[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 25452-25453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  A CONTINUATION OF HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder, when is it going to 
end? That is the question that is on the minds of all of us here. We 
are here in Washington on a Sunday night, which is completely out of 
character, first and foremost, but 3\1/2\ weeks beyond the beginning of 
the new fiscal year. We have debated with the White House so long now 
that the fiscal year has already started, we are passing these 1-day 
continuing resolutions, and I am afraid, I would say to my colleagues, 
that what really seems to be driving the agenda down there at the White 
House is not a real sincere effort to try to come to some resolution on 
this budget, I think it is motivated by a political ambition to try to 
scare the American people to believe that we are not paying enough, 
that we are not spending enough. I hope that we can send the message 
down to the White House that we have spent enough, that we have already 
reached enough.
  Before I yield to some of my colleagues, I want to reflect on the 
comment of a 16-year-old girl that I just met back here in the back of 
the Chamber. She is from Albert Lea, Minnesota in the gentleman from 
Minnesota's district, and her name is Sara Schleck, she is a page back 
here and working for the House. I said, you are here on a

[[Page 25453]]

Sunday night; what do you think about being here on a Sunday. She said 
to me, she said, Congressman, is not our Government big enough already?
  Mr. Speaker, that is the question most Americans should be asking, 
and a 16-year-old girl certainly is perceptive enough to realize that 
we are here because there are people who just want to spend more and 
for Sara's sake and the sake of my five kids we are willing to stay 
here as long as it takes to come to the right agreements with the House 
to make sure we do not spend the country into oblivion. But my 
goodness, we have answered this question. We have spent more than 
enough already. The White House wants more, and I just hope that we can 
come to an agreement that still leaves Sara's future in tact and her 
debt certainly no greater than it is today.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to build on the progress 
that we have made. I think we would all agree that getting to a surplus 
for 3 years now and on our way to a 4th year of a surplus is great 
progress and great work. Having worked on the Committee on the Budget, 
if we had said that a few years ago, we would have said, by the year 
2000, if we would have gotten that kind of track record, people would 
have said, no way. But we have done that. So we need to build on that 
record. We have stopped the raid on Social Security and Medicare, so 
let us focus on the good things that we have done here as well. Let us 
build on those things.
  The same thing for education. Let us build on the positive progress 
that we have seen at the local level and then at the same time on a 
parallel track, let us fix the broken bureaucracy here in Washington.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I would say one of the good things we have 
done, we passed a Medicare package here last week; and it included some 
tax relief for people around this country too, a lot of things that I 
think many of us agree on, and I hope the administration agrees on as 
well. But the veto is threatened, and that is unfortunate, because we 
have a lot of rural hospitals and home health care agencies and nursing 
facilities that are really struggling out there. I think the President 
needs to explain to the American people and to all of those 
organizations who are supporting this legislation why he is going to 
veto it.

                              {time}  2200

  This is something that in rural areas like South Dakota is very, very 
important to the people of my State to make sure that we provide 
quality health care.
  In a bipartisan way we have come up with a package that addresses a 
lot of those issues for rural hospitals, for skilled nursing 
facilities, for home health agencies and where we have addressed also 
some other things that I am very interested and allowing technology to 
better serve rural health care needs through telehealth. Those issues 
are included in this package.
  The President is going to veto it. That is the wrongheaded thing to 
do, and that is putting politics in front of people, and that is 
unfortunate. It is the reason that we are here. But when the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) talked about some of the good things that 
we have done here in the Congress, that certainly is an example of it.
  I think that it is something most of us here this evening would argue 
are going to benefit, to a very big extent, the folks, the people in 
our respective congressional districts and States.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
would say this one Member is glad the President is going to veto the 
tax Medicare bill, because it does not deal adequately with the health 
problems in my district, in my opinion.
  In requesting additional spending, I am well aware that we have to 
find that money someplace else, because no matter how many times we say 
how much is enough, we have agreed $645 billion is enough. When I say I 
am glad the President will veto the bill, I hope we will work out a 
better package for rural hospitals, teaching hospitals, all of the 
things that need a little better shake in that.
  I say that realizing we have to take the money from someplace else, 
and I think the HMOs are getting a little bit too much. I think we can 
perhaps trim some other places. A very respected Member of the other 
body has said in this spending $21 billion is very questionable.
  I do not think that it is wrong for us to suggest a little more on 
hospitals at home would be a better use of some of that money.

                          ____________________