[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 150 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H12023-H12028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House
of December 6, 2000, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 127)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
[[Page H12024]]
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 127 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 127
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-275, is further amended by striking the date
specified in section 106(c) and inserting ``December 8,
2000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Wednesday, December 6, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on House Joint Resolution 127, and that I may include
tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 127 is one more continuing
resolution that is required, inasmuch as several of the appropriations
bills have not been concluded. I might say that these bills basically
are awaiting conclusion not because of appropriations issues but
because of extraneous issues that in my opinion do not even belong in
an appropriations bill. But nevertheless, these issues are there, and
they are causing some controversy.
So I would point out to our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that we have set
a record. This is the largest number of continuing resolutions that any
Congress to my knowledge has ever considered. It is not the longest
number of days covered by CRs, but this one is No. 18.
The reason that we have had to present so many continuing resolutions
is because we cannot get agreement to go beyond 1 day at a time, in
most of the cases, so we are here with a one-day CR. Tomorrow, we will
have to do another CR. Saturday, we may have to do another one-day CR,
unless the negotiations that are taking place at the White House as we
speak with the President produce some concrete decisions.
If that is the case, then we will be able to present to the Members a
final package of appropriations measures by the middle of next week.
But at this point, Mr. Speaker, it remains to be seen what comes from
the White House meeting between our leaders, the bicameral and
bipartisan leadership, and the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed Groundhog Day over and over and
over and over again. As I think most Members understand, we were
supposed to have our budget work done by October 1. It is not rare that
we do not. That has often happened in the history of the House under
both parties.
What is rare is this difference. In the past, in the main, continuing
resolutions which keep the government open after the expiration of the
previous fiscal year are passed for the purpose of giving the
leadership of both parties and those involved in negotiations an
opportunity to have more time to complete their work by resolving their
differences.
Instead, I am forced to conclude that continuing resolutions in this
situation are being used as a tool to shield this institution from
doing its work resolving our differences and completing the work needed
on the budget for not the coming year but the year that we have been in
since October 1.
Continuing resolutions are supposed to be used to buy time to find
compromises. Yet, we see gross evidence that in fact there are other
plans afoot. I do not care if we take a look at the Washington Post
today or if we take a look at the Wall Street Journal or if we take a
look at the New York Times or if we take a look at the AP report, which
I have seen today, we see that the distinguished whip on the majority
side of the aisle, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), is in essence
counseling that what the majority party ought to do is to push the
President into a position where he is forced to choose between shutting
down government agencies and accepting what he describes as Republican
priorities, including a very large scale-back of education funding
which was in the budget agreement which was negotiated and agreed to
before the elections but was never brought to the floor by the
leadership of the House.
I deeply believe that there are the votes to pass that proposal if it
can ever reach the floor of the House, but permission to bring it to
the floor of the House is being withheld.
We are being told that what must happen in order for us to complete
our work is that many billions of dollars in education funding which
were agreed to in that conference report should now be stripped out of
that bill as a price for its passage. Until that happens, we are being
asked to pass a series of continuing resolutions a day at a time or two
days at a time that slowly click the clock down to the point where
there is no time left to do anything to provide this funding for this
year. That is why we are now on the 18th continuing resolution since
October 1.
I would ask those who are urging that the education funding be cut
back in the bill that we negotiated, I would ask whether they really do
believe that we ought to back away from what I regarded as one of the
best achievements of this Congress, a negotiated agreement that
provided a 22 percent increase in support for education over the
previous year.
If Members do not like those increases, I would ask, which ones do
they want to cut back? Do they want to see the class size reduction
program cut back, so we can slack off on our effort to reduce the size
of classes?
Do they want to reduce the after-school learning programs that we are
trying to ramp up so that children from families with two parents
working outside the household can spend the after-school hours in a
meaningful learning experience with adult supervision, rather than
either roaming the streets or going home to an empty house?
Would they prefer that we eliminate some of the funding for the Title
I program under which 900,000 disadvantaged students are supposed to
receive extra help in reading and math, for instance?
Would they propose that we scale back the hard-won increase of $500
per child in the Pell grant program in the maximum grant?
Would they propose that we scale back the work study program?
Which of these education programs is it in the national interest to
scale back on from the amounts that were negotiated on a bipartisan
level between both houses of the Congress and the administration?
Should we scale back on the efforts to improve the quality of teacher
instruction in some 15,000 school districts in this country?
Do we really want to have physical education teachers continuing to
teach math and English teachers continuing to teach science? I do not
think so. Do we really want to scale back on the effort to help huge,
humongous-sized high schools redesign themselves into smaller, more
intimate learning centers? I do not think we want to do that.
It seems to me that we have a majority in both parties that would
support that agreement if it could be brought to the floor. I would
urge the leadership of the House to allow that agreement to come to the
floor. It was negotiated in good faith, and that apparently is what is
preventing us from completing our appropriations work.
I cannot address the other nonappropriation items that are still at
issue in this Congress, but I really believe that if the committee were
allowed to do so, we could reach a reasonable compromise on the
immigration issue in a very short period of time, and I think that we
could produce a majority of votes for an agreed-upon compromise on
education funding.
But if we are to be confronted by ultimatums such as that suggested
by the distinguished minority whip, suggesting that the President
should be backed into a corner where he has to accept what the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) defines as Republican priorities or
else see a shut-down of an agency's ability to perform, then I think we
are in a most destructive atmosphere.
[[Page H12025]]
I find it ironic that the majority party campaigned and their
standardbearer campaigned on the theme that they would pursue a course
of bipartisanship, and yet the very first act they are asking us to
engage in is to back out of a bipartisan agreement that was negotiated
shortly before the election but never brought to the floor for a vote.
I would urge that that approach be reconsidered. I, for one, have
supported all of these continuing resolutions in the hope that they
would give us more time to resolve differences.
{time} 1415
Mr. Speaker, but when they are simply provided as a tool by which
those differences are shielded from being resolved, then I see no
purpose in voting for further continuing resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this one, but I see no reason to vote
for any continuing resolution beyond tomorrow, because we ought to be
able to wrap this up in a day or a day and a half.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
that I will have two speakers for brief periods of time. After that,
then the gentleman may wish to respond; and then I will have a closing
statement and that will be the extent of our debate for today.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman that if, in fact, the
President of the United States would be agreeable to a compromise
package that will be presented to him today, the gentleman from
Wisconsin is correct, we can finish this in a day and a half. But that
has not been too easy to get that agreement.
As a matter of fact, on July 27 of this year, we concluded the
conference on the Labor, HHS appropriations bill, and then October 29,
we finally came to an agreement on a bipartisan fashion in a sort of a
conference agreement, but the next morning, that agreement fell apart
not because of something that had to do with appropriations, but
something that was not related to appropriations. And that is one of
the problems that we are facing.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the problems that we have been faced with
on appropriations bills through this whole season. The appropriations
part of the process was the easy part of the job. Where we found great
difficulty was on those riders that were attached to appropriations
bills.
Why is that the case? Because appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker, have
to pass. Congress has to pass appropriations bills. Members, whether
they are rank and file Members or whether they are leadership Members,
see a vehicle out here that has to pass. And since a regular
authorizing vehicle might not be available, they say hey, here is a
good chance to do what I want to do on the appropriations bill that has
to pass.
Those are the kind of controversies that have caused us time
problems. And I say again, the appropriations part of these bills have
not created most of the controversies that we have experienced.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I may ask a question of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but
there are those of us who are rank and file Republicans who frankly
were somewhat alarmed by what we saw in the newspapers of the statement
by the distinguished majority whip that we should have a 1-year
continuing resolution. Agreeing with what I think the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said and what the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has said, it is the judgment of a lot of us that this has been
worked on very hard by both parties, a lot of good input has gone into
it, a lot of progress has been made. We are pretty close to the end.
These various programs would be good for this country, and we should
try to do it as rapidly as possible. Let me point out, we are, I think,
2 months and a week beyond the beginning of the fiscal year for which
this should have been done. I think personally it should be done by
this particular Congress and this particular President and not by the
next President and the next Congress.
I would glean from the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) that the gentleman is in agreement with this and that is the
direction which the gentleman continues to go, in spite of what I read
of the statements of the majority whip.
I assume that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker
of the House, is still in that position, and just the comforts to us
who feel this is what we are waiting for and that we are having
continuing resolutions for and we have been waiting for, I would like
to get the gentleman's view of that.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman is
exactly correct. I agree with the statement that he made. I believe
that the 106th Congress should complete the business of the 106th
Congress.
I think it will be a tragic mistake to try to run this continuing
resolution until the end of the fiscal year. I would strongly object to
that, and I certainly cannot speak for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hastert), the Speaker of the House. That gentleman will speak for
himself. And as far as the majority whip, I might tell you that he
enjoys the same frustrations that we all experience, but the gentleman
is trying to find a way to get things moving, just like all of us are.
Why he said what he said certainly is in his own mind, but I can tell
the gentleman that his motives are to get this work concluded. And if
he uses the tactic to get our attention, that may be what he is doing.
I am not sure, but I know that he wants this job concluded.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that regardless of all of that, I agree.
It is our responsibility to conclude the business of the 106th
Congress, and we must do it as expeditiously as possible. But I must
remind everyone that we are not only dealing with ourselves here in the
House, Republicans and Democrats. We are also dealing with the United
States Senate, Republicans and Democrats. We are also dealing with
someone with a very big stick, a veto pen, who resides at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
It is not easy to bring these very divergent groups together, but
that is what we are trying to do. And I agree with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), one day CRs, in my opinion, are ridiculous.
We ought not be wasting the time of the Congress doing that. We
should be using the time to conclude our business, but I am definitely
opposed to a year-long continuing resolution.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the comments of the gentleman give me
comfort, and I thank the gentleman a great deal.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I have not been in negotiations in the
White House. I am not a Member of the Republican leadership, but I am a
concerned citizen, and I also am a Member of a bipartisan group which
met with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) yesterday and Members
from both sides to try to find a way to bring our two parties together.
We have gone over and over the issues. We have gone over and over the
dollar amounts. We have had things on the table and off the table and
back on the table, and it just seems to me that we do a job in the
amount of time we allow ourselves to do it in, and we are about at that
point.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, because I think he
has done an extraordinary job, are the issues such that we can, within
a reasonable period of time, I say 24, 48 hours, solve these things and
vote on them?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
MR. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the issues are serious, and the
issues are dealing with numbers that are very high in one area to some
members, very low with another group of Members, also with the
President, but some of the issues as I mentioned are not even related
to appropriations.
[[Page H12026]]
The gentleman will recall we had the argument over the ergonomics
issue, and then we had quite an argument over the question of granting
blanket amnesty to those who are here in the United States illegally.
Those are two big issues that are not appropriations issues, but are
being considered using the appropriations bill as a vehicle for their
enactment. So things like that are causing us problems.
Can we get together? I do not see why we cannot get together. What
needs to happen is everybody needs to realize that no one is going to
get their way exactly the way they wanted it.
I am chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but I cannot get my
way all the time, and chairmen of our subcommittees cannot get their
way all the time, but what we all have to recognize is there has to be
a consensus.
We are almost evenly divided in this House and in the other body, so
it is time to recognize each side has to give a little. If you want to
get something, you have to give something, and that is what it is going
to take to conclude our business.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the, I think, thoughtful
and bipartisan comments made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friends in a new
bipartisan coalition that we have recently formed, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and
certainly with I think the wise remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) that he made to start this debate.
It seems to me that we have two questions here: A question of process
and a question of bipartisanship.
On the question of process, the American people have hired us in the
106th Congress to do a job and to finish a job and to not shirk, to not
neglect, to not ignore those responsibilities for either reasons of
politics and Presidential elections or reasons of convenience and push
off those decisions to the 107th Congress.
We have been paid to make those decisions. We should make those
decisions in this 106th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the second question that I think is important is a
question of bipartisanship. Do we have one individual, a Speaker or a
President, that can stand up and say either stand down and I want it my
way 100 percent or shut down the government? That is not the way this
process and this body works. Nobody is going to get exactly what they
want nor should they.
A number of bipartisan Members of this body, Democrats and
Republicans, have signed on to a letter stating that ``we urge you to
ensure that the FY2001 budget is finalized and approved before the
106th Congress adjourns. We strongly believe that the passage of a
continuing resolution in the next year would only serve to provide this
Congress with an excuse to shirk its duty to the American people.''
That is signed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
We want to see this process work. If we can make this final process
on two of the most important bills that the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have worked in
a bipartisan way, if we can make this work in a bipartisan way, we can
then have a steppingstone to the 107th Congress to begin the needed and
necessary and vital bipartisan work that we are going to require to get
the people's business done.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would sit back down together in a
Democratic and Republican way and finish the job of the 106th Congress
on education and health issues.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record, the following letter:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 6, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Mr. Leader: We applaud your recent
efforts at the highest levels of our congressional leadership
to reach across the aisle and renew a meaningful dialog. As
you know, our group of rank-and-file Republicans and
Democrats is also dedicated to finding practical, bipartisan
solutions to the issues facing the Congress.
Accordingly, we urge you to insure the FY 2001 budget is
finalized and approved before the 106th Congress adjourns. We
strongly believe that the passage of a continuing resolution
into next year would serve only to provide this Congress with
an excuse to shirk its duty to the American people.
Today we offer the support and encouragement of our
membership in whatever ways might be helpful in realizing
this important goal. We look forward to working with you on a
common agenda in the 107th Congress.
Sincerely,
Tim Roemer.
Mike Castle.
Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Ron Kind.
Amo Houghton.
Jim Davis.
James C. Greenwood.
Fred Upton.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding the time to me and I thank all of my
colleagues.
As I listen to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), as I have
listened to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), I would hope
that we can deal with what some of the realities are here.
There is going to be a closing statement where some of these matters
will be discussed, but we cannot reach a compromise nor can we advance
government if leaders on both sides are not willing to work together,
nor can the other side expect this side to believe we can reach an
agreement if top leaders on your side can scuttle a deal if they go
back to their office and learn they were not consulted, or learn that
they were not part of a meeting and suggest to Americans, suggest to
this Congress that they have no problems with shutting down this
government.
Mr. Speaker, it seems fitting that the majority whip's name is DeLay,
because that is what is happening here. And I have great respect for
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay). And I certainly do not mean to
cast aspersions on his person or on him. But we have to deal with this
reality.
I say to my friends on the other side, if you can bring the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the table to agree to work to compromise and
to reach some agreement, not for Republicans or Democrats, but for the
people, then we can all go home.
We are willing to deal. The President is willing to deal. From the
newspaper accounts, Mr. Lott is willing to deal. The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is willing to deal. The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey) is willing to work to try to find agreement, but if the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is going to make all of these
decisions, then perhaps he ought to be the only one in the room when an
agreement is trying to be reached.
Mr. Speaker, I say to all of my friends on the other side, I am proud
to be a part of any organization that seeks to move government forward.
I say to all of my friends, bring the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
to the table, let him lay out what it is exactly he wants, other than
blaming Mr. Clinton for shutting down the government and, perhaps, we
can start from there, move from there, and conclude from that point.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to recapitulate, there are a number of appropriation
bills which still have not passed, but a number of them primarily
because they just got caught up in accidents that started out to happen
to somebody else, and we can fix those in about 5 minutes. No problem
with those.
[[Page H12027]]
There are only two real problems left. One is to find some reasonable
language compromise on the immigration question, which the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) points out correctly, is not an appropriations
issue. The second is to deal with the Labor, Health and Education
appropriation conference report.
{time} 1430
I would remind Members that, when that bill came back from
conference, there were objections raised on both sides of the aisle to
one language provision in that bill, namely, the language provision
that related to ergonomics. I was highly unsatisfied with the results,
from my perspective. A number of Members on that side of the aisle were
highly unsatisfied with the results from their perspective.
But with that exception, I do not recall a single stated objection to
any of the dollar agreements in the bill. I do not recall any arguments
about any of the appropriation decisions on funding levels. To me,
education ought to be the top priority of both parties.
I had said consistently in this debate that, if one looks at the
history of how different programs were increased as they moved through
the process of the education area, that there were some areas such as
special education which were Republican priorities. There were other
areas that were Democratic priorities.
It seems to me, given the realities of the changes in the economic
circumstances that we have seen with these larger surpluses available,
that the one area that deserves top priority for funding is education;
and that if we truly are going to deal in a bipartisan manner, there
ought to be room for the education priorities of both parties within
the same bill.
I think that is the kind of bill that was put together with the help
of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) in that conference report. I would still renew my
request to the House leadership to allow that bill to come to the
floor. I am confident that if they did, there would be enough votes on
both sides of the aisle to pass it in a truly bipartisan fashion, and
we could, at least so far as appropriation items are concerned,
conclude our business on an honorable note.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I, again, agree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) said about the appropriations items. I want to assure the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and all of the Members that, in the
final package, the latest package that we have provided to the
leadership, education is still a high priority for the dollars that
would be appropriated. Medical research through NIH, again, is a very
high priority. The dollars are larger than last year and larger than
the President's request. But we understand the importance of these, and
we want to get these items concluded.
We do not want to continue on a continuing resolution because that
does not provide the additional investment that we need in medical
research, that we need in education, and that we need in the other
people's programs. But we do have to come to an agreement with people
who are very far apart as we speak today.
Of all of the many issues that are out there, most of them are
related one to another. There are one or two keys. If those two keys
can come together, everything else falls into place. So I am
optimistic, and I try to be optimistic all the time. I am optimistic
today.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my friend, said that this is
like Groundhog Day over again. Most people think that Groundhog Day is
that day in February where Punxsutawney Phil comes out of his little
cave, and if he sees his shadow, winter is going to last for a certain
period of time. If he does not see his shadow, it will last for another
period of time.
But what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was referring to
when he said this is like Groundhog Day all over again is a movie named
``Groundhog Day.'' It had to do with a weather forecaster from a
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, television station who was in Punxsutawney to
cover the emerging Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog.
Through some fluke, he got into a situation where he repeated every
day. Day after day after day, he repeated the same day. I agree with
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that it sort of seems like
Groundhog Day here when we are doing continuing resolutions day after
day after day.
I do not know how long this went on, but for this newscaster, it went
on a long time. But he learned so much about so many things in that
period of time. The way the ``Groundhog Day'' was concluded and the day
and the way that he got back into a cycle was he fell in love with the
producer of his program who he was very hostile with in the beginning.
So if he and that producer could fall in love and end this cycle of
continuous Groundhog Days day after day after day, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I can love each other. We can all love each
other. The Congress can love the President. We can have our
differences. But if we could just show a little love and compassion
here and some understanding, we can conclude this business and finish
the work of the 106th Congress.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to note that I have heard
a number of Members come up to me and say about this impasse, this
cannot go on. I remember Herb Stein, who was the head of the council on
economic advisors to President Nixon. I remember Herb Stein saying once
in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, ``People say this
cannot go on.'' He said, ``My experience is, if something cannot go on,
it stops.'' I would hope that this incessant number of continuing
resolutions would stop and that the sparring would stop, and tomorrow
we can bring a bill to the floor reflecting the bipartisan negotiations
which we have already agreed upon and pass it and end this session.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I hope that
happens. It could happen. A lot of it is going to depend on what comes
out of the meeting that is taking place at the White House as we speak.
Mr. Speaker, today, some time after the election on November 7, the
Nation is pretty much divided right down the middle. In the House, the
political differences are almost 50/50. In the Senate, they are 50/50.
In the country on popular vote for President, 50/50. The Nation is
politically pretty much divided.
But I want to remind my colleagues that this is America. This is the
United States of America. There is something special about that.
Remember, 59 years ago today, Pearl Harbor was attacked. The Nation did
not have any real direction. We were an emerging industrial Nation.
But, then Pearl Harbor was attacked. Americans came together with such
a powerful statement, such a profound statement, and put together one
of the most fantastic military capabilities in the world eventually.
It took a while, but we came together. We overcame all kinds of
differences, different opinions, different challenges, different
industrial challenges, different political challenges. We came together
as a strong and powerful Nation. Ever since that day, we have been an
outstanding example for the rest of the world of freedom, of justice,
of the ability to work together in the best interest of the people of
the United States and for those in the world that we are called upon to
help.
If that could happen in America, it can happen here in this Congress.
If we all settle down and recognize we have got to come together, we do
not necessarily have the opportunity to go our own individual ways, but
we have got to come together, if we do that, we will come together, and
we will conclude the business of the 106th Congress and get ready for
the 107th Congress, which is going to begin in just a few short days.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, December 6, 2000,
the previous question is ordered.
[[Page H12028]]
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 359,
nays 11, not voting 62, as follows:
[Roll No. 601]
YEAS--359
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--11
Baird
Barton
Bonior
Capuano
Dingell
Miller, George
Paul
Stark
Stupak
Visclosky
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--62
Ackerman
Archer
Armey
Barr
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Bono
Boucher
Bryant
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Coburn
Costello
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Emerson
Filner
Fossella
Gallegly
Gillmor
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Hill (MT)
Hutchinson
Istook
Kasich
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lipinski
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Ney
Packard
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scarborough
Smith (MI)
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Wicker
Wise
Young (AK)
{time} 1504
So the joint resolution was passed.
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. 601, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 601, unfortunately, due to an
unavoidable weather delay I missed today's rollcall vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________