THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Those are precisely the people who should have been listening. If nothing else, this do-nothing 106th Congress has finally debunked the myth of the free-spending Democrat and unmasked the fiscally irresponsible Republicans and who they are.

[Page: H11452]  GPO's PDF

   This majority has wasted the last 2 years trying to enact a tax scheme that would drain the entire projected budget surplus over the next decade and threatened to eat into that portion of the surplus set aside for Social Security and Medicare.

   Mr. Speaker, now, they are loading up spending bills at funding level over and above what the President requested in his budget.

   As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPRATT), my good friend, pointed out earlier this week, the nine appropriations conference reports to date provide outlays that exceed the President's 2001 budget by $11.4 billion. None of them could pass. None of them could get to the President without the majority party's support.

   Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPRATT) also noted that the 106th Congress is on track to increase spending on nondefense appropriations, and we ought to listen to this. We ought to listen to this figure, and I see the gentleman from Western Maryland, (Mr. BARRETT), my colleague, that the majority is going to pass, yes, the President can veto and my colleagues can say, gee, whiz, we could not get our way. I understand that.

   Mr. Speaker, I am talking about what my colleagues are going to pass and send to him.

   The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPRATT) noted that the 106th Congress is on track to increase spending on nondefense appropriations at the fastest growth rate, 5.2 percent, since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was enacted. The House is going to pass, not the President is going to sign and propose, the House is going to pass the largest increase in domestic discretionary spending since 1974.

   Since enactment of the Budget Act, nondefense appropriations have grown an average of 2.1 percent when Republicans controlled the House, and only 1.2 percent, half of that, per year when Democrats controlled the House. That does not comport with the facts that my colleagues would like to portray. Those are the facts, and my colleagues can check with your CBO on whether I am inaccurate.

   So tell me, who needs a lecture on fiscal discipline? I do not think there is a soul in this House who does not understand why our budget process is broken down this year and why this eighth continuing resolution is necessary.

   The Republican majority insisted, not the appropriators, not the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the 13 cardinals, insisted on passing a phony budget resolution last spring that turned our appropriations process into a sham.

   As The Washington Post stated, and I quote, ``The Republicans continue to insist on a make-believe fiscal policy. The familiar fable is that they can cut taxes, finance the boomers' old age and increase defense and selected other spending while maintaining fiscal discipline.''

   Mr. Speaker, it cannot be done. It has not been done, and it is a shame.

[Time: 10:00]

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, why do we have a loggerhead? Republican fault? Democrat fault? There is a very strong difference of opinion on who should control people's lives, either people or Washington, D.C.

   The gentleman that just spoke in the well just talked about no Patients' Bill of Rights. Many of us feel that it is wrong, absolutely wrong to have unlimited lawsuits which would drive up health care costs and would force HMOs out of business. Many Americans like HMOs. Some do not. They have legitimate concerns on that side of the aisle and on our side of the aisle.

   But then the liberal trial lawyers would go down and sue the small businesses that hire those HMOs or care providers in good faith, and it would hurt small business. That is why National Federation of Independent Business, Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Associations were opposed to it. There is a legitimate concern on our side of the aisle that it hurts the economy and hurts business. So, no, we did not support it.

   School construction. We feel within the Labor-HHS bill, I serve on that subcommittee, that if we want to give school construction dollars, my colleagues want amnesty to 4 million illegals in the Commerce, State, Justice, we have got 43 million uninsured Americans. We agree that that is terrible. But, automatically, we are going to have 47 million uninsured Americans on health care. They petition their families, and now we are going to have over 50 million uninsured Americans. Think what that is going to do to the cost of health care. Think of what it is going to do to our overburdened schools.

   So, yes, we have a difference of opinion. In the school construction, we feel that, if we give Federal dollars down to the schools for construction, then it ought to be bid between the unions and private enterprise so that we can get the best quality and the best amount of construction for our schools.

   But my colleagues on the other side want only the union wage , the prevailing wage , which costs about 35 percent in some States down to 15 percent in some States. We are saying, let it be bid, let the schools keep the extra money for class size reduction, teacher pay, those kinds of issues. But my colleagues on the other side, the President is saying, no, I want it for the unions.

   I see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BONIOR), the Minority Whip on the floor. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BONIOR) has gotten over $2 million from the unions. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT), $1.7 million from the unions. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. FROST), $1.4 million. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), $1.3 million from the unions. They want to continue giving the money to the unions that goes to Democrats campaigns.

   We are saying we want the money, not to go to the union bosses, but to go to the schools. There is a difference of opinion. I choose the schools over union bosses and campaigns.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

   Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that the gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM) has, in my view, questioned the motivation for Members' votes on the House floor. The use of innuendo may be clever, but it is not constructive. The gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM) is a good man, and he ought to be able to do better than that.

   Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from California tell those gentlemen the he just named that he was going to use those names before he used them on the House floor, knowing they were in a Democratic caucus so they could not respond to him? Does he regard that as the gentlemanly thing to do?

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BONIOR) was on the floor. I looked at him face to face.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how many men did the gentleman from California name?

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Four.

   Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman from California see all four of them on the House floor?

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were, Mr. Speaker, two of them were.

   Mr. OBEY. No, they were not. Two of them were in the caucus. One of them happens to be the caucus chairman.

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is for the record, Mr. Speaker. That is right off the Web page.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, with all due respect, regardless of what the rules allow, I think it is simply not fair to raise individual Member's names on the floor and, through innuendo, question what their positions are without informing them ahead of time. I find it most unfortunate. In the case of the gentleman, I find it also to be habitual.

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Wisconsin was offended, I apologize. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BONIOR) was on the floor.

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California named the gentleman from Texas (Mr. FROST). He named a number of other people. It

[Page: H11453]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER).

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people that the gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM) mentioned. He is right. I am proud of the fact that working men and women of America who are organized support me. They do so because they believe I support them. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

   He moved in committee to strike provisions. We could build a lot of things a lot cheaper. But do my colleagues know, two Republicans, a gentleman named Davis and a gentleman named Bacon, two Republicans from New York said that they did not want cheap labor, scab labor, people who were brought in to work for wages that could not support themselves and their family? Two Republicans said that is not right. If we are going to spend public money, we ought to pay the people who build them fairly.

   Now, we just passed a resolution, I will tell the gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM), some weeks ago about slave labor building this Capitol. It was much cheaper to do it that way, I will tell the gentleman from California, much cheaper; but it was wrong.

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH).

   Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman YOUNG) for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I have just got to say I am very encouraged about coming back to the 107th Congress, because it appears a new era of civility is dawning, because it seems to me, in the past 4 years, Members' names were thrown around all the time on this floor without advanced calling. In fact, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), who was just offended, I believe, used the name of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. MORELLA). I will be talking to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. MORELLA) this morning to see if she got a postcard before that happened.

   I understand why the Democrats are frustrated and upset. They got news last night that their Presidential candidate is down 13 percent. I would be upset, too. But they come to the floor, and they say that we have not done anything, and we have not passed anything this year.

   In fact, one gentleman from Maryland came to the floor and actually said that we were in town because the tax bill did not pass. They know that is not the truth. It is not the tax bill that is keeping us in town. While he can quote a newspaper whose editor obviously does not know how Congress works, I am a bit disappointed he does not know any better. I expect the President to sign that bill after the election is over, but we will see. But that is not what is keeping us here.

   I do want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), the ranking member. I think he set a very positive tone this morning. I thank him. But others coming to the floor saying we have done nothing this year is disappointing.

   We heard the gentleman from Maryland say we passed no prescription drug benefit. That is not true. We did. In fact, while we were working on the bill, the Democrats exited that door right there because they could not have their way. The same thing goes with the Patients' Bill of Rights.

   I disagree with the gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM). I think HMOs should be sued. But do my colleagues know what, we sit down, we talk about it, we negotiate it, we do not try to make it an election year issue. But what do they do? They run away and say we have done nothing on the issue.

   The same thing with education. We actually want to fund education just as much as Democrats. The difference is we want teachers, parents and educators and hometowns to make the decision how that money is spent instead of Washington lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats.

   There is a difference, and we can talk these differences out. But one cannot have one's way all the time. I learned that. I have been here for 6 years, and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman YOUNG) will tell you, I had a rough 2 or 3 years, because I thought it had to be my way or the highway. Well, I hope I have grown a little bit and understand the need to compromise.

   Unfortunately, too many of our Democratic friends here today say we must have it our way or else the Republicans have done absolutely nothing over the past 2 years. That is not the case. One cannot have 100 percent of the pie.

   Like George W. Bush says, and the reason why he is 13 points ahead, we need to change the way Washington works. We need to come together, make this institution work, and unite, not divide, not have Presidents flying to fund raisers across the country, not having Senators flying home whenever they feel like it, but people sitting down at the table.

   Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) yield me 30 additional seconds?

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, since I would acknowledge that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH) has in fact grown considerably during his time here, I yield him another minute.

   Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have grown. I thank the gentleman from Florida very much.

   But now is the time for everybody to follow my example of growing, come together, let us sit down, talk this out. Again, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, today. I thought that his comments were very positive, that the appropriators are willing to sit down, talk this out, do the people's business and go home and not use all this for election year issues.

   So I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman YOUNG) for the additional 30 seconds and for recognizing my amazing growth over the past 4 years.

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise us as to the time remaining on each side.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LAHOOD). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) has 18 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) has 7 1/2 minutes remaining.

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. GILCHRIST).

   Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, there is not much else I can add to what the other gentleman from Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH) has just said in a very eloquent way.

   But there has been a lot of discussion here this morning that the Republicans are responsible for gridlock, phony numbers, and partisan politics. All I will say to that is this Chamber does allow each Member to be a responsible advocate for what they believe. What that means is there is, fundamentally, opportunity for a difference of opinion. So gridlock is each of us having the freedom, as Members of Congress, as do all Americans, to express their heartfelt opinions.

   It has also been said this morning that the Republicans are spending $11 billion over what the President requested. That is true, because we are spending more money for health care and more money for education. That is where the dollars should go, and that is where the dollars are directed.

   Now, the third point I want to make is that some of us on our aisle have a difference of opinion from those on the other side of the aisle dealing with health care, more specifically dealing with Medicare.

   The President wants the Federal Government to be entirely in charge of the Medicare program; that is, Medicare part A, Medicare part B, and probably a prescription drug program or any other +Choice programs for our senior citizens; for the Federal Government, through HCFA, to pay all those expenses.

   Those on our side of the aisle want a mix of Federal Government participation and the private sector. We want

[Page: H11454]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. FOLEY).

   Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about politics today, so I figured I would weigh in on an issue that is of extreme importance to women and one that I am very critical of the President over. I want to express my absolute outrage over President Clinton's decision to play politics with women's health.

[Time: 10:15]

   Early this month, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act cleared the Congress and was sent to the President for his signature. This measure is critical because it covers the cost of treating low-income women who are screened through Federal programs and found to have breast or cervical cancer. Thousands upon thousands of low-income women in America are affected by this very, very important measure and President Clinton knows it. That is why he signed it into law yesterday.

   Unlike so many other bills, however, he signed this one into law with no White House ceremony, no fanfare, not even a press release, apparently, even though he of all people knows that such ceremonies are the best way of getting the media attention to focus on this issue. This month is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It was a perfect opportunity for him to hold a ceremony to draw attention to a new option that will literally save thousands of lives. But he chose not to highlight it. And why? Because his wife is running for the Senate seat for New York against one of the main authors of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LAZIO).

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents