[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18986-18993]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES 112, MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING 
                APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 568, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 568

       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. 112) 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     2003, 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 on the joint resolution 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. Isakson). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), 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 568 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.J. Res. 112, making continuing appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2003. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points 
of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides one 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 112 makes further continuing appropriations 
for the fiscal year 2003 and provides funding at current levels through 
October 11, 2002. This measure is necessary in order that all necessary 
and vital functions of government may continue uninterrupted while 
Congress continues its work on the spending measures for the next 
fiscal year. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass 
both the rule and the underlying resolution, H.J. Res. 112.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, Republicans' shameful refusal to lead the House 
continues today. We are into the new fiscal year, and this House has 
still only passed 5 of the 13 appropriation bills.
  Now, Republicans have been turning back flips to try to shift the 
blame for their own shameful failures. They like to say it is the fault 
of the other body that the House has not done its work, but we all know 
how an appropriations bill becomes a law. The Constitution requires the 
House to pass it before the other body can.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to stop House Republicans but 
themselves. And what is stopping them? Simply put, some Republicans are 
afraid to vote for the cuts in education, health care, and other 
priorities that most members of the Republican Conference seem to 
support. So Republican leaders have quit even trying to do the work 
Americans elected them to do.
  While House Republicans refuse to do their work, Mr. Speaker, 
millions of Americans would be happy just to find a job. After all, 
America is suffering through the weakest economy in 50 years, and a 
recent Gallup Poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe the 
economy is getting worse. Frankly, it is hard to argue with them.
  Long-term unemployment is at an 8-year high, and some 2 million 
Americans have lost their jobs. The Census Bureau reports the number of 
people living in poverty has increased, and the median household income 
has dropped. Corporate scandals, the massive criminality at Enron, 
WorldCom, and the like, have rocked the economy and devastated the 
retirement plans of millions of Americans. After the worst quarter for 
the S&P 500 since 1987, millions of Americans are dreading the arrival 
of 401(k) statements, statements

[[Page 18987]]

that may now look more like 201(k) statements.
  Overall, the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value since 
Republicans took control in Washington a year ago January. And the Dow 
has hit a 4-year low.
  What has been the response of the Republican House during this 
troubled time? They refuse to stop corporate expatriates who flee 
overseas to avoid paying their fair share in taxes and who leave other 
Americans stuck with the bill, and they refuse to extend unemployment 
insurance for all Americans suffering in this economy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful failure of leadership. I do not think 
it is going to end as long as Republicans control the House of 
Representatives.
  But there is one important step we can take today. We can finally 
allow the House to vote on the education funding necessary to implement 
the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.
  At the appropriate time, I will oppose the previous question. If it 
is defeated, we will amend the rule to provide for a fair vote on the 
appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education.
  Since Republican leaders cannot decide how to bring up this critical 
bill, we would offer Members several options. The Committee on 
Appropriations chairman could bring his bill to the floor. 
Conservatives and their Republican Conference who have seemed so 
interested in slashing education spending so far could bring up their 
version, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, could bring up his bill.
  In addition, my amendment to the rule would require the House to 
immediately consider legislation extending unemployment benefits to the 
millions of American workers who have exhausted those benefits and have 
no immediate prospects of finding employment. And to help spur the 
creation of jobs in the country, we will call on the House to consider 
economic stimulus legislation before we adjourn for the elections. This 
body has wasted enough valuable time. We have only a few days left to 
do the people's business; and by defeating the previous question, 
perhaps we can start taking care of the business we were sent here to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that it is 
inappropriate to use cell phones on the floor of the House.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time 
at this point, so I reserve my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and then I will yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 8 
minutes.
  Is this not extraordinary? We have no appropriation bills coming out 
of the Congress; we have a continuing resolution for another week, and 
the Republicans cannot even produce a single speaker to defend their 
position. They want this to slip on through. They just want us to vote 
on this and leave town and the American people not notice that they are 
unwilling to do the people's business. Extraordinary commentary on the 
lack of leadership on the Republican side.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, ever since Labor Day this Congress and the 
President have been focused almost exclusively on Iraq, and there is 
absolutely no question that we will soon be at war. Meanwhile, the 
economy is showing serious signs of stress, and this body is doing 
virtually nothing about it.
  Only 10 percent of our domestic appropriation bills are in place for 
the coming year. We are looking down a deep economic shaft with very 
little light at the end of the tunnel. We are in danger of leaving for 
the election with almost nothing being done to help provide that light, 
and there is a lot of talk in this institution about simply passing a 
series of continuing resolutions and then finally kicking all of these 
problems over until after the election, conveniently.
  Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House are designed to help the House 
leadership address problems. Instead, on this occasion as they have 
been used on so many other occasions, they are being used to avoid 
problems. And then, even though we have only passed five of the 13 
appropriation bills required in this House, we have some Members of 
this House who sound like the great Alibi Ike of the Cosmos, because 
they look for somebody else to blame for the fact that we have not been 
able to do our own job. I think that that has to stop.
  I think people need to understand just how bad it would be if this 
government were to function on a continuing resolution for any 
significant period of time. That action would put the economy at high 
risk, in my view. It will virtually guarantee that almost nothing will 
be done about our economic problems. Political positions of both 
parties on a variety of issues will harden, and we will come back after 
the election, and we will be faced with a large supplemental request 
for Iraq, and the need to pass all of next year's fiscal 2004 
appropriation bills. That will create a huge incentive to simply extend 
last year's spending patterns through the coming year, and that will 
have very bad effects on the economy. It will also lead to a lot of 
nasty and unintended consequences.
  Example: it will leave a number of agencies funded at levels 
significantly below where they need to be, and many of those agencies 
will be at the center of our efforts to protect our people against 
terrorist threats. But we will also have other programs for which 
spending will be at higher levels than Congress expected or intended.
  Example: the highway spending that is in the continuing resolution 
right now is $4 billion higher than the level it was intended to be 
under the Republican budget resolution. And also, we have an anomaly, 
which means that the National Institutes of Health, which both parties 
have promised to increase by 15 percent this year, we will have the 
National Institutes of Health funded at $3.8 billion less than the 
President's budget. That does not make any sense. But that is what is 
going to happen if this House continues to avoid its responsibility to 
bring up the Labor-Health bill and other appropriation bills.
  The problem we have is there is an impasse within the Republican 
caucus between conservatives and moderates over what spending levels 
ought to be on education and on the Labor, Health and Education bill in 
general. And because of that impasse, the leadership is refusing to 
bring that bill up, and they are also acquiescing to the demand of a 
few hard-liners in their caucus that because they do not bring up the 
Labor-HHS bill, they should not bring up any other appropriation bill 
either.
  Well, I sent a letter to the Speaker trying to propose a way out of 
this box, and I suggested that the Speaker allow the President's 
education budget to come to the floor; in fact, bring the whole Labor-
HHS bill to the floor, bring the President's budget to the floor, if 
you want, allow the Republican caucus to offer a substitute to that, 
and allow the minority to offer our substitute, and let the chips fall 
where they may. It does not guarantee an outcome, but it does move the 
process forward.
  In the past, many times, past Speakers have allowed controversial 
bills to go forward, even when they could not guarantee a result, 
because they understood the gravity of continuing on a long-term 
continuing resolution and all of the programmatic harm that would do to 
the country and the economy. So the very least that the majority should 
do, instead of just passing another CR, is to bring to the floor the 
Labor, Health and Education bill so we can meet our primary domestic 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to do something else. We have a very 
shaky economy, and in the midst of that, we are going to be dislodging 
Saddam Hussein. He is a bad actor, we will all welcome his departure, 
and no doubt that departure would be good for the people of Iraq. 
Sanctions would be lifted, they would have a renewed opportunity for a 
better life. But our economic problems here at home will still remain, 
and the

[[Page 18988]]

economic problems of people who live along the Mississippi will not be 
taken care of by whatever we do on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
  We also need to have an economic stabilization package that 
recognizes that things are dangerously different here at home than they 
were when the majority passed its budget resolution and its tax 
provisions a year ago.
  In addition to putting the Labor, Health and Education bill on the 
floor so we can face up to our choices rather than avoid them on that 
issue, we also ought to see an economic stabilization package on this 
floor that would include, for example, extension of unemployment 
insurance, a strengthening of the safety net for programs for families 
hit by economic weakness, help to small business and farmers who are 
losing their ability to pay for health insurance, protections for 
investors, and protection for workers' pensions, additional 
infrastructure funding to provide for immediate job growths and, if I 
may be so bold, I know we are not supposed to say that nasty word 
around here, but we also do need a restructuring of the tax cuts to 
focus more of those cuts on low- and middle-income taxpayers struggling 
to get by and less on the economic elite which is doing quite well in 
comparison to their less well-off neighbors.

                              {time}  1045

  That is what we ought to do if we were in the business of solving 
problems, but it appears to me that, with the exception of dealing with 
Iraq, this House is going to be essentially a bystander.
  As a practical matter, we have a government shutdown as far as the 
House of Representatives is concerned, so the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) is stuck with the responsibility under these circumstances 
of bringing another CR to the floor when we all know that he would 
prefer to meet his responsibilities, as we would prefer to meet ours.
  But we are not being given that opportunity because of an internal 
war within the Republican caucus. In my view, the Republican leadership 
needs to bring that bill to the floor. Their refusal to do so is 
nothing, in my view, but a confession of either incompetence or 
irresponsibility, I am not sure which.
  So I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that we vote down this rule, that we 
vote down the previous question on the rule, so that we can bring 
something back to the floor which represents a real and broad-based 
attack on the economic problems facing this country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
time to me. I appreciate his leadership, and the leadership of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. Speaker, the success or failure of any nation or any endeavor is 
determined by the leadership it has and the decisions they make. This 
Congress was sent here by the people of this country to make decisions 
and to do the people's business, and to represent the people of this 
country in a responsible way and make decisions for the common good, 
and not serve special interests.
  It is amazing to me that we continue to not have appropriations bills 
on the floor of this House to deal with the people's business and to 
accomplish the tasks for which we were sent.
  I am reminded of the old joke that they tell in my part of the 
country: Do not worry about the mule going blind, just load the wagon. 
We act like we do not know what we need to do.
  This is not complicated. We know how to deal with this. Blaming 
somebody else; let us just find somebody, it does not matter who, but 
let us blame it on somebody else; let us blame it on the other body, on 
somebody down the street. Let us just blame somebody. It is always 
somebody else's fault.
  We cannot stand as a Nation to continue to ignore the business of the 
people. We must be responsible.
  The economy, to say the economy is not doing well is a gross 
understatement. We have a war at our doorstep. We have a war on 
terrorism that we have been fighting for over a year, and we have not 
dealt with issues pertaining to those two great concerns.
  The cost of health care is skyrocketing, and taking money out of the 
economy at such a rate that none of us know how we are going to deal 
with it; yet, we cannot get to the floor of this House the business of 
the people.
  We have been up here playing games since Labor Day trying to make it 
look like somebody is doing something, when the fact is we have not 
accomplished a frazzling thing since we got back after Labor Day. At 
the very least, bring it to the floor and let us vote on it.
  We have asked, and the Blue Dog Coalition that I am a member of 
repeatedly has asked, the other side of the aisle, we have asked the 
leadership in the Republican Party, just work with us; just talk to us. 
We can figure this out. Let us do the job. Let us do the job that we 
were sent here to do.
  We are not asking them to agree with us, we are just asking them to 
talk with us about it. Bring it to the floor and let us vote on it. 
When we work together, there is nothing we cannot do. But when 
everything has to be done in accordance with the Republican leadership, 
and when they are making bad decisions like they are right now, it 
makes it very difficult to get the job done.
  It is the American way. This is what this Congress was established 
for. Let us bring it to the floor and take care of it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess the chickens have come home to 
roost. A long time ago, the first thing we did practically in this 
Congress was pass a big tax bill. Some of us stood down here and said, 
hey, we ought to figure out what we need to spend before we decide we 
are going to give a lot of stuff away; but the leadership on the other 
side of the aisle said, do not worry, there is plenty of money. There 
is no problem. Just trust us.
  Well, there are a lot of hospitals and a lot of schools and a lot of 
people out there trusting them, and what they see is that they have 
given it all away, and they will not even admit it. If they would just 
get up and say, we have made a mistake, we should not have done that, 
we should maybe go back and rethink what we did.
  But I understand their theory. Their theory is when they make a 
mistake, just keep saying it and pushing it, even if it does not make 
any sense. They were out here yesterday on the marriage tax penalty. 
They have been out here every week with something.
  What really ought to aggravate the American people in the way they 
have handled this budget, when I come in here, I fly in here from 
Seattle. I get here at 4 o'clock on a Tuesday for a vote on a couple of 
post offices being renamed on Tuesday night. Then we have a little 
something on Wednesday, and on Thursday we are out, and I am on that 
plane at 5 o'clock.
  I am on the ground less than 48 hours in this town. If Members call 
that a good week's work for a good week's pay, I have to tell the 
Members something: Most of the people in the world have to at least 
work 40 hours. They cannot even keep their people here to work on the 
problem, but they would rather say, let us just have a continuing 
resolution. It is going so well, let us let it go on.
  Why do we not just pass a continuing resolution until the first of 
March and give up this charade. What they are going to do is 1 week at 
a time, and then they are going to take the next one, which will be up 
to October 18. Then they will say, well, we ought to do it after the 
election, so we will do the 17th of November; and then, of course, 
well, we will do December 15; and then we will come in on January 10; 
and then come in again, and we will finally get to work in February.
  They ought to be ashamed of themselves that they do not bring the 
bills out here. Bring them out here, and we will see. They should bring 
out whatever they can agree on. Since they do not want to talk to us 
about what they are bringing out, they should bring out their best shot 
and put it on the floor

[[Page 18989]]

here. But no, they want to talk about Iraq, and they want to talk about 
a lot of other things, but they do not do the business of the House.
  We ought to vote this rule down and bring out the bills.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding 
time to me, and I regret we are here maintaining the status quo for 
another 7 days.
  The status quo for 6,700 people in the First Congressional District 
of Indiana is unemployment. The status quo for many of those 6,700 
people who have probably permanently lost their job in the domestic 
steel industry and in other industrial facilities is that they have now 
also permanently lost their health care. Their status quo for the next 
7 days is to pray that they, their spouses, and their children do not 
have an injury and that they do not get sick.
  Many of those 6,700 people in the First Congressional District of 
Indiana who have lost their job have been forced into early retirement. 
They were promised a pension. The status quo for a good number of those 
people who were promised a pension is that they will get less than they 
were promised because the companies they worked for are some of the 37 
that have entered into bankruptcy over the last several years.
  We have had programs over the last several years under the Clinton 
administration to help reduce class sizes so that the children in the 
First Congressional District could receive the best education possible, 
so hopefully, if jobs ever return to the First District, they would be 
eligible for them; but we are talking about the status quo and not 
reducing class sizes over the next 7 days.
  We are the status quo Congress, and given the market's collapse, 
given the recession that we are in, given the deficit that has been 
created, I think we have much better things to be doing today than 
maintaining the status quo.
  I hope that the rule is defeated.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  I have just heard my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, talk about 
the status quo. The status quo is that we want to keep the government 
going; we do not want it to shut down. That is really the alternative 
we are faced with right now.
  What we are dealing with is a continuing resolution that will go from 
October 4 to October 11. Now, people have been talking about the fact 
that we have this unprecedented situation, and we have never been in 
these dire straits before when it comes to the process of 
appropriations.
  It is true, we may be moving into new territory, but we have done 
some of our work here. It is clear that we have passed 5 of the 13 
appropriations bills. As the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) 
pointed out in his testimony before the Committee on Rules yesterday, 
we basically have six other bills in the bullpen ready to go that we 
would like to consider.
  I do not want to spend a lot of time talking about history here, but, 
Mr. Speaker, Members should realize that we have, in the past, to my 
knowledge, never had a time when the minority did not fail to offer a 
budget. This year we know there was no alternative, so our friends can 
talk and say, shame on you, and we should be embarrassed and all; but 
our friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, have not come 
up with a proposed budget. We know that the only entity to pass out a 
budget was the House of Representatives. We did it with Republican 
support, and it was the Republican budget that moved ahead.
  If we look at the past, Mr. Speaker, we also have had times where we 
have dealt with continuing resolutions going back to 1990, when we saw 
a continuing resolution that was vetoed by the President. We saw one of 
the subcommittees have a continuing resolution that lasted an entire 
year.
  So yes, this is a challenging time for us. We are trying to get a 
continuing resolution passed for October 4 to October 11 so we can get 
our work done dealing with the very challenging situation. We have been 
able to deal with the very, very tough times since September 11 of last 
year, providing basically about $100 billion, and we have stepped up to 
the plate and done that.
  So we are at a time of war. This is a war on terrorism that we are 
dealing with. That has created many of the challenges that we have.
  However, I hope we will be able to come together and work on this 
process. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) for the fine work he is doing in trying to move this process 
along.
  Let us pass this rule, let us pass this continuing resolution, and 
let us continue working as hard as we possibly can to get our work 
done.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), who just stated that we Democrats had no 
budget. If the gentleman who is the chairman would listen for a moment, 
I believe he will agree that when I appeared before the Committee on 
Rules asking that the Blue Dog budget be made in order, we were denied 
an opportunity to bring it to the floor of the House because it did not 
meet the preconceived notion of what a budget ought to look like. I 
keep hearing this and we will hear it again today time and time again, 
but it does not speak the truth because some of us do want to bring a 
budget to the floor of the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I am sorry 
that I did not hear exactly what the gentleman said earlier, but let me 
say that you recall in the past that what we have done and what we have 
tried to do this year was to have a complete budget package that was 
put forward and not an amendment process, and we went through this 
debate earlier when we went through it. And the gentleman and I 
disagree on that, but I think it is very clear to state for the record 
that from our interpretation we did not have a complete budget 
substitute that was put forward.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly correct in the 
way he states it, but that is not the way this body should work. We 
should not have preconceived notions of what the budget ought to look 
like and deny the minority an opportunity to even have an amendment. 
And that is what has caused us to be in the position we are in today, 
in which we, the House, have not passed but five appropriations bills 
and yet my friends on this side stand up and blame the other body 
because we have not done our work.
  And I would ask that the gentleman on the Committee on Rules in this 
rule today, do we have a continuation of the pay-go rules and the 
discretionary caps, or have we allowed them to expire?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, there is no pay-go on this. 
This is just appropriations only.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, so we do not have pay-go and discretionary 
pay caps in this amendment. I understand that this is a CR that 
continues all programs at last year's levels; and, therefore, a pay cap 
is not necessary. I understand that. But I take this to the floor today 
to notice that the Blue Dog Democrats and I believe a large number of 
my other colleagues on this side are going to insist that when we get 
into a CR that takes us into a lame duck session or a CR that takes us 
into next year or a CR that takes us into the next century, based on 
the way this House is being run, we think there ought to be some 
meaningful pay-go

[[Page 18990]]

rules, and they ought not be allowed to expire.
  And I would appreciate in the discussion if the finger pointing would 
stop and most of us, and when I point the finger at my friends over 
here, I always acknowledge three are coming back at me. But it is an 
interesting dilemma where it has gotten us to the point in which we are 
not doing our work on education, on any of the much-needed Medicare/
Medicaid rules; and yet all we can do here is point the finger at the 
other body.
  Let us do our work, and you will be surprised what kind of help you 
get if you allow us to debate these issues instead of stonewalling as 
you did on the budget.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the gentleman and the points that 
were made by several Members that have spoken today, it does not do us 
any good to point fingers; but there are some things that have happened 
that we cannot ignore that we are dealing with. And one of the things 
that we are dealing with is that we have not passed a budget in the 
Congress. That makes it very, very difficult for both Houses to deal 
with their appropriations process with the same numbers. That is the 
difficulty. And, again, it does not do any good to point fingers at 
that, but that is the fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. In the summer of 2001 
the majority came to this floor with its tax cut proposal and told us 
the following: for the new budget year that we are heading into, for 
every $100 that we were going to spend, we would have about $115 of 
income coming in without touching Social Security.
  Well, they underestimated the impact of the recession. They 
understandably could not foresee the impact of September 11, and they 
irresponsibly went ahead with the tax cut in the face of good economic 
judgment.
  So where we do stand today? For every $100 we are scheduled to spend, 
we do not have $115 coming in. We have $90, $90.
  The reason that we do not have a budget on the floor is the majority 
does not want to confront the hard consequences of that problem that it 
created, because there are only three choices. The first choice is to 
slash education, health care, environmental protections, veterans 
benefits, lots of things that lots of people on their side support. So 
they cannot bring to this floor appropriations bills that do that and 
pass them.
  The second option would violate a seeming religious principle of the 
majority which would be to renegotiate the size and speed of the tax 
cut, which is what a rational, sensible approach to this problem would 
be; but it violates the creed of the Republican Party, so that is off 
the table.
  The third option is to do what we are going to do after the voters 
have spoken on November 5, and that is to cover the hole in the budget 
by spending Social Security money. The majority does not want its 
Members to face the electorate in 33 days and explain they voted to run 
this government by spending Social Security money. So rather than 
renegotiate their sacred tax cut, rather than bring to this floor a 
budget bill that would reflect the conscience of the choice they 
irresponsibly made in 2001, they are playing rope-a-dope with the 
American public.
  So we will come back next week and pass another extension and the 
week after that and pass another extension. The problem with this rule 
and the problem with this continuing resolution is that it 
misrepresents the choices that confront the American public. The 
majority is going to run the government by spending Social Security 
money. We object to that. And we forcefully object to the unanimous 
consent that they will not talk about the consequences of making that 
choice. We should defeat this rule. We should sit down as Republicans 
and Democrats, renegotiate this country's budget, pull us back out of 
the red, pull our economy back up, and stop the charade that we see on 
the House floor today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the important thing for those 
of us who share the responsibilities of this Nation is, of course, to 
make sure that the government works for the people. And so we are on 
the floor today to deal with what we call a continuing resolution. We 
do this in the shadow of war and the costliness of $100 billion that 
may be spent on a preemptive unilateral strike by this White House. But 
I think the important thing that should be focused on is the needs and 
the hurts of the American people.
  I may use the 18th Congressional District to suggest that I know that 
there are good people working here on both sides of the aisle. I know 
the appropriators are trying to work steadfastly. But here is what is 
happening to the American people while we are stalemated, if you will, 
around appropriations. Take the 18th Congressional District in Houston, 
Texas. We have got agencies that deal with child care that are 
literally shutting down because working parents who are trying to make 
ends meet do not have the funding for child care. We do not have the 
100,000 teachers promised that was made a couple of years ago, so that 
there are 16,000 fewer teachers being trained. We find with the new 
numbers in poverty that there are now 1.3 million families living in 
poverty. In my own congressional district and State we have got 700,000 
homeowners that have no insurance. We have as well those who are losing 
their benefits of Medicare and Medicaid because our Labor-HHS bill that 
covers education and Medicare and Medicaid has not yet been funded.
  And so what we do on this floor is so vital; it absolutely impacts 
the matters of life and death for our constituencies. And here we are 
with a continuing resolution because Republicans refuse to recognize 
that the multibillion dollars tax cut that was rendered some months ago 
must be ceased and stopped so that we can focus ourselves on providing 
the needs of the American people in a bipartisan manner. I hate to go 
home to my seniors who are making choices between their prescription 
drugs and paying their rents and their mortgages. I hate to go home to 
young mothers who want to work who have moved off welfare but cannot 
function because they have no child care. I hate to go home to my inner 
city schools because they are overloaded in their classrooms.
  Vote against this rule and get back to work on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in support of 
the continuing resolution. I have listened to some of the debate this 
morning and have heard a number of my Democratic colleagues harshly 
critical of this continuing resolution. I do not know whether they 
intend to vote for the continuing resolution or not; but as we all 
know, a vote against the continuing resolution is a vote to shut down 
the government. And while we are struggling to finish this 
appropriations process, and it is a struggle, today the Republicans are 
going to make it very clear that we do not think that we should shut 
down the government while we work out the differences that we still 
have.
  So we are going to pass this continuing resolution today. I hope we 
have support from my Democratic colleagues on that. Judging from the 
discussion so far this morning, I am not terribly optimistic; but I 
hope we will because, as I said, we should keep the government open 
while we resolve these differences.
  As always for the CR itself, frankly, I would not write it. If it 
were up to

[[Page 18991]]

me, I would not write it exactly this way, but it is a short term CR; 
it does not take us terribly long into the future. Hopefully, it will 
take us past the time in which the defense appropriations bill will be 
signed into law. That is about half of the discretionary spending in 
this process, and that will give us a chance to revisit this issue. And 
if we have not worked out the rest of the appropriations bills, we can 
refine and improve and hopefully perfect the continuing resolution that 
might be required at that point. If we can do that, I will support that 
CR. If we cannot improve it and correct the flaws, then I will vote 
against that continuing resolution.
  But the point is as we go through this process we Republicans are 
responsibly trying to struggle through a difficult process to work out 
our differences and pass the spending bills necessary for this 
government. And it is a difficult process for a simple reason. We think 
there ought to be some budgetary restraints. We think there is a point 
at which we have got to say to the American people what we have said 
twice on this floor when we have passed the budget resolution, a second 
time when we have passed the deeming resolution acknowledging that as 
an operative budget.
  What we said is we have got huge new needs for funding this war on 
terrorism. We have got huge new expenses we have got to incur to 
protect our homeland. And given those huge new expenses which we all 
accept, we have got to tighten our belts in some of the other areas of 
government where we cannot afford to keep growing all of these programs 
at three, four and five times the rate of inflation, as we have in 
recent years.
  What we are simply saying is we need a little bit of restraint in 
these other areas of government. Now, there would be an easy solution 
to this and it is the solution that would draw a tremendous majority of 
votes on the Democratic side of this aisle, and that would be to forget 
about the budget and just spend a whole lot more. Maybe we could just 
agree to whatever number is being floated at the other end of this 
building or maybe a higher number still because the objection on this 
side of the aisle is that we are not spending enough money.
  Well, my colleagues, we have been spending too much money for too 
long. We have got legitimate needs in defense and homeland security. It 
is time to tighten our belts in the other areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the continuing 
resolution and continue this struggle for a responsible budget.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate another continuing resolution, and there is 
talk of recessing until after the elections, I am concerned we have not 
addressed all 13 appropriations bills and extending unemployment 
benefits.
  Congress enacted a budget last year based on projections of a $5.6 
trillion surplus. Several Members warned about the danger of making 
decisions based on projected surpluses that might not materialize, but 
our warnings were ignored. One year later the projections have turned 
out to be wrong and we are looking at large deficits and a growing 
national debt.
  Circumstances have changed dramatically since we enacted the 
Republican budget last year. The projections turned out to be too 
optimistic, revenues are much lower than expected, we face tremendous 
new expenses for homeland defense and the war on terrorism and a 
possible war with Iraq. But the Republicans refuse to consider any 
changes to their budget policies in response to the changed 
circumstances.
  We understand that circumstances have changed greatly in the past 
year. We understand the economy is in turmoil and we are facing a war 
on terrorism but that does not give us an excuse to not come up with a 
budget. We should not ignore our responsibility to the American people.
  The American people have shown a tremendous willingness to make 
sacrifices to help win the war on terrorism, just as they did in World 
War II. But instead of asking all Americans to make sacrifices to pay 
for the war on terrorism, the administration and Republican leadership 
are paying for the war with borrowed money, leaving the bill to be paid 
for by someone else in the future.
  In my congressional district in central and southern Illinois, there 
is a high unemployment rate and the economy is suffering. Mr. Speaker, 
I am concerned because the Republicans refuse to extend unemployment 
benefits to the millions who have exhausted benefits and need help now. 
Unemployment is at an all time high and median household income has 
dropped. The stock market has lost millions and the Dow is at a low.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned we are going to leave these important 
issues unaddressed until after the elections.
  Oppose previous question and let us get on with doing the people's 
business.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, the continuing resolution before us is an indictment of 
the Republican majority. They have failed to help the unemployed, 
failed to rescue the economy, failed to complete the appropriations 
process and failed the American people.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will introduce a package that 
contains the CR we are debating today, extends unemployment insurance, 
brings the Labor-HHS bill to the floor so that we can move the 
appropriations process forward, and calls for an economic stimulus 
package to get this country moving again.
  Meaningless sense of the House resolutions will not get it done, Mr. 
Speaker. Passing continuing resolutions to avoid tough choices is not 
going to get it done either. There is an unfinished agenda of issues 
that mean something to the middle-class Americans, Mr. Speaker, and 
Democrats want to help them, even if Republicans do not.
  By defeating the previous question, the House can take up this 
economic package and reverse the economic decline that the Republicans 
have brought us. Let us get America back to work again.
  I urge a no vote on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 568

                          Offered by Mr. Frost

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       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. 112) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, 
     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 on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. (a) Immediately after disposition of H.J. Res. 112, 
     the Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the 
     Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 5320) making appropriations 
     for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. All points or order against provision in the bill are 
     waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those specified in subsection (b). Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by 
     the Member specified or his designee, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment. All points of order against such amendments 
     (except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI) are waived. 
     If more than one of the amendments specified in subsection 
     (b) is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be 
     considered as finally adopted and reported to the House. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

[[Page 18992]]

       (b) The amendments referred to in subsection (a) are as 
     follows:
       (1) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Shadegg of Arizona.
       (2) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Obey of Wisconsin.
       (3) An amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
     Representative Young of Florida.
       Sec. 3 Immediately after disposition of H.R. 5320, the 
     House shall without intervention of any point of order 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5491) to provide 
     economic security for America's workers. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Representative Thomas of California or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     (except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI), shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 4. (a) On the legislative day of Thursday, October 10, 
     2002, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall without 
     intervention of any point of order consider in the House the 
     bill specified in subsection (b). The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except; (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) an 
     amendment specified in subsection (c), which shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       (b) The bill referred to in subsection (a) is a bill that 
     Representative Thomas of California shall introduce on or 
     before the legislative day of October 7, 2002, on the subject 
     of economic stimulus and that Representative Thomas shall 
     designate as introduced pursuant to this resolution.
       (c) The amendment referred to in subsection (a) is an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of a bill that Representative Rangel of New York shall 
     introduce on or before the legislative day of Wednesday, 
     October 9, 2002, on the subject of economic stimulus and that 
     Representative Rangel shall designate as introduced pursuant 
     to this resolution.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206, 
nays 198, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 438]

                               YEAS--206

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

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     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 (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     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
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Aderholt
     Baker
     Callahan
     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Green (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Kennedy (MN)
     Lampson
     Mascara
     McKinney
     Napolitano
     Platts
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Schrock
     Souder
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Waxman

                              {time}  1141

  Mr. HILL and Mr. UDALL of Colorado changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. LEACH and Mr. REGULA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was attending a 
White House briefing on Iraq. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''

[[Page 18993]]


  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was at 
the White House for a briefing on Iraq. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was attending a White 
House briefing on Iraq. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was detained at a 
meeting in the White House and could not return to the House floor 
before the vote concluded. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________