[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 24322-24328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 115, 116, 117, 
 118, 119, AND 120, EACH MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 646 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 646

       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. 115) 
     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.
       Sec. 2. 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. 116) 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.
       Sec. 3. 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. 117) 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.
       Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House

[[Page 24323]]

     the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) 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.
       Sec. 5. 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. 119) 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.
       Sec. 6. 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. 120) 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 646 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of House Joint Resolutions 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 
120. Each of these joint resolutions makes further continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for a period of 1 day.
  H. Res. 646 provides for 1 hour of debate on each joint resolution 
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 these 
joint resolutions. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit on 
each joint resolution as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of 
the day today and further continuing resolutions are necessary to keep 
the government operating while Congress completes consideration of the 
remaining appropriations bills. Because the President refuses to sign 
any longer duration, the joint resolutions covered by this rule each 
simply extend the provisions included in H.J. Res. 109 by one 
additional day.
  Mr. Speaker, after weeks of hard work, the House now just has three 
appropriations conference reports left to pass. However, as we work to 
reach agreement over the remaining appropriations bills, we will have 
to take valuable time away from our negotiations each day to pass 1-day 
continuing resolutions. President Clinton has threatened to veto any 
continuing resolution of more than one day's duration, so each day we 
must take the appropriators away from negotiations and bring them to 
the floor to vote on these 1-day measures.
  Mr. Speaker, if that is what the President wants, it is fine with me. 
I will come to the floor every day to vote for a continuing resolution 
to keep the government running. Like my Republican colleagues, I am 
determined to pass fair and fiscally responsible appropriations bills. 
We will stay here as long as it takes to do the people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress is responsible for only two-thirds of the 
appropriations process. The executive branch must also do its job to 
move the appropriations process along. We would all like to complete 
our business and go home, but our principles keep us here, and the 
Republican majority is committed to putting people before politics and 
passing appropriations bills that reflect the priorities of the 
American people.
  I hope that the President will join us in our good-faith efforts to 
negotiate a fair, bipartisan solution to the disagreements still before 
us. I am confident that the fair, clean, continuing resolutions covered 
by this rule will give us the time we need to complete the 
appropriations process in a thoughtful and judicious manner.
  This rule was reported unanimously by the Committee on Rules 
yesterday evening, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may 
proceed with 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my 
colleague and my friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of not 1, not 
2, not 3, not 4, not 5, but 6 continuing resolutions. Each one ends on 
a different day beginning tomorrow and going through Halloween. That 
way my Republican colleagues can finish now or they can finish later. 
With this rule, they have the continuing resolution they need to, no 
matter when they finish, without having to get more rules on the 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the 13 appropriation bills were supposed to have been 
passed and signed into law by October 1. Today only four appropriations 
bills have been signed into law, Defense, Military Construction, 
Interior and Transportation. There are 5 bills waiting at the White 
House: VA-HUD, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, Treasury-Postal 
and Agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, so in order to keep the Federal Government open, despite 
the unfinished business, we must keep passing these continuing 
resolutions until the appropriation bills are finally signed into law.
  Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the appropriations bills that are still 
outstanding, Labor, Health and Human Services, Commerce Justice State, 
Foreign Operations and the District of Columbia, are some of the most 
controversial. So these bills are not going to be finished without a 
fight, and that might take some time.
  But my Republican colleagues continue to move slowly, and in the last 
month, the Congress has been in session only a few days a week, and for 
many of those days, we have been voting on very noncontroversial 
suspension bills.
  Instead of renaming post offices, my Republican colleagues should 
have been passing real managed care reform. They should have passed the 
prescription drug program within Medicare. They should have passed 
campaign finance reform, gun safety legislation; but, Mr. Speaker, they 
did not. And even Republican Senator McCain said, we are gridlocked by 
the special interests.
  Democrats, on the other hand, want to help working families. We want 
to hire 100,000 new teachers. We want to build new schools and repair 
the old ones.
  We wanted to help school districts with school construction bonds. We 
want to create after-school programs. But my Republican colleagues just 
will not let us.
  Mr. Speaker, even though my Republican colleagues balk at spending 
money on education, they are increasing spending on other items faster 
than ever before, even nondefense spending.

                              {time}  1445

  And that increase in spending, Mr. Speaker, is very significant, even 
if we account for inflation.
  So I think it is time Congress enacted some bills for everyday 
Americans. I think it is time we put education first. I think it is 
time we finished the appropriation bills instead of stalling for 
another week. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule providing for 
the six continuing resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members it is

[[Page 24324]]

not in order in debate to refer to statements of Senators occurring 
outside the Senate Chamber.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
only to offer myself first in line to nominate my friend from 
Massachusetts as chairman of the national school board.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who are from the Midwest are familiar with 
an insect called the cicada. Now, the cicada is a very fierce bug that 
lays dormant for years, but at any given time, they seem to wake up 
from their slumber, they make an incredible racket for a very brief 
period of time, and then they are gone, they have vanished. Now, how 
very much like this Republican Congress are the cicada. It is a 
Congress that for 2 long years has been laying flat on its back and 
only now is it rising to its feet to give its self-serving speeches.
  Now, in the words of Washington Post's editorial, this is an un-
Congress. We have heard of the ``uncola.'' They have called this the 
un-Congress. Quote: ``The un-Congress continues neither to work nor 
adjourn. For 2 years, it has mainly pretended to deal with the issues 
that it has systematically avoided,'' The Washington Post.
  Now, is this because, Mr. Speaker, there is no work left to be done? 
Granted, our country is in much better shape today than it was under 
the last Republican President, but that does not mean that all of 
America's problems have been solved.
  Just consider education. We know that one of the toughest obstacles 
to learning is the fact that too many kids are stuck in overcrowded, 
undisciplined schools and classrooms, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has just made clear. Overcrowding has gotten so bad that 
in some schools it is at the point that classes have been held in 
converted boiler rooms. We have even heard of roofs caving in on our 
students. We should be doing something about that. We have a bill to do 
something about that. In fact, there are Republicans that have 
sponsored our bill to do something about that. We can pass the Rangel-
Johnson bill. We can have safer and modern schools and, by the way, at 
the same time help cut the property taxes at the local level.
  But, it seems the Republican leadership would rather complain about 
public schools than join with us in helping to fix them. If their 
leadership put as much time into crafting solutions as they do in 
passing stopgap measures, we could have addressed this issue. We could 
have passed the patients' bill of rights. We could have approved a 
Medicare prescription drug plan under Medicare. We could have had hate 
crimes legislation. We could have raised the minimum wage. All of these 
major pieces lie dormant like the cicada after it raises a racket.
  So maybe if we could have done these things we could have earned the 
right to take some of those extra long weekends we have been enjoying. 
But, Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle when I say that none of us ran for Congress because we came here 
to complain about problems. We came here to help solve them.
  If my Republican friends are not willing to roll up their sleeves to 
stay here to face those four or five issues, to make sure we have the 
education agenda in modern schools, in lower class sizes, in after-
school programs, if they are not willing to do that and they are not 
willing to do raising the minimum wage and doing the prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare and making HMOs accountable and passing campaign 
finance reform, I suggest that they step aside in favor of those who 
will.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule so that we can raise 
these issues in a way that will allow us to have them before us so we 
can have something to take back to the American people before this 
Congress adjourns.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon reluctantly in support of the 
continuing resolutions that we will be passing, but in opposition to 
the rule. I would like to speak just briefly about the importance of 
understanding the current state of our fiscal affairs.
  It is important to understand that these measures that we will be 
voting on are very small infinitesimal steps in a significantly larger 
process. That larger process is one that has not been very well 
explained to the American people. The American people understand or 
expect that we are going to have a budget surplus and that we will be 
paying down on the debt and that over the next 10 years, that payment 
may be as much as $4 trillion. Well, the facts do not really square up 
with that, and the action here today really gives us reason to pause.
  I would like to start by just pointing out with respect to this chart 
that we have had not a surplus, but indeed we have had an increase in 
the debt over the last year. The dates here just are from June 30, 1999 
to June 30, 2000. We can look and see that the debt went up by $40 
billion. Now, compared to what it has been in some other years, this is 
really cause to rejoice, but compared to where we think we are, it is 
cause for pause, and it is cause to be much more sensible about where 
we are going.
  In this regard, I would like to emphasize that if we look at the 
spending that has been occurring under the current leadership here in 
Congress over the last several years, discretionary spending has been 
going up at a rate of about 5.5 percent a year. And when we look at the 
Social Security system which we should not even consider in calculating 
our surplus, and we back out that amount, then we back out this 
increase that has occurred and projected into the future, we will have 
approximately $350 billion of surplus over the next 10 years.
  Now, the point of this brief discussion is that we simply cannot 
afford all of the things that our colleagues and the leadership have 
been telling us we must do. For example, a $292 billion marriage tax 
bill which was misguided, it was not in the budget, it came up before 
we even passed a budget. This type of irresponsible legislation is what 
is going to put us back into deficit spending, back into the Social 
Security trust fund, and I urge my colleagues, as we consider these 
continuing resolutions this afternoon, let us be realistic about where 
we are going long term and let us make sure that we keep our eye on the 
ball and the ball is to pay down on the national debt.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, rightfully so, the Chair admonished me for 
using the name of a Senator. I meant to refer to our former House 
colleague, John McCain, the former Presidential candidate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up where our colleague, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has left off and actually rise in opposition 
to the rule which will give us a series of six 24-hour continuing 
resolutions.
  According to information, Mr. Speaker, compiled by the House 
Committee on the Budget, the Republican leadership is in the process of 
busting the spending cap of $600.3 billion that they set earlier this 
year. Keep in mind that the Congress has not sent all 13 appropriations 
bills to the President yet, but if the present trend continues, the 
Republicans are on track to spend $620.5 billion, which means they will 
have busted the spending caps that they set by over $20 billion. In 
fact, on the nine bills that Congress has agreed upon, the Republican 
leadership has agreed to spend over $11 billion more than the President 
requested in his budget. Considering the House and Senate have not

[[Page 24325]]

even worked out the differences on three of the 13 appropriations 
bills, including the huge Labor-HHS-Education bill, this number will 
only get significantly larger.
  The really sad thing is that, Mr. Speaker, all of this could have 
been avoided. The Blue Dog Coalition worked very hard last spring to 
develop a viable budget plan and reached out and offered to work with 
the Republican leadership to reach a bipartisan agreement that would 
receive widespread support on both sides of the aisle.
  First, our plan would have locked up 100 percent of the Social 
Security surplus for future retirees. It would have set aside 5 percent 
of the non-Social Security surplus for debt reduction over the next 10 
years; set aside 20 percent of the non-Social Security surplus for tax 
cuts, and allowed Federal spending to grow at a rate of 2.5 percent 
over last year. However, like last year, Mr. Speaker, the Republican 
leadership was not interested in reaching a compromise. They enacted a 
completely unrealistic budget that set spending caps on the 13 annual 
appropriations bills at levels which assured those caps would be 
ignored this fall.
  The fact that Congress is now in the 4th week of a new fiscal year 
with three of the 13 appropriations bills still not ready for the 
President's signature, including one that the Senate has not even 
considered, shows how unrealistic their budget was in March. Because 
they do not have a sound budget plan, this Republican Congress is on 
track to spend more money than any other Congress in history, with an 
increase in non-Defense spending of 5.2 percent over last year. I 
repeat, an increase in non-Defense spending of 5.2 percent over last 
year. This is over twice the rate of spending growth proposed in the 
Blue Dog budget.
  This orgy of spending is a result of the poor budget decisions made 
by the Republican leadership in March of this year. Instead of working 
to develop a bipartisan budget plan with responsible tax and spending 
priorities, instead of working to develop a bipartisan plan with 
responsible priorities, we have passed a budget that made a nice 
political statement to a faction within the party with virtually no 
chance of being successfully implemented.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that we use back home: you reap 
what you sow. When we sowed the seeds that grew into a budget back in 
March, the Republican leadership rejected every offer of compromise 
from the Blue Dog Coalition. Now it is fall and the crop has failed. We 
are 24 days past the end of the fiscal year with the spending caps 
destroyed, three appropriations bills left to pass, and no idea how 
much more will be spent.
  Mr. Speaker, this is fiscally irresponsible, and it is a direct 
result of the failure of the Republican leadership to develop a sound 
budget plan back in March.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Here we are 25 days after the end of the fiscal year, and we still do 
not have all of the appropriations bills passed to keep the government 
running. Frankly, that is no way to run a railroad. One would not run 
one's business that way, one would not run one's household budget that 
way, but here we are.
  Some may say, what is wrong with it? Well, what happens when we get 
in this predicament is exactly what we see playing out. The back room 
deals end up being made out of the light of day and we end up spending 
more money than this Congress should spend.

                              {time}  1500

  My friends in the other party always talk about the Democrats as the 
big spenders. I want to tell my colleagues those old fables just do not 
work anymore.
  The truth is this is the fourth year in a row that the Republican-
controlled Congress has passed appropriations bills with higher 
discretionary spending outlays than the President requested. By 
contrast, the Democratic-controlled Congresses of the Reagan and Bush 
years more often than not appropriated less than the President 
requested.
  We all talk about this big budget surplus. The presidential 
candidates are talking about it, how they want to spend it. The truth 
of the matter is this Congress is frittering away that budget surplus. 
It may not even be here if we continue along this path.
  We talk about a $2.2 trillion on-budget surplus, but it is based on a 
whole lot of iffy assumptions. If we continue increased spending at an 
annual rate of 5.5 percent as this Congress has done since 1998, we 
will wipe out two-thirds of that projected surplus.
  Now, to put this in context, just a year ago, the Republicans in 
Congress proposed cutting taxes a trillion dollars. Now, I am for 
cutting taxes. But the truth of the matter is, if we had passed that 
legislation, we would have wiped out the surplus, considering the 
increase in spending that this Congress seems intent to do. The problem 
that we face today is to pass a budget that preserves our surplus and 
ensures our future prosperity.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to continue to talk a few minutes here about the 
Nation's financial picture. But before I do, we are now 25 days into 
the new fiscal year. Do my colleagues know how many days Congress has 
met of those 25? We have sat for 12, only 12 of those days.
  At the beginning of the fiscal year this year, on October 1, only two 
of 13 appropriation bills had been completed and signed by the 
President. Today only four, there are five more waiting, but we are 
still three or four away from even having something to negotiate to 
send to the President.
  Now, if one ran one's business in that manner or if a physician 
practiced medicine in that manner, I would suggest that a suit for 
malpractice, legislative malpractice would apply. This is not the way 
to conduct the Nation's business. It was done and the seeds were sown, 
as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) said earlier, back in March 
when a political statement was enacted called a budget that was 
unrealistic and was never intended to be followed.
  We are now in a situation where the Republicans say, well, we have to 
stay in session here to keep President Clinton from demanding all of 
this money to be spent. If we look at history, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner) just alluded to it, and the Blue Dogs went back and looked 
at this when we compiled our budget, over the 12 years Reagan-Bush, 
Bush-Quayle, the Democratic-controlled House at that time, part of that 
time, of course the Republicans had the Senate, spent less than those 
Presidents asked the Congress to spend.
  For the last 4 years, the Republican Congress has spent more on 
nondefense items than President Clinton has asked for. We now are in a 
never-never land 25 days into a new fiscal year with no idea in sight 
of how we wind up the business of the country for the previous fiscal 
year. We are in a position where the surplus is a projection and the 
spending is a fact.
  Now, we are going to support a CR to keep the government open. But 
this rule is a sham to get by for another 6 days, trying to keep this 
ball in the air before the November 7 election day so that no one can 
definitively and affirmatively state what this Congress did or did not 
do. I have been here 12 years. This is as poor a way to run the 
Nation's business as I have witnessed in those 12 years.
  Yesterday or 2 days ago, we were not only not consulted, we are told 
2 days ago there is a tax package out there, and the leadership is 
going to brief the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate about what is in it.
  We are supposed to be a legislative body. I tell my colleagues, the 
country

[[Page 24326]]

needs to know that whatever may happen November 7, this situation is 
not the way to conduct their business in a responsible manner.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying at home, the proof 
of the pudding is in the eating. Well, take a good look at what we are 
talking about today. We continue to hear a lot of rhetoric from the 
other side of the aisle about Republicans standing up to big spending 
demands of the President and Democrats in Congress.
  Before my colleagues point fingers about big spenders, they should 
take a good look in the mirror or better yet at the record. Eight of 
the nine appropriation bills that Congress has passed so far this year 
and sent to the President would spend more than the President has 
requested.
  The nine bills Congress has sent to the President would result in 
$11.4 billion in outlays above the President's request. This is the 
chart. According to estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, the 
nine appropriation bills that this Congress, under Republican majority, 
has sent to the President would spend $498.6 billion, $11.4 billion 
more than the $487.1 billion requested by the President on those bills.
  I do not know how my Republican colleagues can continue to honestly 
explain that Democrats are big spenders for asking for $5 billion in 
additional spending for education when they have already voted for 
appropriation bills spending $11 billion more than the President has 
requested.
  According to one rather prominent Republican who has been a leader in 
fighting against pork barrel spending, the nine appropriation bills 
that Congress has sent to the President contain $21 billion in programs 
and projects which he identified as low priority, unnecessary or 
wasteful spending for programs and projects that have not been 
appropriately reviewed in the normal merit-based prioritization process 
of the Congress.
  I do not understand how voting to increase spending by $21 billion on 
programs that some have identified as pork is acceptable, but asking 
for $5 billion more for education makes someone a big wasteful spender.
  Everyone who voted for the rule on the Foreign Operations conference 
report earlier today voted to increase total spending by $13.3 billion 
in budget authority and $8.3 billion in outlays above the President. 
Let me repeat that. If my colleagues voted for the rule on the Foreign 
Operations bill, they voted to increase spending substantially above 
the amount requested by the President. No Member who voted for that 
rule can honestly continue to claim that the President is responsible 
for increased spending.
  According to the bipartisan Concord Coalition, if discretionary 
spending continues to increase at the same rate it has over the last 3 
years under Republican Congress for the next 10 years, nearly two-
thirds of the projected $2.3 billion on-budget surplus everybody has 
been talking about will be wiped out.
  I will again say to any of my colleagues on this side, if they wish 
to challenge me on anything I am saying as to the accuracy and 
authenticity of what I am saying, I will yield to them.
  By contrast, discretionary spending increased by just 1.2 percent, 
the rate of inflation, under Democratic Congresses after the budget was 
created.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman's chart of the 
President's request include the additional demands he is making upon 
closing this process or only his original requests?
  Mr. STENHOLM. The original requests, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LINDER. Which does not include the coverage for fires in the 
West, for example.
  Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LINDER. And did not include the coverage, the additional programs 
and spending he asked for right now at the end of the process.
  Mr. STENHOLM. The numbers in our chart represent the original 
Republican requests, the original President's request, and the Blue Dog 
request that we have begged and pleaded with those of you on the other 
side to agree with us on numbers that we could stand together.
  If we are so concerned about the President's request for spending, 
why did my colleagues never at one time, their leadership, ever come to 
the Blue Dogs and say we accept your numbers which is between the 
President and you.
  So the point of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is well taken 
except I think my point still stands. We are spending more because my 
colleagues have voted for it. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
point he is making because it is a valid point and is one which more 
people need to understand. But the finger pointing needs to stop. It 
needs to stop.
  The problem is not today with the Budget Act, as some would say. The 
problem is with a leadership in this House that has made the budget 
process irrelevant by proposing unrealistic budgets, refusing to work 
in a bipartisan manner on a realistic budget that would have held down 
spending to less than what the President has requested. That is the 
problem.
  As I said this morning, I have no quarrel with the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I see the chairman here and the ranking member. I 
have no problem here. Mine is with the process and the finger pointing 
that has gotten into the political process, which it is ridiculous.
  The problem is with the leadership of this House. We now absolutely 
can show big spending originates in the House. Presidents do not spend 
money. Congress spends money. We are in the minority. I am in the 
minority. I am a part of the minority party. We cannot be responsible. 
The majority has to assume that responsibility.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to inform 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and me how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 27\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just said 
is exactly on point. My friend Archie the cockroach said once that what 
happens to men or to mankind is not determined by the system that they 
have. He says, what happens to mankind is determined by what they do 
with whatever system they happen to have in hand. I think that is the 
case with the budget resolution.
  As the gentleman from Texas has said, the problem we are facing now 
is not due to defects in the budget resolution, per se, although it 
certainly has some giant ones. The problem is that the budget 
resolutions have been used to deceive the American people about the 
true intention of this Congress for over 10 months. They have been used 
to deceive the American people about what is intended, what is 
affordable, and what is doable under that resolution.
  Because those resolutions have been so deceptive, that is what has 
enabled the majority to pretend that there was enough room within their 
spending caps to provide the tax package that they tried to pass over 
the last 10 months. Most of the benefits in that tax package went to 
those in this society who were already the most comfortable and the 
most blessed.
  Now we have the chickens coming home to roost time. We have just seen 
the passage of a provision in the previous bill which admits that the 
fiction that this Congress is going to spend only $600 billion this 
year on discretionary spending was a giant public fib.
  So now we have proceeded to pass a number of bills, and we are down 
to

[[Page 24327]]

two of them. The main issue that divides us on those two remaining 
appropriation bills is education. As the gentleman from Texas says, we 
are now being told that, after this Congress has exceeded the 
President's request on a number of those appropriation bills, after we 
have seen large amounts of money, $19 billion above last year put into 
the military budget, and, again, I find that amusing because the 
majority party said that there was not enough in that budget for 
readiness. Then they cut the readiness portion of the defense budget by 
$1.4 billion, either 1.4 or 1.6, I have forgotten which, in order to 
make room for congressional projects.
  Now we are told, after we have done all of that, that there is not 
room in the inn to meet the President's budget request on reduced class 
size so that teachers are teaching classes rather than zoos.

                              {time}  1515

  We are told there is not enough room in the inn to train teachers, 
even though we are going to need well more than a million new teachers 
because so many are close to retirement nationally.
  We are told there is no room in the inn to have a significant school 
modernization construction program. We have a $125 billion backlog in 
the need for school reconstruction in this country. The President is 
asking us to support a proposal that pays for less than 20 percent, and 
we are being told by the majority there is no room in the inn.
  Well, I have to tell my colleagues something. There is no room in the 
schools, and we are going to have more than a million additional 
children attending our public schools and we are not ready for that 
challenge. We are not ready in terms of buildings, we are not ready in 
terms of technology, we are not ready in terms of teacher training. One 
out of every 10 teachers in this country is not qualified to teach the 
subject that they are teaching. We are certainly not meeting our 
responsibilities with respect to either Pell Grants so that we measure 
up to our pretense that we are providing equal opportunity for people 
to attend college, and we are certainly not meeting our obligations 
with respect to special education. I believe we are only spending about 
17 percent, or at the 17 percent level in terms of the requirements in 
order to meet the mandates sent down by the Federal Government.
  So now we are here having to pass these day-after-day CRs because the 
majority refuses to meet our national needs in education, after we have 
seen so much money poured into other bills. That is our problem. That 
is what needs to change if we want to go home.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 191, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 551]

                               YEAS--205

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     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--191

     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)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Collins
     Danner
     Delahunt
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Klink
     Largent
     Lazio
     Maloney (CT)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Stabenow
     Stupak
     Talent
     Waxman
     Wise

                              {time}  1537

  Messrs. MURTHA, FARR of California, and EDWARDS changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

[[Page 24328]]

  Stated for:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote. Had I 
been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the 
rules and pass H. Res. 646 (rollcall No. 551).

                          ____________________