[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 151 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H12048-H12053]
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 House Resolution 669,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 128) making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 128 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 128
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 11,
2000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 669, 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).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we bring to the House another continuing
resolution, House Joint Resolution 128.
This one is different than the ones we have been doing. This is a 3-
day extension, so this would keep the government functioning until
Monday night.
The leadership of the House and Senate are negotiating with the
President, and hopefully there will be some kind of breakthrough soon
so we as appropriators can finalize the details of the agreement. We
have not reached that agreement yet, but we will be working over the
weekend.
I spoke yesterday evening with the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, as did my counterpart in the Senate. There is
movement, but we are not there yet. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we will be
working over the weekend to see if we can have this concluded for the
Members to vote on next week.
As I mentioned yesterday, there are several issues that are still
outstanding, most of which are not even appropriations items.
Nevertheless, they are attached to this bill.
So, by next week, we hope to have more progress to report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to have our appropriations work done by
October 1. We obviously do not have that work done. As I said
yesterday, that is not unique. That has happened often in Congress.
But I think something unique is happening which, in my view, no
longer justifies voting for these continuing resolutions. I do not
intend to vote for this continuing resolution, and I will vote against
it.
Continuing resolutions are supposed to be passed to give us more time
to get our work done. When they are passed, we are supposed to be
resolving our differences. This is now the 19th time that we have had
to come to the floor and ask for yet another extension of time.
I would not mind doing that if I thought we really were making
progress. I have read several newspaper accounts this morning of the
alleged agreements which were reached at the White House yesterday. I
have read stories. If I believed that those stories were true, I would
then feel fairly optimistic that in fact we could get finished within a
few days over the weekend.
But in fact what I know to be going on behind the scenes is at huge
variance with the newspaper stories that I have seen this morning, so
somebody has fed some information to a number of reporters, information
which is simply not accurate. I suspect some of that misinformation has
been spread by design, but I suspect that some other of it has been
spread simply through honest misunderstandings.
My interpretation of what is going on at the White House is quite
different than the optimistic picture painted in the papers this
morning.
{time} 0915
When I talk to people who are in that meeting, I get wildly varying
and differing explanations about what the parties did or thought they
were doing.
They all appear to be operating from different financial baselines.
So that when they use a specific number, when one party in those
discussions uses a specific number, two other parties in the room have
an erroneous understanding of what that number means. And as a result,
we get the picture when people come out of the White House that
everybody has played kissy-face, and it is all nice and wonderful, and
we are very close to a deal.
Yet, when you take a look at the actual differences that are being
discussed, we are still miles apart; and I do not believe that passage
of this or any other continuing resolution is going to lead to a
narrowing of those divisions. I think it will lead to a continuation of
the drift, and that drift is in no way the responsibility of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or anyone else on the Committee on
Appropriations.
If I may speak institutionally, I believe if the Committee on
Appropriations on both sides of the aisle were allowed to work these
agreements out,
[[Page H12049]]
we could do so in 1 day. But so far as I know, there are no clean
signals being given that we can, in fact, do that.
So I will make a flat prediction. This resolution will pass. It will
probably have a majority of votes on both sides of the aisle. And come
Monday, we will be here having to pass another resolution because
people will have peddled baffle-gab over the weekend without doing very
much real work.
I compare some of the numbers being discussed in the papers. I see,
for instance, that a number of the papers refer to the possibility of
reaching agreement for the Labor-Health-Education bill at the level of
$107 billion. There is not a chance of a snowball in Hades that you
would find a majority of votes in this House for that kind of a bill.
And it is important for people on both sides of the aisle to understand
that.
I am perfectly willing to participate in an exercise which requires
flexibility on both sides of the aisle, but I know from talking to a
number of my good friends on the other side of the aisle that they
themselves would not be satisfied to vote for a bill which came in here
at $107 billion.
Now, people will say, well, that is the number that the President
asked for. Well, if you take a look at what this Congress passed so far
this year, it increased what the President asked for for agriculture by
$1.3 billion.
It increased what the President asked for for Energy and Water, many
for Members' projects, by $1 billion.
It increased what the President asked for in the Interior
appropriations by $2.5 billion.
It increased what the President asked for in Transportation by $2.4
billion, and Defense by over $5 billion, but when it comes to
Education, we are now being told that we should go back to 106.
We just had an election and the standard bearer for the majority
party, Mr. Bush, indicated that under Republican governance there would
be a bipartisan approach to government, and yet the very first thing
that we are being asked to do is to break the bipartisan agreement that
was reached on funding levels in the Labor-Health and Education
appropriations bill before the election.
When that bill came back to this floor, I do not recall a single
significant objection to a dollar number in the bill.
I do recall some quite vivid controversy, as the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) indicated yesterday, about what were
nonappropriation items in the bill, language items that wanted to be
attached by one side or the other; and yet today after everyone ran on
the idea that this Congress was going to provide the biggest increase
in education since the days of Lyndon Johnson, now we are being told
that we have to abandon that 22 percent increase in education funding.
Well, I would suggest to you that weaknesses in our schools are just
as important as weaknesses in national defense. I would suggest that
weaknesses in our education system are just as important as weaknesses
in our transportation system.
I would suggest that weaknesses in education are just as serious as
weaknesses in our farm programs.
I would suggest that weaknesses in our education programs are at
least as important as weaknesses in our locks and dams and river
reengineering programs. And yet, we are being asked to cut the efforts
to reduce class size in our schools.
We are being asked to cut the agreement that was reached on after-
school programs so that kids when they leave school have someplace to
go besides an empty house, because both parents are working outside of
the home. We are being asked to cut back on the promises that we
have made in that conference report for special education and for
education for disabled children.
We are being asked to cut back on the $500 increase in the Pell
grants that everyone claimed to be for earlier and that, in fact, Mr.
Bush campaigned on. We are being asked to cut back on teacher quality
initiatives so that we can reach the ``startling'' situation under
which the people teaching mathematics to our kids will actually be
trained in mathematics, and the people teaching science will actually
be trained in science, and the people teaching history will actually be
trained in history.
Yet, we are being asked to cut back on those initiatives. We are
being asked to cut back on a good many others from the levels reached
in that agreement. I am willing to sit down and work out some
reasonable adjustments in those programs. But I am not willing to vote
for instruments that enable anyone on either side to pretend that we
are making major progress when, in fact, we are not.
And what is happening is that we are being slow-danced to the end of
the session, when we will be given a choice of accepting a simple
status quo education budget when, in fact, the situation on the
education front demonstrates that is not what we need. We need some
imagination. We need some forward progress, and we need a lot more
support for some of these initiatives than we have had so far.
I really believe that if that original agreement was put on the
floor, the dollar amounts I am talking about, absent the language items
that were at issue, I really believe that if the dollar amounts for
education and health care and worker programs contained in that
conference were allowed to come to the floor by the Republican
leadership, it would pass with a significant majority, and we would
have a lot of votes from both sides of the aisle.
That bill is not being allowed to come to the floor. Instead, we are
being asked to renegotiate a deal that was reached on both sides of the
Capitol with both parties. And as I say, in the interests of rational
governance, I am willing to help participate to a reasonable degree,
but I am not willing to savage these programs in order to get an
agreement. I am not willing to pretend that there is major progress
when, in fact, there is not.
I want to say again, none of the fault for any of the progress that
has not taken place lies at the doorstep of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young). As far as I am concerned, he has been open at all times to
suggestions and to requests from everyone regardless of party,
regardless of the branch of government.
I think the gentleman has genuinely tried to get us to a resolution
of this problem, but there are other people. I will be blunt about
this. Every time I was asked by members of the press before the
election what I thought was happening to the Labor, Health and
Education bill, what I said was that I thought that the Republican
leadership was trying to, at all costs, avoid a vote on education until
after the election, so that they could hide their long-term intention
to cut the amounts in this agreement. Then after the election, they
would then feel free 2 years in advance of another election, counting
on the public's ability to forget that they would then feel free to
make large reductions in the education funding programs that we had
agreed to.
Now that is exactly what is now happening. I do not believe that all
Members of the majority party agree with that. I think there is a
substantial number of Members who do not want to do that, but they have
not been allowed to cast a vote on the floor. And until they are or
until we can get reasonably rapid progress, I no longer intend to
support these CRs. I have supported 18 of them in a row in order to
keep negotiations going, but I see no meaningful progress.
I see the leadership of the House and the Senate and the President
each trying to compete with each other in public relations terms to
show who can be the sweetest in front of the TV cameras or the print
press, but I do not see any real decisions being made that reflect the
honest view of a majority of people on both sides of the aisle in this
House.
And so until I do, I will vote no on this and subsequent continuing
resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for shepherding through a bill and a process that is
unbelievable. And I want to associate my remarks with our fine leader
of the Committee on
[[Page H12050]]
Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has stated
the facts that the gentleman has done a marvelous job.
I also want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for
fighting some of the salient points that are important to many
Americans.
I take this time, not to belabor Congress, but I am concerned about
the status of the minimum wage. I would hope that both the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
although this is not totally in your province, assert your tremendous
influence to include in that final package the minimum wage that we
constructed on the House floor, and, if necessary, to even expand it
pursuant to the conditions that exist in the country.
{time} 0930
I also voted for a commensurate tax reduction for those business
people who must take on that additional burden of the increase in
minimum wage. But as my colleagues know, my amendment changed the
original language from $1 over 3 years to $1 over 2 years. I am asking
both of you powerful leaders if you can and, if necessary, to even
expand upon that figure considering impoverished areas like mine who
desperately depend upon that opportunity. But I know that that is not
within your province, but I know that you two have worked so very hard.
If possible, I still support a tax cut for America that would allow
those employers the opportunity to raise that wage without laying off
our people. But it is very important to me and many Members that
represent districts like myself.
So I ask the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to assert his
powerful leadership that he has, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) to continue to asserting his powerful leadership that he has in
that regard.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 additional minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I really believe that, what is happening both on this
Labor, Health, Education bill and on the subject that the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) just mentioned is a true test of our
priorities, our character, our fairness, and our humanity.
We all sit here in comfortable jobs. We fight like the devil to get
them. We sometimes pay a heavy physical and emotional price for
occupying these jobs because people are often not very fair in their
assessment of public officials, and they will use the slightest
weakness in any human being and try to use that weakness to define that
individual rather than taking a look at the whole. So sometimes
politics can be a very discouraging business and sometimes one wonders
why one is in it.
The answer to me, for myself, is that I came here because I thought
this was the place to be more than any other--I never wanted to be a
Member of the United States Senate, I never wanted to have any job at
all except to be a Member of this House--because this is supposed to be
the people's House. This is where we are supposed to be, because we
have 2-year terms, we are supposed to be closest to the desires and the
needs of the American people.
When we come here and cast our votes, these votes are supposed to be
about something bigger than just the differences between our parties.
There are legitimate reasons to have political parties because we have
honest, philosophical, and substantive differences. So we each make a
choice about which of those two imperfect vehicles is the best in order
to try to put forward the causes we believe in.
To me, the glue that holds this country together is our ability to be
concerned about what happens to every individual in this country, not
just those who are well connected enough with us to be able to get
through on a phone call or to grab us on the street and say, ``Dave'',
or ``Clay'', or ``Bill'', how are you. When we come here, our
priorities are supposed to represent a judgment about who needs help
the most.
The Labor, Health, Education bill is the bill that is supposed to
help meet those shortcomings. We live in a capitalist system, and I
think that is the best of any economic system that can be devised. We
reward initiative. We reward imagination and hard work. Through
entrepreneurship, we see people with talent and drive help build
economic opportunities for themselves and for a lot of people who come
to work for them in their firms or their businesses.
I salute everyone with that talent. But there are a lot of people in
this country who need help to get on that train to success. There are a
lot of people in this country who need help when they fall off that
train, sometimes for bad luck and sometimes for other reasons.
We do not meet our responsibilities to those folks when we define
ourselves going out the door at the end of this session as commanding
cuts in agreements we have already reached in education and in health
care. We certainly do not meet our obligations if we do not pass a
significant minimum wage, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)
has just indicated. We do not meet our obligations if we have not
completed action to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
We do not meet our obligations if we do not find ways through a
combination of public and private systems to provide decent health care
for every person who needs it.
The place where we come the closest to meeting those obligations is
in this bill, and this is the bill that we are now being asked to shred
so we can all go home early.
I am not going to do that because I do not want to go through a
Christmas season enjoying all of the pleasures of that season, being
reminded every day of the opportunity that we took away from people in
education, of the mercy help that we took away in terms of health care.
I do not think that is what most Members of this House want to do.
But if we continue on the course we are going, that is exactly what we
will do in the Christmas season. That is exactly opposite of what the
Christmas spirit is supposed to lead us all to do. That is why I am
voting against this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) who mentioned minimum wage increases, and I would say to him
that I hope that he knows that our leadership is considering and is
willing to consider minimum wage legislation, but they believe that, at
the same time, tax relief should be considered; and that is what they
are trying to work out.
Now, I am not part of the negotiations there. I do not believe that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is. That is a different group
of negotiators because those are not appropriations issues. On the
appropriations bill negotiations, sometimes we do get sidetracked and
get off on tangents that do not relate to appropriations, but that is
just part of the appropriations process. But anyway I would say to the
gentleman that he raises an important issue that is being considered by
our leadership.
We have a very large surplus. At a time of surplus, whether it is in
our government life or whether it is in our family life or our business
life, when one has a large surplus, one's economy is very good, there
are several things one ought to do. One can indulge oneself in some of
those things that one has not had but would like to have. Well, the
government is doing that as well.
But something else that one should do is pay down some of one's
debts. If one's credit card bills are too high, one ought to pay them
off. If one's car payments are too high, one ought to pay them off, if
one's economy is that good, if one has that extra money available. So
that is one of the things that we are trying to do here. We are
indulging the government because the spending for this year is
increased over last year.
In the area of education, even at the number that the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) objects so strongly to, our investment in
education is dramatically larger than it was last year and over the
President's budget request. The same thing for medical research, which
is over the President's budget request and over last year's amount.
So we are indulging ourselves. Also, we are making a stronger
investment in our national security, trying to compensate for the
excessive deployments that American troops have been
[[Page H12051]]
experiencing in the last 8 years; deployments all over the world that
are very, very costly, not only in time and manpower and womanpower,
but in personnel costs. We wear out equipment. Spare parts cost. All of
these things cost. So we are indulging the government and providing a
little extra money.
At the same time, we should be doing something for the taxpayers, the
people who make this money available. So paying off that debt becomes
important to them, as it should be important to us, because I agree
with what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said. This is the
people's House. We represent the people of America.
I do not know how many realize this, but in the entire huge Federal
Government system, there is only one place that one must be elected to
serve, and that is here in the House of Representatives. One can be a
President by appointment. Remember, Gerald Ford was never elected
President, but he served as President. One can be a Vice President by
appointment. One can be a United States Senator by appointment. One can
be a member of the Supreme Court or anywhere in the judicial system by
appointment. And in all of the many, many jobs in the agencies all over
this Federal system, one can be appointed to those jobs.
The only place where one will never serve without being elected by
the people is in this House of Representatives, and so this is the
people's House. That is why we should be paying attention to
recognizing that, if the people have contributed a lot more money to
the government than the government needs, we ought to give some of it
back.
That is why we are so committed to providing tax relief for the
American taxpayer, who is substantially overburdened with their tax
obligations, and then paying down the debt.
I mentioned that if one has a lot of money, a windfall, one's
personal economy is good, one's business economy is good, one's
government economy is good, pay down the debt or at least pay down part
of it. That is what we have been doing.
We have been paying down the debt. Billions and billions of dollars
of national debt, of public debt is being paid down. That has a lot of
beneficial effect. One of the beneficial effects is, the smaller that
debt becomes, the less interest the American taxpayer has to pay on
that debt. The interest payment on our national debt has been over a
quarter of a trillion dollars a year.
Now, can one imagine how much we can do for our veterans, how much we
can do for our school students, how much we can do for medical
research, how much we can do for the military, how much we can do for a
renovation of our infrastructure in America if we had that extra
quarter of a trillion dollars to use rather than pay interest on the
national debt. So that is also an important part of what we do.
But now let us go back to the part where we are going to indulge the
government a little bit. One of the bills that is higher than last
year, if we ever get it passed, is this bill on Labor, Health,
Education and Human Services.
Now, this bill, when it passed the House of Representatives the very
first time early in the year, it was right at $100 billion. We have had
two sets of negotiations. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I
have worked with our counterparts in the Senate; and in July, we came
up with a conference report that we thought that the House and the
Senate would accept and that the President would sign. We really
believed that. But higher authority decided on one side that it was too
high and higher authority on the other side said it was too low. So we
went back to the negotiating table.
In October, we came up with another package. We thought we really had
done it this time, and higher authorities again shut it down. But that
is why we are here, to work out these negotiations.
Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) objects to the agreement
that he believes was reached at $107 billion, which is $7 billion more
than the House had originally passed.
Mr. OBEY. No. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Sure. Of course I yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not in any way believe there was an
agreement reached at $107 billion. I know absolutely for a fact that
there was not an agreement reached. The White House denies that there
was an agreement reached at that number. The Democratic leadership
denies that there was an agreement reached at that number. There was no
agreement at that number. The continuing repetition of the mantra that
there was one is one of the things that is going to stand as an
obstacle to our getting any progress around here.
{time} 0945
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
just got a little ahead of me because I was getting to that point.
There was no agreement on the $107 billion figure that the gentleman
used.
One area where I do agree with the gentleman is what he said about
press reports. The newspapers this morning, which were overly
optimistic, did not represent the meeting at the White House yesterday.
I agree with him. The information that I have was that there was no
reason to be optimistic based on that meeting at the White House
yesterday, whether we are talking about $107 billion, which there was
no agreement on; there was also no agreement on the $112 billion, which
is the high number that is being considered by some; and definitely
there is no agreement on the $100 billion, which is what the House
passed.
So I say, in as friendly a way as I can to my friend from Wisconsin,
that is why we should not communicate through newspapers or media. We
ought to communicate with each other directly. And the gentleman from
Wisconsin and I do that. Regarding his concern about what might have
appeared in the newspaper, he should understand that that is not always
necessarily the way that it really is.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of conversation about this continuing
resolution that we probably did not need to have, but we have done it;
and now we are going to vote on this continuing resolution. It takes us
until Monday. I would have preferred that we had a continuing
resolution that would take us at least until Wednesday of next week,
because I honestly believe that Members could go home this weekend and
come back next Wednesday. By then there would be a package that I
believe would be acceptable to at least a majority of the Members of
the House and the Senate.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. That
is the point that I want to raise.
As the gentleman knows, because the gentleman was here last night,
and I was here last night, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon all of the
leaders on high wanted us to get together last night, first at the
staff level so that we understood what each other's proposals were, and
then at the Member level. That did not take place, I think largely
because there is still such a tremendous lack of clarity coming from
the top that it is hard to sit in a room when we are being given three
different descriptions of what we are actually expected to do.
My question is this. I will certainly be here every day from now
until the cows come home, if necessary, to get an agreement. I feel I
have full authority on my side at this point to negotiate. I would like
to know whether the gentleman yet feels that he has that authority on
his side; and if he does not, or if he knows of any other party that
does not in this situation, then is the leadership going to be in town
over the weekend so that if they want to again second guess our work
that they can do that with some speed so we do not have to waste
another 3 days and have to come in here and ruin yet another week
before we finally get out of here?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again reclaiming my time, the
gentleman from Wisconsin, through this entire process, has been here
when it was necessary for him to be here. This gentleman from Florida,
through this entire process, has been here when this gentleman was
required to be here, and that means that neither one of us got home to
our districts very much this year because we have been here a lot.
[[Page H12052]]
Mr. OBEY. That is why my margin went up.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That may be true. But anyway, the answer to the
gentleman is, I will be here. I do not have the authority to settle on
a top number. I think the gentleman understands that. That number is
going to be decided by a higher authority than mine or his, and it is
going to be decided along with the President of the United States. Now,
if that number is agreed upon by that higher authority, then the
gentleman from Wisconsin and I can work out the balance along with our
counterparts in the Senate without any great difficulty.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to
correct one thing the gentleman said. I do have the authority from my
leadership to negotiate all numbers on appropriation items, including
the overall amount. And I would respectfully urge the gentleman's
leadership to do the same thing on his side. Because the problem I see
is that I think the gentleman's leadership and my leadership are
starting from different baselines, and so, therefore, they think they
are talking to each other but in fact they are talking past each other.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, then, I would ask the gentleman this
question, and I will yield for his answer. What number is the gentleman
prepared to start at?
Mr. OBEY. I am starting at the conference agreement that we reached
agreement on and shook hands on and toasted with Merlot, as the
gentleman knows. I am willing to come down from that.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is my question. How much is the gentleman
prepared and authorized to come down.
Mr. OBEY. Let us get in a room in 1 hour and start that process.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me get
back to my point that we would have been much better served if we could
have had a continuing resolution that would take us at least until the
middle of next week so that these negotiations that the gentleman from
Wisconsin and I are both trying to negotiate here on the floor, which
does not work. We need that little extra time, and we need those with
that authority to establish that number, whatever it is going to be.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield once again, my
concern is that the gentleman has just said he does not have the
authority to negotiate the top number; and yet it is not my
understanding that his leadership, who evidently is retaining control
over that top number, it is not my understanding that they will be here
this weekend. Now, are they or are they not?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, I would suggest that the gentleman ask
them to yield and ask them that question. I do not know what their
plans are going to be. But I would say this, throughout this entire
process my leadership has been available to me any day, weekend,
weekday, night or day. I have no difficulty whatsoever communicating
with my leadership because they are committed to completing this job,
but they are committed to doing it in a responsible fashion.
We are just not going to sit down and agree to $112 billion, and the
gentleman might as well understand that. He can debate about it all he
wants to, but we are not going to go to the figure of $112 billion.
Mr. OBEY. I am not asking the gentleman to.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is a far greater investment than is
required for this legislation. I have made the case that we have
already increased education considerably over the President's budget
request. We have increased the medical research through NIH
dramatically over the President's budget request. But we are not going
to go to the $112 billion that this administration wants. We are just
not going to do it.
We have a responsibility to the people of America who sent us here to
balance the budget, who sent us here to pay down the debt, who sent us
here to give a little tax relief to our constituents, the taxpayers who
have been overburdened; and, by God, we are going to do that. We have
done it, and we are going to continue to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this resolution, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time for debate has expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 669, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the 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 284,
nays 37, not voting 111, as follows:
[Roll No. 602]
YEAS--284
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
Lampson
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--37
Baird
Baldwin
Barton
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Conyers
Coyne
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Farr
Ford
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Lowey
McDermott
Mink
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Paul
[[Page H12053]]
Pelosi
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thurman
Visclosky
Waters
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--111
Ackerman
Archer
Baca
Baker
Bartlett
Becerra
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Brady (PA)
Bryant
Burton
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clement
Coburn
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dickey
Dixon
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gillmor
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hinojosa
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
John
Kaptur
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKinney
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Neal
Oxley
Packard
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scarborough
Shuster
Smith (WA)
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Wamp
Watkins
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wicker
Wise
Young (AK)
{time} 1015
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. 602, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 602, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________