[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6079-6087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 83, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 
                      THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Spratt moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con. 
     Res. 83 be instructed, within the scope of the conference:
       (1) to increase the funding for education in the House 
     resolution to provide for the maximum feasible funding;
       (2) to provide that the costs of coverage for prescription 
     drugs under Medicare not be taken from the surplus of the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
       (3) to increase the funding provided for Medicare 
     prescription drug coverage to the level set by the Senate 
     amendment; and
       (4) to insist that the on-budget surplus set forth in the 
     resolution for any fiscal year not be less than the surplus 
     of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal 
     year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXII, the proponent of the motion 
and a member of the other party each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
explain the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion has four purposes. First of all, it says to 
the

[[Page 6080]]

conferees on the budget resolution, go as close as they can to what the 
Senate provided for education.
  Basically, the House resolution endorses and puts forth the 
President's budget. The President's budget provides an increase in 
education next year, fiscal year 2002, of 5.8 percent. That is an 
increase, but it pales in comparison with last year where the increase 
was 18 percent and the last 5 years over which the increase in 
education has averaged 13 percent.
  The Senate, given a choice, a choice we did not have here on the 
House floor, between a higher tax cut and less for education, opted to 
do more for education on four different occasions. As a consequence, 
their plus-up for education over and above the President's baseline 
budget is nearly $300 billion. We are simply saying go as far as they 
feasibly can toward the Senate on education.
  Second, with respect to Medicare, and in particular with respect to 
Medicare prescription drugs, the President's proposal again was to put 
$147 billion out for the next 10 years to provide for a temporary 
helping-hand benefit and eventually to have some kind of benefit 
possibly integrated with Medicare. Over 10 years the amount he provided 
for this purpose was $147 billion, but when that proposal came from the 
House and to the Senate, Members in both bodies said it is totally 
unrealistic. It will not even get Medicare prescription drugs off the 
ground.
  The Senate, once again, had a choice. They had an amendment on the 
Senate floor. The Senate plussed-up its allocation for Medicare 
prescription drugs to $300 billion, a minimum amount that is realistic 
to provide for a decent benefit.
  We say go to the Senate, be realistic, be faithful to their 
commitments about providing prescription drug coverage under Medicare; 
provide the full amount that the Senate allocates in its budget 
resolution.
  Third, Mr. Speaker, we say with respect to funding that new benefit, 
this money should not come out of the Medicare part A trust fund. It is 
already obligated, over-obligated, scheduled to run short of funds in 
the second decade of this century. Rather than putting another 
obligation on funds that are already short and over-obligated, we think 
that the funding for the Medicare prescription drug benefit should come 
from the general fund of the Treasury and not from the hospital 
insurance trust fund of Medicare.
  That is what this budget resolution provides. Take the money out of 
the general fund to pay for Medicare prescription benefits so that the 
HI trust fund is not made insolvent any sooner.
  Finally, we say as to the HI trust fund, the hospital insurance trust 
fund generally, protect it. Go to the language that we passed here on 
the House floor, where we said that Medicare should be treated just the 
same as the Social Security surpluses; that is to say, it will be used 
only for benefits provided under those two programs, and in the 
meantime to buy up outstanding debt in which the trust fund surpluses 
will be invested.
  This is not an idle concern. The President's budget came to us 
claiming that it had unprecedented reserve funds or contingency funds. 
In one place it says it is providing a contingency fund of a $1.2 
trillion. Towards the end, that contingency fund is whittled down to 
$842 billion. When one looks more closely at the $842 billion, they 
find that of that amount $526 billion comes from the consolidation of 
what is left over with what is in the surplus, the surplus accumulating 
and the HI trust fund. Those two numbers add up to $842 billion.

                              {time}  1715

  We say that the contingency fund should not include the Medicare 
trust funds. In keeping with the resolution that this House passed by 
an overwhelming margin, that money should be confined exclusively to 
Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the four principles that we raise in our 
motion to the conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition and yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is good to have the opportunity to 
discuss some of the budget issues with the gentleman from South 
Carolina. I would have thought over the last couple of weeks some 
issues would have resolved themselves, but we find ourselves debating 
some of the same issues that we were debating prior to the Easter 
recess. It is good to engage in these discussions again.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman's motion to instruct 
conferees to some extent is asking for the second bite of the apple. 
What could not be won on the floor as an alternative is being requested 
as a motion to instruct. I have to reluctantly oppose the instruction. 
Most are noncontroversial. Certainly motions to conferees are 
nonbinding on the conferees themselves. It gives an opportunity for 
Members to make a few points that they would like to make, and I 
certainly respect that opportunity; but let us go through the motion to 
instruct conferees.
  First, to increase the funding for education in the House resolution 
to provide for maximum feasible funding. I do not think that there is 
much controversy there. If Members of Congress had the opportunity to 
hold meetings such as I did, for example I held a youth summit in 
Dubuque, Iowa, to talk about education and met with special educators, 
people involved in special education, people involved in college 
education and higher education, early childhood education, reading, 
teacher training, administrators, principals, they all tell us anything 
we can do to improve education in this country is something that we 
should go back to Washington and get working on. Certainly one of the 
areas where we can help in education is to increase funding. That is 
why we made those increases, 11 percent; and we will hold to those. We 
will cheerfully continue to support those major increases in funding 
for education.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly people say we can do more. I might add in that 
chorus. While we added $1.25 billion in special education in this 
resolution, I personally, as well as professionally, know we should do 
more; but this fits within a balanced budget and a balanced approach 
towards making sure that our kids have the best education possible.
  Number two says to provide that the cost of coverage for prescription 
drugs under Medicare not be taken from the surplus in Medicare.
  What we are saying is even though we collect taxes to provide for a 
Medicare benefit, you cannot use those tax dollars to either modernize 
Medicare or provide a prescription drug benefit. I do not think I 
understand.
  We ask the American people for their hard-earned money to pay for a 
Medicare benefit; and then we say even though there are some obvious 
reforms, we cannot use the surplus to reform Medicare or modernize 
Medicare or provide a prescription drug benefit, we have to find money 
elsewhere, which is a little bit suspicious because we know our friends 
on the other side do not support tax relief, and it is probably a 
juxtaposition of tax relief versus Medicare benefits when all of us 
know that we can provide those benefits from the surplus in Medicare as 
well as possibly adding additional funds as necessary.
  It does not all have to come from the HI Trust Fund. We have made 
that very clear within our budget. We certainly do believe and we all 
voted on that as I believe one of the first resolutions of this year 
that we were going to lock away that money for Medicare and allow it 
for modernization and for adding the prescription drug benefits. So 
number two flies in the face of what the House has already done.
  On three, it says to increase the funding provided for Medicare 
prescription drug benefit to the amount set by the Senate. I am not 
going to presuppose or prenegotiate this item today, but I think that 
is probably something that is at least a reasonable request. I think we 
had that debate on the floor here. While the President's proposal was 
153, it probably is going to be scored slightly more than that; and, 
therefore, we may have to make an adjustment there. So number three is 
not that controversial.

[[Page 6081]]

  Number four says to insist that the on-budget surplus set forth in 
the resolution for any fiscal year not be less than the surplus of the 
HI Trust Fund for that fiscal year. I think again this goes back to 
number two. What this is basically saying is that we are presupposing 
that you cannot use the trust fund that we collect the taxes from for 
Medicare in order to modernize or provide a prescription drug benefit 
for Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, two and four are really the controversy. One and three, 
I think, are easily supported or at least certainly not controversial 
on both sides.
  Mr. Speaker, I would oppose the instruction for those two reasons. We 
should be able to, as we have already voted almost unanimously in this 
House in a bipartisan way, be able to provide the surplus from Medicare 
to provide a prescription drug benefit as well as to modernize 
Medicare. Those funds should be available. Since they are paid for 
Medicare, they should be allowed to modernize Medicare and improve 
Medicare and provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare.
  Therefore, I believe it would not be a good idea for us to instruct 
our conferees just now appointed to hold that kind of position as we 
begin our negotiations with the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just in response, what we are trying to do here is make 
a decision as to which is better. The Senate had a choice. They could 
do more for tax cuts and less for education, or more for education and 
less for tax cuts. They decided to do substantially more for education. 
By the same token, they decided to adequately fund a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) to talk about double counting and 
overobligation of the Medicare Trust Fund.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, and in particular the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, I just returned from my district where I 
had a number of town meetings with my constituents. We talked about the 
budget, and we talked about the budget not just being a 1-year budget, 
but the decisions we might make this year would have implications far 
beyond the next fiscal year, implications far beyond the next 10 fiscal 
years.
  What we are saying with respect to the Federal Hospital Insurance 
Trust Fund, the Medicare Trust Fund, is it is not so simple that we can 
take that money today and spend it on something else and not have to 
make it up later. My colleague from Iowa uses the do-not-worry, be-
happy defense, that we can add prescription drug benefits using this 
money, we can modernize Medicare and use this money, and it will all 
work out in the wash. But the fact is that it will not work out in the 
wash because the money that you want to use, the trust fund money, is 
already obligated. It is already obligated to pay Hospital Insurance 
Trust Fund benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the demand on that money is not 
declining, it is increasing as America ages. It is interesting because 
my colleagues some years back, in fact my first year in the House when 
we went through all of the debates over the budget and whether we were 
going to cut Medicare or not, and the Speaker of the House at that time 
said we needed to cut Medicare in order to save it because the trust 
fund was going bankrupt; and yet today the Republican Party has brought 
a budget to the floor that would in fact shorten that trust fund, 
shorten the life span of that trust fund after all of the work we have 
gone to to extend the life span of that trust fund.
  Legally and logically it is not correct that you can take Medicare 
Trust Fund moneys and spend them on anything, whether it is 
prescription drugs or highways or Howitzers or whatever. Those moneys 
are obligated to the beneficiaries currently and those in the future 
who will enjoy the benefits of the inpatient hospital trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, all we are saying is let us use some honest bookkeeping 
and set those funds aside. If we do not do that, what we are going to 
end up with in this budget, not just in fiscal year 2002, but for many 
years to come, is a budget which is borrow and spend. We are going to 
spend today, and then we are going to borrow tomorrow much deeper than 
we would otherwise.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and also thank the gentleman for the instruction to the conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to understand the message. I think I heard the 
gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, say 
that one of these points he had some problem with. I do not know why my 
colleagues would have any problem with any of the points.
  First of all, we are trying to make sure that we have a minimal 
amount of moneys, and that is the same amount that the Senate put for 
Medicare. We are trying to make sure that at least that amount of 
money, which has been recognized by both Republicans and Democrats, on 
this floor as well as in the Senate bicamerally, that the 147 was an 
insufficient number, and that $300 billion is closer.
  Mr. Speaker, so first, it is to make sure that we have adequate 
amounts of money for prescription drugs. Is that what we are trying to 
achieve?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is 
correct.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know anyone in the House who 
would disagree with that. The Republicans say maybe they will do it.
  The second one, there was a resolution at the beginning of the 
session that said we will not take any moneys out of the Social 
Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Trust Fund; so we are simply saying 
those dollars should not be financed out of the Medicare Trust Fund. 
The Medicare Trust Fund, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) 
said, has already been pledged. It has been obligated. You cannot 
obligate it two and three times.
  Mr. Speaker, is that the second point?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is 
correct.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, why should the Republicans disagree with 
that? We are on record as saying we do not want to raid the Medicare 
Trust Fund, and this simply says it cannot be raided to pay for the 
additional moneys needed for prescription drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for putting 
forward a very practical and a very consistent bill. I must say I wish 
we had more money for education. I wish we would go all of the way to 
where the Senate is. The second point is to go as close as possible to 
the Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
for a very practical motion to instruct, and I hope all of my 
colleagues vote for the motion to instruct.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
his work all along, and for bringing up these instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the House-passed budget is really full of irresponsible 
tax cuts and fuzzy math; and it should be adjusted to match closely 
what has been reached in compromise in the other body.
  As a teacher, I am particularly disappointed that the budget 
resolution fails to deal adequately with the many urgent needs for our 
children in public education. At a time when more is demanded of our 
schools through higher standards, annual assessments, ``increased 
accountability'' is the phrase we are using this year, we risk failing 
too many children by not providing greater resources to turn around 
low-performing schools.
  Mr. Speaker, the House-passed mark falls short of providing adequate 
help

[[Page 6082]]

for teacher training, recruitment, for school construction and 
modernization, for meeting Federal obligations to assist local schools 
in providing excellent education for students with special needs. The 
average age of public schools in this country is 40 years old. We have 
to get the students and their facilities into the 21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, estimates are quite clear that we will need 2.2 million 
new teachers over the next 10 years to keep up with attrition. This is 
not even to get smaller class sizes; this is just to keep up.

                              {time}  1730

  Too often, I hear stories of teachers with history degrees teaching 
science and math because the schools have trouble finding qualified 
teachers. Having spent a year on the National Commission on the 
Teaching of Mathematics and Science, the John Glenn Commission, I have 
offered a bill to help schools recruit and retain qualified science and 
math teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to do that. The chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget said a few moments ago that they have provided, at the 
President's request, an 11 percent increase in education spending. No, 
it is about half that; it is 5.8 percent. The total increase in the 
President's budget, as in the House-approved budget, would not cover 
even half of the cost of meeting our needs in special education, of 
meeting our obligation, our Federal obligation to assist the local 
schools with special education.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the motion to 
instruct conferees.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I would like to engage the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget and perhaps also the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) in a discussion of the situation we are facing with 
respect to the Medicare Part A Trust Fund.
  We have had for some years in this body, although sometimes the 
political rhetoric would not indicate it, an agreement between the 
parties that the Social Security Trust Fund ought to be off limits, 
that we ought not to be using the Social Security surplus to cut taxes 
or to increase spending or for any other purpose, other than to reduce 
the debt and ensure the future of Social Security, to make certain that 
those benefits will be there when the baby boomers retire, when that 
program's cash flow reverses.
  I would like to ask my colleagues if there is any principled reason 
why we should treat the Medicare Trust Fund any differently from the 
Social Security Trust Fund. If anything, the Medicare Trust Fund is 
facing even more severe problems, even earlier than we face with Social 
Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Trust Fund is currently slated 
to become insolvent in 2028 or 2029. Social Security, fortunately, 
could last until 2038, 2039, for 10 more years. So the Medicare Trust 
Fund is intended, for the same reason, to sequester these funds, to 
confine them for use for Medicare; and we have reached certainly an 
accord on both sides of the aisle, both Houses and the White House as 
to Social Security, and I think the same logic applies to Medicare. It 
is not an idle concern.
  We have a handout, if anyone cares to see it, and they will see that 
under the House resolution, as early as 2005 by our calculation, that 
resolution will take us back into the Medicare Trust Fund. The Senate 
resolution is even worse. By our calculation, in 2002 the Senate 
resolution would lead us into the trust fund to the tune of $11 
billion, that soon, and we will be invading the trust fund in Medicare 
again.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are 
at present running a slight surplus in Medicare, but the Medicare Trust 
Fund is accumulating assets which we will need to draw on later. If we, 
instead, take those funds and use them for prescription drug benefits, 
as badly as that is needed, would that not reduce our ability to meet 
our basic Medicare obligations, the prescription benefit aside?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, that is 
the very point we are trying to make. The fund as it is is 
overobligated from beneficiary expectations, so we are simply saying, 
do not overload another obligation on top of a fund that is already 
short of meeting its scheduled obligations.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, having sat on the Medicare Commission for 
a year and looked at the future of Medicare, and having realized that 
beginning in 2010, we are going to double the number of people on 
Medicare as the baby boomers move into that stage of their life, we 
cannot realistically argue against putting money in advance of that big 
deficit that is coming. Even more important, it is taken out of 
people's paychecks under the HI, the health insurance. If that money is 
not used for Medicare, it is breaking the trust with the workers who 
put it in.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time. I want to also thank him for all of his work 
on our behalf as the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
  We all recognize that we have an urgent national need in this country 
to make a greater investment in our education system so that we can 
help a greater number of our children succeed within that system. I had 
the honor and the pleasure of meeting with President Bush before he was 
sworn in to talk with him and a number of our colleagues about 
education reform in this country. We talked about the things that 
needed to be done: to make schools more accountable, to make teachers 
more accountable, to improve the professional development of teachers, 
to make sure that we could direct the resources, as he said, to the 
poorest children in the poorest performing schools. But we also said in 
that meeting that it was very clear that those things would not happen 
unless we had the resources that were necessary to provide those 
schools the quality education that we all want.
  I had an opportunity to meet several other times with him and with 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords and with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, and again we talked about the kinds of reforms and the 
results that this President genuinely wants. We said again, Mr. 
President, if we are going to have testing and we are going to require 
all of the States to go about this, we are going to have to provide the 
resources. We are going to provide the resources so that, in fact, it 
can be done in the right way, not in the wrong way, not in a way that 
is harmful.
  If we are really going to help these children and we are going to get 
qualified teachers in front of them on a daily basis, we are going to 
have to improve the quality of these teachers. It is going to take 
resources. He assured us that he recognized that and he understood 
that.
  Now, when I see the budget, I am deeply disappointed, because a 
decision was made here between the times of those meetings and the 
times of this budget that those resources would be put off into the tax 
cut. Now we find that the amount of the tax cut that goes to the 
richest 1 percent of the people in this country is 13 times the amount 
we would spend on education in this budget, 13 times the amount on the 
richest 1 percent, and yet we have a huge number of children who are 
not getting access to a decent, first-class education, who are not 
having the kinds of reforms that the President wants, that I want, and 
that many of

[[Page 6083]]

my colleagues in the Congress want, will not bring about the results 
that we want, that every parent wants for their child in the American 
education system.
  Mr. Speaker, we urgently need these resources. We urgently need these 
resources because our schools are educating more children now than at 
any time in our history. They are educating more children with English 
as a second language, children with disabilities. These are expensive 
items, and we owe these children an education, and we have to make sure 
that they have an opportunity to participate in it.
  That is not what this budget does. It is not an 11 percent increase, 
as is well documented by the minority on the Committee on the Budget 
and our committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We 
are talking about a 5 percent increase. We are talking about the 
smallest increase in many years, and that is simply not adequate to get 
the results that the President says he wants and to get them for the 
children that he has quite properly focused on in his discussion of 
education, the children that are in most need of these resources so 
that they can get the same access to an education that children get in 
the wealthier schools and in the middle-class schools. But we cannot do 
it on this budget. We cannot do it on this budget.
  This budget suggests that we are going to try to get first-class, 
world- class standards in education attainment on behalf of America's 
children, but we are going to do it on the cheap, and that would be a 
horrible mistake, because that will lock us into another 5 years of 
spending without getting the results that the taxpayers deserve and 
that the children deserve in terms of their educational opportunity.
  So I commend the gentleman for the motion to instruct, to say that we 
should move toward the figures that the Senate has talked about and has 
suggested in their budget resolution, figures that will, in fact, 
provide us the kind of resources that are necessary for special 
education, for Title I, for English as a second language, so that we 
can hire the 100,000 counselors that are necessary, so that we can 
finish hiring the 100,000 teachers that have allowed us to reduce class 
sizes. Those are the urgent needs of the American education system, but 
they cannot be met in this budget without going with the numbers that 
are suggested in the motion to instruct.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
read the motion to instruct to the gentleman from California when he is 
referring to numbers in the motion to instruct: ``To increase the 
funding for education in the House resolution to provide for maximum 
feasible funding.''
  Now, the gentleman from California is a Member of the House who 
stands behind no one when it comes to his advocacy of education and 
education funding and for our students. He is a friend, he is someone 
who has always tried to responsibly put forward reforms and proposals 
on education. But to suggest that this motion to instruct somehow 
provides more money than what the House resolution provided is just 
simply not the case.
  Let me review with the gentleman from California and others what is 
in the budget that has been passed that we are defending here today. 
The House-passed budget accommodates not only the President's ``no 
child left behind'' education reform, which links dollars to 
accountability. Simply throwing more money at the programs will not 
make them better. The gentleman from California even testified to that 
fact before me and the Committee on the Budget. It increases elementary 
and secondary education funding by 10 percent. It triples funding for 
reading programs. It improves by increasing IDEA by $1.25 billion to 
ensure that every child, particularly children with special needs, have 
access to the best possible education. It increases education savings 
accounts from $500 to $5,000 and makes them available not only for 
their original intent, but expands them to K through 12 education. It 
provides a full tax exemption to students using qualified prepaid 
tuition for college, and it provides $60 million to help older children 
in foster care transition to adulthood, including providing vouchers to 
cover tuition and vocational training costs.
  Now, the gentleman says that we do not really have, if we take this 
out and we move this over and we minus this off the top, it is not 
really an 11 percent increase. One cannot do that. It is an 11 percent 
increase in this budget. One cannot say, if we do not include this, we 
do not include that; it is all part of the budget, it is all in here, 
that it is somehow some other percentage.
  It is an 11 percent increase. We believe that is a responsible 
increase.
  Are there more ways that we can improve education in this country? 
You bet. Is throwing money at it the only answer? No. That is why we 
need to move through this budget as quickly as possible, give these 
instructions to the committee, give these resources to the committees 
so that they can begin to reform our education programs in this country 
and begin to make sure that no child is left behind. Just simply to 
come in here and say, it is not enough money without the reforms, it is 
not enough money without proposals, it is not enough money just because 
somebody says it is not enough money does not mean it is not enough 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, 11 percent over and above the huge increases we have 
provided for education has not necessarily solved the education 
concerns of America, and just providing a rhetorical response on the 
floor as a motion to instruct conferees, saying the maximum feasible 
funding, is not a way to do it either.
  We believe this is a responsible budget, it is responsible in the 
context of overall reform of education. It will help us to ensure that 
no child is left behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to respond to the gentleman before yielding to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Let me make clear that this budget passed by the House provided a 5.8 
percent increase for fiscal year 2002 in education. In over 10 years, 
the President's budget, which was basically endorsed, provides just 
above the rate of inflation. Now, 5.8 percent is an increase, but it is 
less than half the increase of last year and less than half the 
increase of the last 5 years, and less than a third of the increase of 
last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support 
of the motion to instruct conferees with respect to the education 
increase that has been proposed.
  The Senate has finally started to take us in the direction we need to 
go, an additional $300 billion increase, supported by Democrats and 
Republicans, to begin to put our money where our mouth is. I applaud 
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget putting emphasis on 
increased funding for special education. But most of what we have said 
about doing that are promises. This is a chance for us today to put 
that into action and to begin to move in the direction of more funding 
for both special education and general education.

                              {time}  1745

  We know what works. We know what we need to do: we need to fix up 
some of our crumbling schools. We need to fix our schools that are 
overcrowded.
  We have a class-reduction program at the Federal level that has paid 
huge dividends. In my community in Florida, in the Tampa Bay area, in 
Hillsboro County, $8 million has gone into reducing class size in some 
of our most struggling schools. It has given control of the classroom 
back to the teacher to reach those kids in the back row like me that 
needed some special attention to get engaged in learning.
  As the teaching shortage begins to grow, we are going to have to pay 
more attention to attracting qualified teachers.
  The Senate recognized these things when they increased education 
spending on a bipartisan basis. There is no

[[Page 6084]]

reason why we should not do the same thing here today.
  We are about to debate finally the President's proposal to provide 
more accountability and more resources to education. Many of us 
applauded him during the campaign for taking that position, both on the 
accountability and on the spending.
  Guess what: unless we take the step today of adopting this motion to 
recommit conferees, those are hollow words, because this is the 
spending blueprint. This is the way we begin to back up with actions 
the words of the President, the words of the Congress, that we all want 
to do more for education. So I would urge adoption of the motion to 
instruct conferees with respect to education as well as the other 
points that have been made today.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
outlining some of the implications for elementary and secondary 
education on this budget.
  Is it not true that President Bush campaigned on getting the Pell 
grants, in opening up opportunities for students on higher education, 
getting those Pell grants over $5,000?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Yes, he did.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. This budget would keep the maximum Pell 
grant well under $4,000. It is simply not adequate to do what we need 
to do to open the doors to opportunity in higher education.
  We have been increasing Pell grants several hundred dollars a year 
for several years. This would increase the Pell grant, as I understand 
it; and this has been borne out by CBO, only by $150. That is totally 
inadequate. It really falls over $1,000 short of what President Bush 
himself promised.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think the incredibly meager 
increase in the Pell grants cited by the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) is really a pitiful example of how little we are doing and 
how much more we can do.
  I would urge that we adopt this motion to recommit conferees today. 
Let us begin to put our actions where our words have been. Mr. Speaker, 
let us start to live up to what we know are the Chair's intentions to 
do more for special education in Congress. Let us lay the floor for the 
groundwork that is going to be done in the House and Congress in the 
next several years to do more for our schools and to let them make 
their decisions at home, let them reduce class size, fix up the 
schools, hire qualified teachers, and make sure we leave no children 
behind.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just again refer the gentleman to the first 
paragraph. It is kind of hard for me to disagree with the first 
paragraph.
  It says: ``To increase the funding in the House Resolution to 
provide'' not so much money for IDEA, not so much money for reading, 
not so much money for Pell grants, as has been argued on the floor here 
today, but just ``maximum feasible.''
  We are all for that. My goodness, we go out and swing a dead cat and 
we could probably hit everybody who would be for maximum feasible 
everything in the budget. That is not what a budget is all about. A 
budget is putting numbers in here.
  We put a number in here. I think our number is very responsible when 
looked at in the context of all of the numbers that are in the budget. 
So to come in here and say we want to instruct the conferees, here is a 
very specific instruction: get in there and do something really good 
for education. Okay, we will do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the vice-chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where to begin.
  First and foremost, it is interesting to sit in the Chamber today, to 
sit in the Chamber today and hear so much happiness and joy over 
something that has been done in the other body. I do not think I have 
heard this much excitement about legislation in the other body since I 
have been a Member of Congress, though admittedly, that has been for 
only two terms.
  There has been a lot of discussion about education. Education is 
important. The chairman of our committee just talked about the 
instruction here to provide the maximum feasible amount for education.
  I am all for good and I am opposed to evil; and I think it is nice 
that we have a motion to recommit conferees that says, let us provide 
more money for good things. They did not actually write in ``less money 
for bad things,'' but they might as well have.
  But the fact of the matter is, if we go through what we passed on the 
floor here, what came out of our Committee on the Budget, I think we do 
have a very strong budget resolution. That is one of the reasons, for 
anyone listening to this debate, that we see so many numbers being 
thrown around: $1 billion here, $1 trillion of this, $10 billion here, 
5, 18 percent. Because when we are not really able to argue about good 
policy reform and good legislation, we try to blind people with 
numbers.
  I make that comment as a former engineer who maybe tried once or 
twice to do the same, but I do not think it is appropriate for the 
floor of the House.
  Let me talk a little bit about what is in the budget resolution that 
came out of committee. First, overall, we increase the size of the 
government by about 4 percent, increase discretionary spending 4 
percent.
  I think most Americans looking at this blueprint would say well, we 
are going to increase our household budget by about the level of 
inflation. We are not going to live beyond our means. There is no 
reason whatsoever that this Congress or any Congress should force 
Americans to live beyond their means, should collect more in taxes than 
we need, or should spend at 6 or 8 or 12 percent increases per year, 
because everyone here knows that is the quickest way to drive us into 
deficit.
  A 4 percent increase in government, I certainly understand for a lot 
of people in this Chamber that is not enough government. Increasing 
spending 4 percent is not nearly enough government for some people 
here. But I think for most Americans to have the government grow by 4 
or 5 percent would be plenty.
  What do we do on the debt? We pay down $2 trillion in debt over the 
next 10 years. Everyone wants to see us retire public debt. We are 
paying it down at a record level. We have not heard much discussion 
about debt repayment in the debate tonight, and that is because the 
focus is on more spending. We are not going to be able to pay down $2 
trillion in debt if we just start allowing the budget resolution to 
spend more and more and more.
  We heard a discussion about education. We are increasing funding for 
education by 11 percent, as the chairman described, 10 percent for K 
through 12, tripling funding for literacy.
  We have committed in the House budget resolution to a record increase 
in special education funds, which is the largest unfunded Federal 
mandate that I know of on the books.
  But for some on the other side, it is never enough. It is all about 
resources, resources, resources. How many times did we hear that word 
tonight in talking about education? It is about resources, resources, 
resources.
  If money was the answer to improving education, then we could go to 
those school districts in the country that were spending the most on 
education, some of them perhaps here in Washington, DC., some perhaps 
in New York City, and there we should find the best schools in the 
country; and we do not, because it is not all about resources. It is 
about how we deliver the education, it is about how we structure the 
competition, it is about the needs of the student and whether or not 
they are being met at the local level.
  So much discussion has been held about resources; but there has been 
no discussion about reform tonight, no discussion about accountability 
and standards and all of the keystones that are in the President's 
reform bill, and certainly no discussion about the importance of giving 
those students in

[[Page 6085]]

the failing schools in this country, so many of them in economically 
depressed areas of America, give those students a chance to get out of 
those failing schools, give them the economic power of a grant of 
school choice, and let their parents take them to a school that is 
safe, that is reliable, and that can deliver their children with the 
education that they deserve.
  Education accountability and education choice is something the other 
side does not want to discuss because, one, it means empowering 
families to make a real decision; and two, because it means attacking a 
base, a status quo base that wants no competition in the public 
schools, no public school choice whatsoever.
  I think that is outrageous. I think it is outrageous for people, 
certainly not all the opponents of school choice, but for many of them 
in the Senate and some here in the House who send their children to the 
best private schools in the country, to then come and say, well, we 
certainly do not want someone in a public school to have the power of 
choice, to take their child out of a failing school and give them an 
education and a safe setting that they deserve. But we hear about 
spending. It is all about spending.
  That brings us to the other portions of this motion to instruct, to 
provide the cost of coverage for prescription drug benefits, not within 
the hospitalization trust fund; in other words, to pay for Medicare, 
but do not pay for Medicare with Medicare taxes.
  That does not make sense to me. I do not think it makes sense to most 
Americans. I would love to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. 
I voted for legislation on the floor last year to add a prescription 
drug benefit to Medicare. But we have in the instructions here, if we 
add a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, we do not take it out 
of the Medicare Trust Fund.
  Why would anyone want to do that? I think there is one answer that I 
can think of. It is because they do not want to cut taxes. It is 
because they want to increase the size of government. It is because 
they want to find any excuse not to have to support tax relief.
  Three years ago, 4 years ago, when I first came to Congress, they 
said, we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. We enacted 
balanced budget legislation in 1997.
  Then they say, well, we cannot support cutting taxes because we have 
not started paying down the debt. And we started paying off the Federal 
debt.
  Then they said, we cannot support any tax cuts until we set aside 
every penny of the Social Security surplus. We did that.
  Now tonight we are hearing, well, if we set aside the Social Security 
surplus, let us also set aside the Medicare Trust Fund surplus.
  We have actually done that in this budget, so now they are trying to 
find ways to force spending even higher, to drive us back to a point 
where, for some reason, we are not giving back that tax surplus to 
Americans.
  I think that is unfortunate. Some people will look for any 
opportunity to vote against the tax cut. In the end, that is because 
there are some for whom this is not nearly enough government, and only 
by keeping all of the revenues that are coming into Washington in 
Washington will they have the resources to increase the size and scope 
of government to an untenable level.
  I think that is unfortunate. Taxes today are higher than they have 
been at any point since World War II. Almost 21 percent of our economy 
is consumed in taxes. We wake up, we are paying energy taxes; we go to 
work, we are paying gasoline taxes; we make a phone call, we are paying 
3 percent in telecommunications taxes that were put in place in 1899 to 
fund the Spanish-American war; of course, we pay income taxes; we pay 
Medicare taxes; we pay Social Security taxes.
  There is very little in our life that is not taxed today, and when we 
are collecting more in taxes than in our history, and after we have 
paid for all of the essential operations of government, expanded 
discretionary spending 4 percent, invested in education and national 
defense, added $2.8 billion to the National Institutes of Health, if we 
have money left over, we ought to give it back to the American taxpayer 
by letting them keep more of what they earn every week.
  We do not say it nearly enough, but the reason we have record tax 
collections is because Americans are working more productively and 
harder and more efficiently, earning more. We ought to send a little 
bit of that back.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct. It is 
all about the size of government. It is all about trying to keep it 
here in Washington. But I say when we take money out of Washington and 
give it back to families, we are making Washington a little less 
important and we are making those families and those American workers 
more important. That is what I came here to do.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

                              {time}  1800

  Let me say in response to the gentleman's statement about the bite 
the government is taking out of our economy. In 1984, 1985, the peak of 
the Reagan years, the government was consuming 23.5 percent of the 
national pie known as GDP, gross domestic product. Peak of the Reagan 
years, 23.5 percent of GDP being consumed by the government.
  Today, under this budget, the budget we have this year, which is the 
Clinton administration budget, less than 18\1/2\ percent of our GDP is 
devoted to government spending. That is five full percentage points, 
five full percentage points less than in the peak of the Reagan years.
  In addition, let me clarify where we are with respect to education. 
The President came here to this House and made his State of the Union. 
He said the account plussed-up by the most in our budget will be 
education, 11.4 percent. Our spirits were lifted.
  We got the budget and started looking at it, started dissecting it; 
and we saw that he was claiming for his increase for next year $2.1 
billion that the House appropriated last year for 2002. When we back 
that out, because he is not providing, it was previously provided, when 
we back that out, we saw that the increase was 5.8 percent. As I have 
said, 5.8 percent is an increase; I will grant one that. But it is 
nothing compared to last year, 18 percent. It is nothing compared to 
the last 5 years, 13 percent.
  Furthermore, when the Senate had an opportunity, amendment by 
amendment, to add to education, they added through four amendments $300 
billion. When we say in this motion to instruct conferees provide the 
maximum feasible funding for education, we also say within the scope of 
conference, the text of the resolution. What does that mean? Get as 
close to that $300 billion increase as you possibly can. We will not 
dictate it in numerical terms. But within the scope of conference, that 
means you can go up to $300 billion plus-up in education, provide the 
maximum feasible funding for education.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question; and 
it will be a short one.
  Mr. SPRATT. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina indicated 
that the Federal spending is 18.3 percent of GNP today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, we are collecting almost 21 percent in 
taxes.
  Mr. SPRATT. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, what is the justification for collecting so 
much more in taxes than the Federal Government is spending?
  Mr. SPRATT. The difference is, the surplus is----
  Mr. SUNUNU. I know what the difference is. What is the normal 
justification for collecting so much more in taxes than we spend in 
government?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is this: From 1982 to 1992, we increased 
the national debt of this country, which we will leave to our children, 
by more than $4 trillion. It is time we paid some of that off, and the 
budget we brought to the floor would have done that.

[[Page 6086]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from South Carolina for his motion to instruct because it is clear that 
the massive tax cut package pushed through the House earlier this year 
was financed by cutting much-needed programs, particularly as it 
regards to education.
  There are devastating cuts in education spending affecting areas 
where continued progress relies on at least maintaining current levels 
of funding. Where the President proposes an increase in funds to 
disadvantaged students and programs, he proposes major cutbacks in 
educational technology programs and a decrease in funds for vocational 
educational programs.
  This budget does not provide the necessary increases to the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools and Communities Program or the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers, programs which have been proven to work and be 
successful. This is a major blow to all urban and rural communities. 
These programs are vital to providing a safe and stimulating academic 
environment for students, both while they are in school and during 
after-school hours. We need these programs, and we need them at full 
funding, which covers real operating costs.
  Despite campaign promises to increase the average Pell grant to 
$5,100, this budget proposes approximately $3,800, a $100 increase per 
student. The President then freezes all other critical student aid 
programs, making it almost impossible for working families and students 
to finance the higher education, to keep us moving on and keep us ahead 
of the curve.
  The elimination of the budget line for school renovation is ill-
advised and absolutely devastating to restoring and modernizing our 
schools and bringing them up to the 21st century standards. This must 
be reversed.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents need each and every dollar of this 
Nation's education budget to provide a safe and competent educational 
experience. The President's budget stops short of providing real 
educational relief.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) says he does not know why we could possibly have ever seen 
anything good about the other body. The fact is that even a stopped 
clock is right twice a day. The question is: Do you know when it is? In 
this instance, their budget makes more sense.
  I went back to my district for 2 weeks, and I had four community 
meetings with an average of 150 people in each meeting; 600 people. 
Seventy-five percent of them, after you go through the budget and 
explain what the tax cut does to all of it, said we do not want the tax 
cut. We would rather have you pay down the debt. We would rather you 
protect Social Security and protect Medicare. They understand.
  Now, my colleagues say, well, you are from Seattle. You are from that 
liberal district out on the Left Coast. The district of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner) right on the border between Texas and Louisiana 
was reported in the New York Times as having exactly the same result.
  The people understand that education is the future of this country, 
that also the future is the security that comes with Medicare and 
Social Security.
  Now, for us to say that we cannot support the Senate, they in fact 
are much more in tune with the people than are the House of 
Representatives who rammed this budget through with very little 
discussion about what it actually does in the long-term.
  This resolution supports what the people support. They are not asking 
for tax relief. They are not begging. When one explains in the meetings 
who gets the tax cut and where it goes and what it means when we do not 
pay down the debt and we have to pay an extra $500 billion in interest, 
they say: Why do not you just keep the money, pay the debt down and 
save the interest. You can use that on education.
  People, they do not need to be rocket scientists. If one can add and 
subtract, one can see what the Senate did. If my colleagues allowed us 
to have the kind of amendments over here that they had in the other 
body, we would have a much different resolution on the floor, because 
they would have found there is much more support in this body for 
education. But they would not allow it. So that is why they have to 
have this resolution passed.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 1 minute remaining and the right to close. 
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to close our 
portion of the debate.
  Let me just reiterate that certainly we have tried and we will 
continue to try and reform our education system. Part of that reform 
requires us to consider new funding. Part of that reform requires us to 
consider that we are not paying the bills that have been promised under 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part of that is to 
recognize that, as people continue a lifetime of learning, that we have 
to find new ways to pay for higher education; that we recognize that 
reading programs in this country need additional assistance.
  But in part, that is the reason why our budget lays out for education 
those many different priorities we believe so succinctly and with so 
much of a priority.
  I think it is wrong to assume that because we have over the course of 
our appropriations passed some advanced appropriations that all of a 
sudden now that that should not be included as a priority for this 
year's budget or beyond. We have increased budgets for education in the 
past. We will do so in the future. This year's is 11 percent. We are 
proud of that. If there are ways that we can help improve that in the 
future with reform, we will consider that.
  As far as reform and modernization of Medicare, we believe based on 
the 407 to 2 vote earlier this year that the House of Representatives 
is clearly on record that not one penny of Social Security or Medicare 
ought to be used for anything else except Social Security or Medicare. 
Finally we have done that.
  I do not want to recall history, but the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend, knows that this is a very brief 
history involved in any side coming forth with a budget that does not 
touch the trust funds and the surpluses for Medicare and Social 
Security. Finally, in a bipartisan way, this year, we were able to say 
do not touch it, only use it for its intended purpose.
  But this is its intended purpose. If one cannot use Medicare Trust 
Fund dollars for Medicare, for modernization of Medicare, for improving 
Medicare and providing Medicare recipients more Medicare, what is one 
going to use the money for? I mean, I do not quite understand that.
  This desire to run to the floor and to say every penny you use from 
the Medicare Trust Fund automatically takes a penny away from its 
solvency in the future is just not factually correct. Modernization is 
intended for and we will pass modernization that needs to extend the 
life of Medicare.
  I just say the following: If one cannot use Medicare Trust Fund 
dollars for Medicare, if one cannot use Medicare surpluses for 
Medicare, what can one use it for? We believe we have finally arrived 
at a bipartisan principle on that issue. We believe that is embodied in 
this budget that has already passed the House.
  I believe it would be a grave mistake to change that tact now and to 
instruct our conferees, albeit it is not binding, I realize that, and 
maybe we should not make a controversy out of it, but I believe it is a 
mistake for us to bind our conferees or instruct our conferees by 
suggesting to them that now, all of a sudden, we are going to reverse 
that 407 to 2 vote and say that one cannot use Medicare now for 
anything, one cannot use it for prescription drugs, one cannot use it 
for modernization. I believe that would be a mistake.

[[Page 6087]]

  Therefore, I urge Members not to adopt the motion to instruct offered 
by the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, basically this is what this motion to instruct does: The 
Senate has added $300 billion to education. We say go as far as you 
can, conferees, as far as feasible in the direction of the Senate's 
plus-up for education.
  Second, the Senate has provided $147 to $153 billion provided in the 
House for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is the minimum 
amount that will actually provide the benefit. We say adopt the Senate 
provision.
  Third, we say as to Medicare, do not double count. Do not take these 
overobligated underfunded trust funds and use them for new obligation. 
Take the money out of the general fund to provide for the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit.
  If one is for education, if one is for Medicare prescription drugs, 
if one is for making Medicare sound and solvent far into the future, 
one should vote for the motion to instruct conferees because that is 
what it does.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the time for an electronic vote on the motion to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 428, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200, 
nays 207, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               YEAS--200

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

                               NAYS--207

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Abercrombie
     Brown (FL)
     Cantor
     Capps
     Davis (CA)
     Filner
     Holden
     Hunter
     Istook
     Linder
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Mica
     Moakley
     Myrick
     Payne
     Roybal-Allard
     Schiff
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Vitter
     Weller
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1835

  Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Messrs. OXLEY, GOSS, WATTS 
of Oklahoma, SKEEN, HOBSON, WALDEN of Oregon, and NEY changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85, I was unavoidably 
detained due to flight cancellations. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees:
  Messrs. Nussle, Sununu, and Spratt.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________