go out 
automatically every month to those who are in entitlement programs. The 
agencies involved need to have the authority to go ahead and print the 
checks, mail the checks, and have them in the mail so that they arrive 
by the first of the month. Those are the two things this continuing 
resolution does.
  Hopefully, this is the last one we will have to do. One of the 
outstanding bills is the bill from Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education. We are having another meeting this afternoon on this 
bill with the White House and with the Republican and Democratic 
Members representing the House and the Senate, and we hope to finalize 
those agreements today.
  The District of Columbia bill, as most Members know, is ready to 
file, however, it is being held because it may be needed as a vehicle 
for another appropriations bill that our colleagues in the other body 
have not passed yet. So there is somewhat of a delay there. It is not a 
delay of the making of the House of Representatives or the House 
appropriators.
  And I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, as I have said so many times, that 
the House Committee on Appropriations completed its work very early in 
the year. We had all 13 of our appropriation bills through the House, 
with the last one on the floor in July before the August recess. That 
bill was then withdrawn from consideration and put off, but the 
appropriators were ready to move.
  Anyway, we are near the end. It was theoretically possible that we 
could have done what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) 
wanted and made this CR go to midnight on Monday night. Because it runs 
until Wednesday, he opposed the previous question so that he could 
offer an amendment to take us to midnight Monday. But, Mr. Speaker, 
tomorrow the House will not be in session out of respect for the 
Governor of Missouri who was, along with his son, unfortunately killed 
in a tragic airplane crash. We respect that and the fact that many of 
our Members will be traveling to Missouri for that funeral tomorrow.

                              {time}  1545

  So there will be no business here tomorrow. Saturday and Sunday the 
House will not meet for recorded votes. Monday the House will not be in 
for recorded votes. And so, if we go to the policy of having CR's one 
day at a time, that is a big mistake, Mr. Speaker. If we do that, I can 
guarantee we will be here until Christmas because it will take all day 
long to do each CR, and we will not get any other work done.
  So we need to get this CR passed and then the appropriators will 
continue the meetings with the White House. And if we can reach the 
agreements that we think we will in the next few days, we will have 
this business completed by midnight Wednesday next.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the CR.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that the 
use of personal electronic communication devices is prohibited in the 
Chamber of the House, and they are to disable wireless telephones while 
they are in the Chamber of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this CR.
  Mr. Speaker, I have supported the previous CR's. I rise, representing 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member who, 
unfortunately, has been called off the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the Members of the majority are fortunate. They have 
been fortunate in September; and they have been fortunate in October. 
Let me tell my colleagues why. The Olympics were on in September and 
people were focused on the Olympics. The World Series is just about to 
start. The playoffs have just completed, and the people have been 
focused on those. And we have a presidential race. It is a tight race, 
as everybody knows, and the people have been focused on them. All of 
those events have captured the public's attention and diverted it from 
what is not going on in this House.
  What is going on here is that one of the greatest deliberative bodies 
in the world is doing practically nothing. We are at a standstill, Mr. 
Speaker, and the American people are suffering because of it. No 
meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights, despite the fact that it

[[Page 23625]]

enjoys wide bipartisan support. No Medicare prescription drug benefit, 
despite the fact that our seniors need relief from skyrocketing drug 
prices. No reasonable gun safety legislation. No Hate Crimes bill. No 
targeted tax relief for hard-working American families.
  Let me say, we could have passed inheritance tax or estate tax or 
death tax, call it what you will, relief for 98 percent of the estates 
in this country and the President said he would have signed it. We 
could pass legislation to relieve married couples from the penalty that 
they might incur. But because we could not give all of a loaf, we have 
passed none of the loaf.
  As Roll Call stated recently, ``If they paid attention,'' and as I 
said, they have been distracted because of the Olympics, the World 
Series, the playoffs, the presidential debate, they, the public, 
``surely would be appalled,'' said Roll Call.
  We are now considering our fourth continuing resolution because the 
Republican leadership has not had us doing anything this week, the 
previous week, the week before that, the week before that and, yes, the 
week before that. Look at the Record. We have hardly met since Labor 
Day.
  My distinguished chairman references the fact that we got our work 
done in July. With all due respect to the chairman, we passed 13 bills 
by July which all of us on this side said were not going anywhere and, 
very frankly, we were absolutely correct and, very frankly in my 
opinion, the majority knew they were not going anywhere.
  How do I know that? Because they said, well, this is the first inning 
or the second inning or the third inning, we know this is not the real 
deal; but at some point in time we will get real. We have not done it 
yet. We are not there yet. There is still no end in sight.
  While negotiations have continued behind closed doors, the fact of 
the matter is the President has still signed only three of the 13 
spending bills that fund the basic operations of our government.
  I ask my colleagues, is this any way to run a railroad? Well, I do 
not know about that, but it is certainly no way to run the people's 
House. Even many of our Republican friends are hard pressed to say it 
is.
  Last week our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford), commented, and I quote Mr. Sanford, not a Democrat, but Mr. 
Sanford, ``Anarchy reigns at the moment. Nobody is quite sure what 
comes next.''
  Clearly we are not, because we are not told. But the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) from the majority side says, ``Nobody is 
quite sure what comes next.''
  Let me tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle one thing 
they can count on. Democrats will never, never, never sell out 
America's children. Our kids need and they deserve smaller class sizes, 
which improves their learning and achievement. The Democrats' class 
size reduction initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers does just that.
  Our kids need, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve safe schools, a great 
number of which now require repair and renovation. The Democrats' and 
the President's school modernization initiative does just that. Our 
kids need and they deserve highly trained and highly qualified 
teachers. The Democrats' teacher quality initiative does just that. Our 
kids need and they deserve safe and drug-free schools. The Democrats' 
safe and drug-free school program does just that.
  These, however, Mr. Speaker, are not just Democratic priorities. They 
are the priorities of the American people. If we fail to enact them by 
passing a Labor-HHS-Education conference report that looks anything 
like the bill that passed the House in June, of which my chairman 
spoke, then we have failed future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution. I expect, however, 
it will pass. I do not want to see the government shut down. Nobody on 
this floor does. But I do want to see us do our work.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has stayed here the last 
two weekends, has told me that no meetings have been scheduled to work 
on any of the bills. So that when we go home tonight at some point in 
time, apparently no work will be done on Friday, no work done on 
Saturday, no work done on Sunday, no work done on Monday; and we will 
come back Tuesday at some point in time.
  As I said, I will vote against this resolution. But I also want to 
urge the majority party, the party that wanted to eliminate the 
Department of Education to take education off the chopping block, we 
can do better, we should do better, we must do better, and the American 
people and our children deserve better.
  Let us do, I say to my colleagues of this House, what the voters sent 
us here to do and pass the bills that meet their needs and address 
their concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) will manage the time previously allocated to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a member of the committee and, of 
course, also the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is an election year. Unfortunately, most 
of the time, the real loser in an election year is the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen the Democrat presidential nominee and the 
vice presidential nominee travel all over this country taking credit 
for balancing the budget, taking credit for paying down the debt, 
taking credit for welfare reform, taking credit for locking up the 
Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus.
  Yet, the truth of the matter is, when Bill Clinton had a Democrat 
Congress, they passed budgets that had deficits as far as the eye could 
see. In fact, their budget they passed, the last one they passed in 
1994, said that last year we would have over a $200 billion deficit. 
Yet now we have surpluses.
  In fact, they would lead us to believe that the shutdown of the 
Government in 1995 was because the Republican Congress was 
intransigent. If we really look at the record, the shutdown in 1995 
came when the President shut down the Government because he did not 
want a balanced budget. That is what that fight was all about.
  On welfare reform, the President of the United States and most of his 
people in the House and the Senate voted against welfare reform. We had 
speeches down here in the well of the House accusing us of starving 
children and putting children in the grates outside and throwing them 
out of their homes. Yet it was a huge success, so now they want to take 
credit for it.
  The President vetoed welfare reform twice before he finally signed it 
a couple of months before his reelection campaign.
  Last year, when we decided to stop the 40-year-old Democrat practice 
of taking the Social Security surplus and spending it on Big Government 
programs, they fought us every step of the way. Yet we did it for the 
first time in 40 years and, hopefully, forever more.
  This last spring, we said that we were going to do the same with the 
Medicare surplus, we were going to stop the Government from spending 
the surplus on Big Government programs. And we did it. Now we are 
saying that we want to lock up 90 percent of the on-budget surplus and 
use it to pay down the debt.
  In the last 2 years, we have paid over $354 billion down on the 
public debt. We are proposing that next year we pay another, in 1 year, 
$240 billion down on the public debt that is on the backs of our 
children and our grandchildren. That is responsible.
  The minority and this President have fought us every step of the way 
while they have taken credit for everything that we have done, and now 
they say that we are a ``do nothing'' Congress. ``Do nothing'' 
Congress? The 106th Congress is one of the most productive Congresses 
in recent history.
  This is a single-space list of all the wonderful bills that we have 
gotten signed by this President dealing with

[[Page 23626]]

reducing the national debt, with Social Security and Medicare, 
strengthening retirement security, excellence in education, health 
care, tax fairness, enhancing the national security of our Nation, 
protecting families from crimes and drugs, ending lawsuit abuse, 
advancing the high-tech agenda. And it goes on and on and on. That is 
what we have done.
  Now we have reached the end, and we have had to face for 6 years this 
event every year. The President submits his budget at the first of the 
year, and then we do not hear another word from him until the very end, 
and then he wants all this spending.
  He has never vetoed a bill because it had too much spending. He has 
vetoed bills because they did not have enough spending; and he has drug 
it on and on and on, especially this year worse than ever.
  Mr. Speaker, we remain here today because some people simply will not 
support the principles of fiscal discipline. The House did its job, and 
it completed its business. The minority chose not to participate. Some 
of the 13 bills we passed in this House we had to pass with only 
Republican votes, and we only have a six-vote margin.
  Let us remember what happened earlier this year. The leadership of 
the other party acknowledged that they had no genuine interest in 
working together to advance any sort of bipartisan agenda. Instead, 
they resolved to slow down proceedings, drag out the negotiations, and 
stall progress. That was their strategy that they started out with this 
year.
  Why in the world would they adopt such a strategy? Well, in some 
unguarded remarks, they admitted that their drive to become the 
majority party was predicated on a ``do nothing'' strategy that was 
designed to stop anything from happening.

                              {time}  1600

  It was designed to stop anything from happening, and the indictments 
that we hear today are indictments on themselves, because they are the 
ones that have slowed this process down; will not negotiate. We have 
asked the President for the last 2 months to negotiate these bills with 
us, and he has chosen not to.
  At this point in time, they are holding the bills hostage for issues 
that have never passed either body, the House or the Senate, because 
they want their way or they will take their ball and go home. If the 
President was serious about reaching a reasonable consensus on the 
budget, he could rapidly conclude the negotiations by finally answering 
a few simple questions. How much spending is enough? How much money 
should go for debt reduction? How much money should go for tax relief? 
He often claims to support tax relief and debt relief but his actions 
do not reflect these goals. Rather, every effort of this 
administration, through this budget process, has been to advance his 
actual agenda and that is spend the surplus.
  Support this continuing resolution and let us get our work done.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority whip says the truth has not been told on 
this side of the aisle. I beg to differ with my friend, and I certainly 
beg to differ with his recitation of history. He relates that the 
President has vetoed every one of the bills where they tried to cut 
spending. Now, if that is the case then the fact is that nothing they 
did on their side has brought us this surplus.
  The CBO says that, in fact, the Republican Congresses have added to 
the deficit, not cut it. Now I will remind the public that in 1993, the 
majority whip stood on this floor and said if we pass the President's 
economic program, the deficit is going to soar, unemployment is going 
to soar, inflation is going to soar, and the economy will go in the 
Dumpster. He was 180 degrees wrong.
  In fact, we now have the best economy in the lifetimes of anybody in 
this Chamber because of the leadership of this President and the 
courage of Members to vote for tough programs, tough spending cuts and 
tough revenues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we heard from the majority whip, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). We heard from my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Some of you may be 
confused who is correct. Let me just quote, if I can, three editorials 
that have been written recently about this Congress. The Washington 
Post, October 10, ``The normal role of congressional leadership is to 
help pass legislation. The principal role in this Congress has been 
instead to block it.''
  They go on to say, the Republicans say they have engaged in no more 
than normal self-defense. They have lost control of their agenda. They 
have tried mainly to give the impression of dealing with issues that it 
has systematically finessed. The finessing of them and the blame are 
part of what this election is now about.
  Roll Call, a newspaper which follows the goings on of the Congress, 
had an editorial recently that said, what a mess.
  The Baltimore Sun had similar comments about the ineptitude of this 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the great moments in American history was the 
successful effort to decrease the work week to 40 hours. At the time it 
was done, it was considered a radical thing to do, but that is nothing 
compared to the work week the majority has given this House: A 16-hour 
work week and a 5-day weekend. That is what this is about, and I would 
like to take those sheets that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
demonstrated just a second ago, and I would imagine that about half of 
that are filled with the naming of post offices all over this country.
  This is the fourth CR, continuing resolution, to keep the government 
going. We just heard from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) before 
he yielded the time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), that 
they will not be meeting on Saturday and Sunday. We are 19 days past 
the date that the fiscal year began and we have not done our work. They 
have only had 3 of the 13 bills that make the government work signed 
into law by the President. The rest have not reached him, Mr. Speaker.
  So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do 
your work. Let me remind you, let me remind you of something, that no 
one elected us to work 2- and 3-day weeks. Let me remind you of 
something else; that if a policeman or a fireman or an auto worker or a 
nurse or any other American can put in a full week's work on the job, 
we can as well.
  There is not a working man or woman in this country who has a right 
to walk away from their job and say, well, I will come back and finish 
it maybe next week, Tuesday or next week Wednesday, but that is exactly 
what the majority is telling us. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we 
stop that kind of schedule, and that kind of nonsense. Instead of 
passing one stop gap measure after another to keep the government from 
shutting down, it is time for all of us to roll up our sleeves, to lock 
the doors, to stay here and to do the work of the country.
  It is not as if we do not have work to do. The main issues that this 
election is being fought on, the issues that the people are responding 
to, have not been addressed. Instead of leaving town, we could be 
putting together a bipartisan bill on prescription drug care. You are 
campaigning on it. You are running ads on it. Let us do something about 
it. You are in the leadership. You control what goes on in this body 
and in the other body. Bring something forward. Instead of complaining, 
going home, putting a sign on the door saying gone fishing or maybe 
gone out to the golf tournament there in Manassas, we could be staying 
here this weekend and dealing with things like the HMO reform bill. You 
are running ads on it. Let us get it done. Or hate crimes, or the 
minimum wage. We can find money for the top 1 percent in a tax bill. 
The top 1 percent making $319,000 a year under your bill would get 
about $46,000 a year. All we are asking is that the 10

[[Page 23627]]

million Americans who go to work every day, who take care of our 
children, who take care of our aging parents and who make $5.15 to 
$6.15 an hour, all we want is a minimum wage for them and that has gone 
nowhere.
  How about Latino fairness, to give fairness and justice for those who 
are here who are doing those jobs I have just described? And what 
about, of course, education? We will not leave this floor, we will not 
leave this body, until we get what we want in education; and that means 
lower class sizes for our children so they can get a better disciplined 
education. That means school construction so we do not have faucets 
leaking and roofs falling on top of children in schools, and children 
learning in mobile units outside the main building. That means as well, 
Mr. Speaker, after-school programs so our children have a place to go 
so they do not go home to an empty home where temptation leads them to 
drugs and alcohol and teen pregnancies and all the other maladies that 
flow when there are not people there loving them, teaching them, 
mentoring them; an after-school program that we think, when we fund, 
can put an additional 1.6 million kids into an after-school program 
where they can get that attention.
  We are not leaving here until those things are done. These are tough 
issues. They deserve our attention. They deserve our time, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote no. This is a 5-day CR. We ought to be doing it 
one day at a time forcing us to stay in this building.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will manage the time for the 
majority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we did one CR every day that is all we would get 
done. We would not have time to do anything else except the CR one day 
after another. We would be here until Christmas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the way people deal with 
history around here. For more than 40 years this party was the 
majority. As recently as 1993 they owned the government. They had the 
House; they had the Senate. They had the Presidency and yet they have 
the gall to stand up and say what we should be doing about children in 
schools. They owned the place. What did they do when they were here? I 
will tell you. In 1992 and in 1993, this House was in scandal and when 
the Republican majority took over we said we want a third party audit. 
It took us 5 years, no question about it. This House now gets a clean 
audit from the third party private sector. Do you know why we have a 
surplus? It is very simple.
  In 1993, they held the House, they held the Senate and they held the 
Presidency. They passed the largest tax increase in history, and then 
the American people in November of 1994 voted Republicans for the first 
time in half a century a majority in the House. And guess what? We did 
not spend it.
  Now, if you want to know where the surplus came from, they raised 
taxes; and we did not spend it. That is how we got the surplus. So if 
you listen to these people telling you all of the things that need to 
be corrected, with our small majority we passed a prescription drug 
provision; we are moving forward on Medicare reforms. And we are making 
changes while they are complaining about things they never ever did 
when they were in the majority.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) makes an 
impassioned statement, but the fact of the matter is almost every 
independent analyst agrees that the reason we have the surplus is the 
1990 bill for which most of his colleagues did not vote and excoriated 
their own President, President Bush, for proposing; the 1993 bill and 
then the 1997 bipartisan agreement. So that the gentleman's reading of 
history is sorely wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we heard a few minutes ago that truth has 
been a victim in this election. I would submit that it has been a 
victim today on this floor. The fact of the matter is it was Democrats 
and Democrats alone that passed the votes for the President's deficit 
reduction program that brought us the first balanced budget in a 
generation and now the Federal surpluses that we argue about on this 
floor.
  That is a good argument to have, but let us not forget that the truth 
of the matter is not one Republican in this House, not one Republican 
in the Senate, was willing to make the difficult decisions on the 
deficit reduction program that President Clinton put forth. I have 
never seen how the majority that runs both this House and the other 
body can claim that it is the responsibility of the minority to be able 
to achieve that for which they control the entire legislative process 
of this House and the other body. I do not know where in America the 
majority does not run and rule, and the majority in this House is a 
Republican majority.
  Now we have had the whole year to finish our budgetary work, and we 
have not. We Democrats want to stay here and work until we complete the 
important business of the people. The real purpose of this continuing 
resolution, which by the way is a one-page resolution for which the 
date is changed so it is not that complicated to have it on a daily 
basis to keep the pressure to make us complete the people's business, 
is not to help America's working families; it is to allow Republican 
Members to go home and avoid a battle of public opinion they know they 
will lose.
  Now Governor Bush keeps talking about bipartisanship. Well, I hope he 
makes some phone calls here to the House and to the other body where 
his party rules, because we want bipartisanship, too; but that does not 
mean abdicating our principles and letting one do simply what they 
want.

                              {time}  1615

  We believe that we will have bipartisanship, but not at the expense 
of reducing class size for our children or giving children the modern 
schools they deserve or hiring 100,000 qualified teachers. There are 
some battles we are fighting, some principles worth going to the mat to 
defend. For me, for Democrats, educating our children and giving our 
seniors a secure and decent retirement, are just those kinds of 
principles, the right principles for America.
  Governor Bush keeps talking about bipartisanship. But look at what 
Republicans cannot accomplish when they control both Houses of 
Congress. They cannot pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights; they 
cannot pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit for all seniors; they 
cannot provide class size reduction legislation for our children; they 
cannot pass campaign finance reform to preserve our very democracy; and 
that is the failed record, in part, of this Republican Congress. And 
they want the presidency too.
  If the Republican majority cannot get a budget done at the height of 
prosperity, how can you govern when tough decisions have to be made?
  To my colleagues on the other side, I say it is time to stop the 
delaying and get the work done. Working families need our help now, and 
if Republicans cannot provide the leadership to do so, we Democrats are 
more than ready to take the reins and get the job done: pass a strong 
Patients' Bill of Rights; pass a prescription drug program under 
Medicare; pass an education process that raises standards, but helps 
reduce class size; modernize our schools and provide for technology 
connections; ensure that we pay down this debt over the next 12 years; 
and have tax cuts for working families. That is an agenda. If we had 
been working together, we could get it done. That is an agenda that 
your Members are campaigning upon. That is an agenda we have been 
fighting for.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished

[[Page 23628]]

gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle speak as if they know the facts. I would say that the gentleman 
is factually challenged. Let me be specific.
  When the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the 
Senate, they said not a single Republican voted for their tax increase, 
$265 billion in tax increase, $320 billion in new spending. How did 
they get the new spending with the tax increase? They stole every dime 
out of the Social Security trust fund. Al Gore was the deciding vote on 
that, to take the money out of the Social Security trust fund.
  Why did we not vote for it? First of all, it increased the tax on 
Social Security. That is a fact. It took every dime out of the Social 
Security trust fund and put it up here with new taxes for increased 
spending. That is a fact. They talked for a year about a targeted 
middle class tax cut. The leadership over here demagogued for a year. 
``What we want is a targeted middle class tax cut.'' They could not 
help themselves, because money in the Federal Government is power to 
the Democrats, their ability to rain down money and spend it on their 
constituents. And yet they increased the tax on the middle class, that 
is a fact, when they had the House, the White House, and the Senate.
  Another one of their priorities, they cut the veterans' COLAs. They 
cut the military COLAs in 1993. And they ask why we did not vote for 
it? I would not vote for it today.
  They talk about the minimum wage. Did they pass a minimum wage 
increase in 1993 when they had control of the White House, House, and 
Senate? Absolutely not. Alan Greenspan said there are three issues 
which have stimulated the economy the most: one is the balanced budget, 
the other is welfare reform, and the other was capital gains.
  Balanced budget, my liberal Democrat leadership fought tooth, hook 
and nail against a balanced budget, every single time. Even when we 
passed it and the President signed it, the liberal leadership on that 
side still fought against it.
  Welfare reform, that was vetoed twice, and after the President signed 
welfare reform, my liberal friends on that side of the aisle still 
fought against welfare reform.
  Capital gains, they said, oh, that is a tax break for the rich. Alan 
Greenspan says that is what stimulated the economy, along with a 
balanced budget, that lowered interest rates and allowed jobs. But yet 
my colleagues on that side of the aisle fought against it.
  Why did not we vote for the 1993 bill? Because it was anti-economic 
progress. It was anti-economic progress, 100 percent.
  They talk about school construction. I went to 18 districts 3 weeks 
ago. Every district had at least $1 million from their unions put 
against our candidates. Why would not they vote for school construction 
with Davis-Bacon taken out? Why would not they vote for school 
construction and waive Davis-Bacon? I will vote for it if you do. It 
saves 35 percent, and we can allow those schools to keep the money that 
it takes, the extra, for the union to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, they said we need a living wage. 
Ninety-five percent of all construction in this country is done without 
the union, and they earn a good wage. But my colleagues get all of 
their campaign funds from the liberal trial lawyers, from the unions, 
and do you think that they would do that in the name of education? 
Absolutely not.
  You did not talk about quality of education for 40 years; you just 
put more money into it. It was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), the chairman of the committee, that talked of quality 
education. Your 100,000 teachers from the last time, half of them were 
not even qualified. We had to say if you are going to put those 
teachers in, they have to be qualified and the school has got the 
flexibility to use the money. If they want technology, if they want 
teacher training, if they want class size reduction, we will do that. 
But yet my colleagues on that side want government to tell everything.
  Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not have time to correct all the 
misstatements of the gentleman from California. Suffice it to say, 
however, as he leaves the floor, that from 1981 through 1992, not a 
penny was spent in the United States from Social Security, from 
anyplace else, that was not approved by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. 
Not a penny. Why? Because we never overrode a veto of a spending bill 
that asked for more spending of Ronald Reagan. Never.
  So the fact of the matter is that it is Presidents who make policy. 
We make the laws, I understand that. But in your lament that Bill 
Clinton will not sign the bills you want signed, your tax bill of 1998 
would have wiped out that surplus that you now so proudly say you want 
to pay down the debt with. It has been Bill Clinton and the Democrats 
in Congress that have brought us this surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the distinguished 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, made the assertion at that 
podium that often in an election year the first casualty is truth; and 
then, over the course of the next several minutes, he went on to prove 
that, at least in some cases, that assertion can be true.
  He asserted that a couple of years after President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore took office, the budget deficit was still $200 billion. 
You can hurt the truth and kill the truth by acts of omission as well 
as commission, and that is what happened in that particular case.
  What he failed to observe was that when President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore came to the White House, the annual budget deficit that 
year was almost $300 billion; and so, yes, a couple of years later it 
was already reduced by $100 billion, and it was continuing to go down.
  He used the phrase ``budget deficits as far as the eye could see.'' 
That is a phrase that was coined by the Office of Management and 
Budget, the Budget Director, of the outgoing Bush Administration, and 
the outgoing Bush Administration predicted that under the policies of 
former President Bush, that the deficit today would be $445 or $450 
billion. That is ``deficits as far as the eye can see.''
  Yes, unquestionably, it was in fact the budget resolution of 1993, 
added on to the previous one in the Bush Administration, that has 
brought this Nation back to fiscal sanity and brought the budget back 
into balance, and in fact brought the budget this year into a $211 
billion surplus; a $500 billion turnaround in the 8 years that 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been in the White House. 
Those are the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts today are these: we are fighting now over a 
budget here, and the issues are these. You want a tax cut for the 
richest people in the country; we want services for the American 
people. We want a Patients' Bill of Rights; you do not. We want a 
prescription drug program for people who have to pay for their 
prescription drugs out of their pocket; you do not. We want an increase 
in the minimum wage; you do not. We want a reasonable and modest middle 
class tax cut, which will provide the majority of the benefits to the 
working people of this country; you want to give $1 trillion to the 
richest people in the country.
  Those are the issues upon which we differ, and those are the issues 
that need to be decided, and they will not be decided by passing a 
continuing resolution. They will only be decided by staying here and 
debating these issues, and bringing the bills out on the floor so that 
they can get honest and fair votes, and so far you have refused to do 
that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a real fighter. He was a fighter 
pilot in Vietnam, and the first ace, having shot down a lot of the 
enemy's aircraft. I

[[Page 23629]]

would like to yield to him to respond, because he is a fighter; and I 
think I see a fight developing here.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, no fights, just facts. In 1993, I 
mentioned that the Democrats raised Social Security taxes. We did away 
with that. They took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. 
Republicans put it into a lockbox. Al Gore was the deciding vote to 
take the money. Every budget that Clinton-Gore sent us stole the money 
out of the Social Security trust fund. Now he is saying, oh, I want a 
Social Security trust fund.
  The middle class tax that they increased, we gave it back in a $500 
deduction. We gave IRAs for school education. That was a ``tax break 
for the rich,'' and the liberals fought against it, tooth, hook and 
nail; but we gave it. We gave middle class tax relief.
  If you take a look at the veterans' COLAs that they cut, we rescinded 
that. We gave back the veterans' COLAs. The military active duty COLAs, 
we gave back. Not a single one of the White House budgets or economic 
policies have passed either the House or Senate.
  So when they claim credit for the economy, the 1993 bill, we 
rescinded it, and none of their bills passed since. Those are the 
facts.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of one of 
our important appropriation subcommittees.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate, and 
there are a couple of things that I thought we might want to correct 
just for the record here.
  There have been speakers on the other side that have talked about how 
they are concerned about class size reduction, how they are concerned 
about the infrastructure of our schools and making sure that we have 
money for that. And we are too. But perhaps the public does not know 
that in the conference that has been worked out on the Labor-HHS bill, 
there is every single dollar that the President has requested for 
classroom size reduction, $1.4 billion, and for new school 
construction, $1.3 billion. Every one of those dollars is in there. The 
difference, of course, is that in the conference report, it is in a 
block grant to the schools.

                              {time}  1630

  Because as we know, in one school district, there may not be a 
problem with new school construction. It may be teacher development, 
and in another school district, there may not be a problem with class 
sizes, it may be a community where the population is shrinking. They 
may need to have new computers and renovation.
  What we suggest is give the money back to the school districts, to 
the local districts, to the teachers, to the parents, to the 
administrators to make the decisions about how the dollars will be 
spent; but the other side says no, we, here in Washington, the 
bureaucracy in Washington, we, in Congress, we will dictate exactly how 
you are going to spend those dollars. We know best.
  That is the fundamental philosophical difference between the minority 
and the majority. We believe that the dollars should go back to the 
schools, back to the parents, back to the teachers, back to those who 
need it, get into the classrooms.
  They believe it should go to the bureaucracy to determine how it will 
be spent, and we will direct exactly how those dollars will be spent.
  One other point, Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned here earlier that the 
only thing different about this CR is the date is changed. Well, there 
is another difference, the previous CR did not give the authority to 
the administration to write the checks beginning for November 1 for 
Social Security benefits and for veterans' benefits and all other 
entitlements, but mainly for Social Security and for veterans' 
benefits. This continuing resolution does give them that.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote against this continuing resolution, make no 
mistake about it, a vote against this continuing resolution is a vote 
against writing the Social Security checks for the beginning of the 
month. It is a vote against the benefits for veterans. It is a vote to 
say no, we will not make the payments for veterans or for Social 
Security beneficiaries. That is what the vote against this continuing 
resolution would do, because it is not the same as the previous 
continuing resolution.
  So I think those points need to be kept in mind here as we move 
forward with this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding me 
the additional time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
for making that point on the entitlement checks, because in my opening 
comments, I did refer to the entitlement checks that are prepared in 
advance. I did not specify that they were Social Security checks. And I 
did not specify that they were veterans' checks, but that is, in fact, 
what they are. If my colleagues watched television last night, there 
was a big program about that. These checks are printed in advance of 
the time that they are mailed out, and if we do not give the 
administration, the Social Security Administration, ample time to 
prepare and print those checks, they will not get delivered on time.
  I thank the gentleman for making that point. I think it is essential 
that we include, and we did include, in this CR the provision that the 
affected agencies could go ahead and prepare those checks and mail them 
out so they get in the hands of the Social Security recipients and the 
veterans and anyone else entitled to an entitlement check at the 
appropriate time, at the beginning of the month.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it the proposition of the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) if we did not pass this CR and we still 
continue another 24 hours, because the CR expires, as the gentleman 
said 24 hours from now or 36 hours from now, that the agencies, both 
Social Security and the Veterans Administration, would not go ahead 
over the next 24 hours or 36 hours and prepare to send out these 
checks?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
respond to the gentleman that that is the reason we put that language 
in this continuing resolution. It is there so that there would be no 
question they had the authority to do just that.
  If the gentleman would like to discuss the 24-hour period CR, we are 
not going to be here tomorrow. Many Members of this House are going to 
show their respect to the former Governor of Missouri and go to his 
funeral tomorrow. So we are not going to be here tomorrow.
  Last week we paid tribute to and honored one of our own Members who 
had passed way, and we were not here that day either. So we lost those 
legislative days, but it was proper and appropriate that we honor the 
memory of Congressman Vento. It is certainly proper that we honor the 
memory and the service of the Governor of Missouri. The 24 hour CR just 
does not work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) has refocused and the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) has refocused this debate on exactly what we are debating 
about here right now on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before us, which is 
H.J. Res. 114, which is designed to keep the government open till 
Wednesday. I would prefer to keep it open, even if we cannot come to an 
understanding among Republicans and Democrats and people on both sides 
of the aisle on appropriation bills. Unfortunately, the Gekas 
amendment, to keep the government open under these circumstances, was 
defeated in this House earlier this year. Perhaps some of my 
colleagues, even

[[Page 23630]]

on my side of the aisle, might have second thoughts on the Gekas 
amendment now that we find ourselves in this predicament.
  But notwithstanding that, what we have before us is a measure to keep 
the government open through next Wednesday. Now, who could oppose that? 
Yes, that is right. What we have here is a situation where people are 
opposing that. In order to accomplish what? People are opposing that in 
order to accomplish, and I have heard the debate, I hope my colleagues 
listened very closely, spending proposal after spending proposal after 
spending proposal.
  What we have are people who are willing to hold the American people 
hostage, even hold Social Security checks and veterans' checks hostage 
in order to get more government spending on specific ideas that people 
on that side of the aisle support, particular government spending.
  All right. We have may have a difference on agreement on priorities. 
Republicans may want to spend a little bit less than. Democrats may 
want to spend a little bit more. It is not right to hold the American 
people hostage under this circumstance.
  Let me say one of the issues at hand that the President is demanding 
that we put into the Commerce, State and Justice appropriations bill, 
he is threatening to veto that bill and close down the government, what 
is that issue the President is demanding? It is for us to have an 
amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which would again push up 
spending in the United States and the spending requirements that we 
have.
  This is not right. It is not right, number one, to hold us hostage 
and to demand things. It is not right to hold the American people 
hostage under these circumstances.
  We can have honest disagreements here. But the fact is that we have 
turned this into a political debate. We have gotten way off course, 
because, I am sorry, my friends on the other side of the aisle made 
this into a political debate. This is about whether or not we should 
keep the government open until Wednesday and not shut it down and not 
put our veterans and our Social Security recipients in jeopardy, and 
not to hold those things in hostage in order to force us to spend more 
money on illegal immigration and all these other spending proposals.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I responded to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
about the need to have the authority for the entitlement checks, and I 
did double-check and it was the President's Office of Management and 
Budget who advised us that this had to be done, and that is why it is 
here
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, one or two points I might make here is 
that, quite frankly, the continuing resolution is enough time for us to 
try to do our business here if we have not accomplished it. But the 
fact of the matter is that this is going through next Wednesday. We 
will not be here. They are letting us out of here. There will be no 
work done on the issues that we have to focus on until we get back next 
Wednesday. So it is really a little bit disingenuous about the amount 
of time that we need in order to get business done, when no business 
will be done on prescription drugs, on Social Security, on any other 
issue that is important to the people in this country.
  Secondly, to my good friends across the aisle, quite frankly, the 
only people, the only people who have shut this government down, not 
once, but twice, have been my colleagues on the Republican side of the 
aisle. So that if any one wants to talk about jeopardizing Social 
Security or veterans' benefits, take heed my friends, because my 
colleagues did it not once, but twice.
  But I will just say that here we go again, another week comes, 
another weeks goes, and this Republican Congress continues inaction on 
a specific issue, I might add, in my view, which is a critical priority 
for this country, and that is education.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to fashion a bipartisan agenda, where 
we invest in our schools and our teachers, reduce class size, increase 
accountability and standards, the Republican leadership today is going 
to push through another stopgap measure that only preserves the status 
quo, the fourth, fourth stopgap measure that the House will consider. 
Quite frankly, it ought to be the last.
  Instead of working only 2 days a week naming post offices, this 
Congress ought to stay here every single day until the work of the 
American people is done. My friends, that is what we are paid to do. 
That is what we get elected to do in this body, and we should do it, it 
is what our obligations are.
  Mr. Speaker, the final budget for this year is now 2\1/2\ weeks late. 
It did not have to be this way. We could have moved forward by crafting 
a bipartisan budget that reflects the values of this great country, 
which paid attention to America's number one priority, the education of 
our children.
  The Republican leadership rejected bipartisan progress. They drafted 
a budget that puts tax cuts for the wealthy at the very head of the 
line, and they pushed education to the bottom of the list. We are left 
with their misplaced priorities. This House has passed $750 billion in 
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. They have spent not one dime to 
modernize America's crumbling schools, not one dime to hire 100,000 new 
teachers to reduce class size, increase discipline and to hold schools 
accountable for the results.
  The analysis on their tax cut is as follows: 43 percent of their tax 
cut goes to the richest 1 percent of the people in this country, that 
is folks making an average of about $915,000 a year, and for those 
folks, they are going to get $46,000 a year in a tax cut. And by his 
own admission, Governor Bush, 2 nights ago, said yes, in fact, that the 
tax cut was going to the richest 1 percent of the people in this 
country. Yes, in fact, a trillion dollars was coming out of this Social 
Security.
  Let me just say, it is, in fact, in their own words, we need to do 
the people's work in this House; that is what it is about, and we need 
to look at what we are doing about education, what we are doing for 
retirement security. These folks need to really understand what the 
priorities are.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been back and forth about who is responsible 
for this and who is responsible for that. Unfortunately, we do not have 
the time to fully develop those issues. We ought to in the long run. 
This is about passing a CR.
  Everybody on my side of the aisle has voted for the last three CRs. 
They passed overwhelmingly. Keep the government functioning. We ought 
to keep the government functioning, but we ought to also, as the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said, do the people's 
business.
  What this debate is about, Mr. Speaker, is about the fact that we do 
not think we are doing the people's business. With all due respect to 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the issue is not the 
funeral on Friday of my good and close friend and a great leader of 
this country who was tragically lost to us in an airplane crash, 
Governor Mel Carnahan, Saturday is available to us, Sunday is available 
to us, Monday is available to us, Tuesday is available to us. But we 
are not coming back until Tuesday at 6 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, essentially what our side of the aisle is saying, 
through the debate on this continuing resolution, is we ought to 
address some of the critical issues that had been pending in this House 
for 8 months and pending in the Senate, pending in the Congress for 8 
months. Yes, my colleagues have heard us talk about prescription drugs. 
Everybody says they are for prescription drugs, because we know the 
costs of drugs is driving seniors to Draconian choices in their lives.

                              {time}  1645

  But we are not passing a prescription drug bill, we are having a CR 
on going

[[Page 23631]]

home for 5 days. We do not think that is right, Mr. Speaker. That is 
what this debate is about.
  We talk about a Patients' Bill of Rights, so that HMOs are not 
telling doctors and patients what kind of medical care they ought to 
get, and that they have access to emergency care and they can make 
choices.
  The gentleman from Arizona says our educational debate is about who 
makes the choices, ``bureaucrats,'' used as an epithet, or the people 
at home. The fact of the matter is on the school construction program, 
guess what, who makes the choices? The people at home. If they do not 
build schools, that is their choice. If they do not want to put on more 
classrooms, that is their choice. We do not force them to do anything. 
If they do not need teachers and do not hire teachers, we do not force 
them to.
  Get off my back with this rhetoric that is phony on choices. None of 
these programs we are talking about force locals to do anything, and 
the gentleman knows it, but he thinks it is good political rhetoric. I 
understand that.
  This CR is about whether we are going to do the people's business. 
That is what this debate is about. I think, as I said, that this CR may 
pass. If it does not pass, then we ought to pass a second CR until 
Monday night and come back Saturday, after we observe the funeral for 
Mel Carnahan, and do our work on Saturday; and yes, go to church Sunday 
morning, come here in the afternoon, and do the people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is about, not about a CR which 
says we have not done our business, and therefore we are going to 
continue government in operation until Tuesday night or Wednesday 
night. We all agree on that. It is about whether we are going to go 
away from here 2\1/2\ weeks after we said we were going to adjourn 
without doing the critical business on the public's agenda.
  That is what this debate has been about, that is what this discussion 
is about; not to look at the past, at what has been done and who is 
responsible or who is not. It is about, Mr. Speaker, whether we are 
going to pass these critical programs: prescription drugs, campaign 
finance reform, education, more teachers, more classrooms, smaller 
sizes, particularly for young children, which all the experts say need 
specific attention.
  If they get it, we will lift them up and make them better students in 
the upper grades. We will therefore have a better America and a more 
competitive America. That is what this discussion on this CR is about.
  I would hope we would defeat this CR, Mr. Speaker. I would hope we 
would defeat this CR. Then, Mr. Speaker, because I know the gentleman 
is a man of such good will and purpose and responsibility, I would ask 
the chairman that we come back on the floor, pass the CR until Monday 
night, as the gentleman from Massachusetts wanted to do, come back here 
Saturday, do our work, come back here Sunday afternoon, do our work, 
come back here Monday, and perhaps be able to leave.
  If the gentleman does not agree with the President, fine, send him a 
bill. Let him veto it, and criticize him. I do not know why Members do 
not send the bills. I have a hunch that they are afraid that the 
American public will say he is right and they are wrong, so they do not 
send the bills down. I hope this CR is defeated, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, one of our speakers spoke in favor of an automatic CR. 
One of the reasons that I have opposed the automatic CR is because it 
would deny my friends on the minority side the opportunity to take 2 
hours today for their political platform.
  I was really happy last week when I heard the minority leader, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), stand in the well and say, we 
really ought to cut out all of this partisanship, and we ought to work 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what we can do when we work together. I 
will have to admit that it is tempting to rejoin the political argument 
here. But this is not the place for campaign politics. The place for 
campaign politics is back home in our districts, not on the floor of 
the people's House, where we are supposed to put the people's business 
above politics.
  We have talked about appropriators being here or not being here. When 
the House leaves, I think everybody ought to know the appropriators do 
not necessarily leave. The appropriators in the House on both parties 
work really hard. Whether the House is in session or not, the 
appropriators that have business before them are here, whether it is a 
weekend, whether it is late at night.
  I know sometimes our colleagues will say, this was done or that was 
done in the dark of night. That is a fact. We do a lot of work in the 
dark of night, because if we start here in the morning at 9 o'clock, 
and we are still going at midnight or 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning to 
get our business done, we are working in the dark of night. If we did 
not do that, we would be here until next spring.
  We would need a 2-year budget cycle, which I think is probably a good 
idea anyway. As the gentleman from Maryland knows, I have supported 
that strongly.
  But appropriators do not leave Washington just because everyone else 
does. There will be appropriators here this weekend working on 
finalizing decisions, making decisions, writing the bills, reading the 
bills, getting them ready to file.
  As I pointed out earlier in my comments on the rule, we only are one-
third of the process here. If we were the entire process, we would have 
been done back in July, but we are only one-third of the process. Our 
colleagues and friends at the other end of the Capitol are one-third, 
and the President of the United States is one-third.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a great prosperity in this country today. There 
are a lot of people who want to take credit for it. I think that the 
confidence that we have created in the industrial community by 
balancing the budget is one reason we have a strong prosperity. 
Investors are willing to invest because they think that government 
might not be on their back as much as it has been in the past, so they 
are willing to invest. It creates prosperity. It creates movement in 
the economy.
  There is another reason. One of my colleagues on the minority side 
mentioned it and one of my colleagues on the majority side mentioned 
it: welfare reform. I do not think Congress has gotten nearly as much 
credit for what welfare reform has contributed to our economy as it 
should.
  For years, there were families who had been on welfare for 
generations. We changed that. We changed it, and we reformed welfare to 
the point that we encouraged people to go to work. Mr. Speaker, many 
Americans who had been on welfare for all of their lives went to work. 
They started to earn money. They were able to buy homes, buy 
automobiles. They actually felt good about the fact that they were 
working. They were making an income. They were doing something for 
their wives and children.
  Besides that good feeling, those people for years had been taking 
money out of the system. Once they went back to work, they were putting 
money back into the system. They paid taxes, like everyone else. They 
paid payroll taxes, social security taxes, income taxes. They paid into 
the system, so we are getting two for one benefits. They are no longer 
taking out, they are putting in, so there is a tremendous economic 
advantage to that.
  Now, if I might allow myself something that might sound a little 
political, I listened to the speeches of both candidates for president. 
I was impressed. I watched the Vice President when he made his 
acceptance speech at his convention, and on two occasions he mentioned 
how he fought for this welfare reform that I think is a major 
contributor to our strong economy.
  I sat there and scratched my head, because I remember being here in 
the House when we passed the welfare reform bill the first time. We 
sent it to their administration. They vetoed it. Then I remember we 
came back and fought again to pass welfare reform

[[Page 23632]]

legislation. We sent it to the administration, the President and the 
Vice President. They vetoed it again.
  So we went back to work and wrote it the third time. We sent it to 
the administration, the President and the Vice President, and this time 
they finally said, we will sign it. We do not like it. They told their 
friends who opposed it, we do not really like it, but we are going to 
sign it. They did. They signed it.
  Then I heard the Vice President in that speech say how he had fought 
for welfare reform after his administration had effectively killed it 
twice after Congress fought to make it happen, and the third time it 
happened.
  There are other things that have been mentioned in this debate that 
have nothing to do with the CR, that are political issues that are out 
there in the presidential debates. I would say to those who make those 
arguments, why do they not make them where they belong? They do not 
belong on this CR. This CR has nothing to do with what they were 
talking about.
  Then I would repeat words that I have said and many of my colleagues 
have said: Where were they for the last 8 years? They have owned the 
administration for 8 years. Where were they? Why did they not do it? 
Why did they not get it done during that 8-year period?
  That comment has nothing to do with the CR, just like most of the 
comments from the minority side have nothing to do with the CR. Mr. 
Speaker, let us pass this CR and then get about finishing the few 
appropriations matters that still lay out there to be completed.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Continuing 
Resolution, the fourth resolution in as many weeks to keep the 
government open. I call on Republicans to stop the delays, stop the 
obfuscation, and keep Congress in session so we can finish our work. We 
must do the people's agenda, and we must do it now.
  We are now three weeks beyond the start of the fiscal year, and the 
light at the end of the tunnel is still not shining brightly. We do not 
meet. We take off days at a time. We spend our time on the floor naming 
courthouses, voting on suspension bills.
  And the American people are not seeing any results.
  Education is America's number one priority. But this Congress has 
failed to meet the challenge. Republicans have refused to dedicate 
funding to reduce class size and for school construction. They are 
unwilling to fund critical priorities so communities can hire more 
teachers, improve teacher quality, and provide more after-school 
programs. Instead, they support block grants with no accountability 
that a single teacher will be hired or a single classroom fixed. They 
also let the Elementary and Secondary Education Act expire for the 
first time in 35 years because of their extremism.
  The time has come to stop the delays, stop the foot-dragging, and act 
on the education priorities of the American people. We should not 
neglect the people's agenda for personal politics. This Congress should 
stay in session and finish our spending work. We should take a first 
step to make every public school a great public school.
  Democrats want funding dedicated to emergency school repairs; the 
bipartisan Johnson-Rangel tax credit to help schools districts on 
school construction bonds; funding to hire 100,000 highly-qualified 
teachers to reduce class size, and for teacher training and recruitment 
and after-school programs that are an essential part of any school 
reform.
  We are in an Information Age. Every child needs to know how to read 
and write. Parents are working more and they are commuting more, and 
they have less time for children. And our public schools are not 
equipped to fill the breach. What we are asking for is a sensible, 
first step toward filling the holes in our education system. And I 
believe there is still time to work together, in a bipartisan way, to 
meet this challenge.
  Let's stop neglecting our work, stop passing these stopgap measures, 
and do what any sensible legislative body would do: finish our spending 
bills, fund the priorities of our people, and get away from the special 
interests.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 637, the joint resolution is considered 
read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262, 
nays 136, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 539]

                               YEAS--262

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     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
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--136

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     LaFalce
     Lampson

[[Page 23633]]


     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Brady (PA)
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Conyers
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Forbes
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Hansen
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Oxley
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Shays
     Spratt
     Talent
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner
     Weygand
     Wise

                              {time}  1717

  Mr. HINOJOSA and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. KLECZKA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 539 on H.J. Res. 
114, I was unavoidably detained, Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''

                          ____________________