[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8849-H8850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 76) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would first 
yield to the gentleman from Florida for an explanation of his request, 
after which I have a series of questions I would like to put to him 
about it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. This continuing resolution extends the current CR until 
December 15. The terms and conditions of the previous CR will remain in 
effect. All ongoing activities will be continued at current rates under 
the same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2001, with the exception 
of the agencies covered by fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills that 
have been enacted into law.
  Mr. Speaker, this CR is noncontroversial, and I urge the House to 
move the legislation to the Senate so that the government can continue 
to operate smoothly and efficiently and so that we can continue our 
work to finish those few regular appropriations bills that are still 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I would like 
to ask the gentleman several questions.
  It is my understanding that the defense appropriations bill, and I do 
this because I think there are a lot of unrealistic expectations which 
are being directed at this committee by people who I do not think have 
sufficient appreciation for the detailed work that is required in order 
to produce legislation on, for instance, something as complicated as 
the defense bill.
  My understanding is that that bill is 197 pages long and is expected, 
by the time the Senate is finished deliberating on it, to contain 
literally thousands of differences between the House and the Senate; is 
that not correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me ask another question under my 
reservation. Assuming that the Senate could pass the Department of 
Defense bill immediately, how long, in the gentleman's experience, does 
it usually take for the staff to put together the conference notes so 
that members of the conference understand what the differences are, and 
how long does it take usually after the conclusion of the conference 
for the staff to put together the required papers so that we know that 
what we vote on is what we actually agreed to in the conference?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Surely.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the answer is, of course it 
depends on the bill and the situation with that bill. In the case of 
the defense bill that we are dealing with now, the basic bill, the $317 
billion defense bill, probably will not be that difficult to 
conference. Where there will be difficulty will be in the $20 billion 
supplemental that we have dealt with here in the House and that the 
other body is now dealing with and is possibly changing considerably. 
So it could take 4 or 5 working days, or longer, just to get that bill 
ready to go to conference.
  Once the agreements are actually reached in conference, it could take 
as many as 10 days in order to complete consideration of this bill. It 
is a major bill. Of our discretionary accounts, it is half of our 
discretionary spending. In most years we do not have a lot of 
differences going into conference on that bill, but this year, because 
of the $20 billion supplemental that is a result of the September 11 
attacks, there are substantial differences between the House-passed 
bill and what the Senate is probably going to consider today or 
tomorrow.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments. I think that they are most accurate and, to 
me, what it demonstrates is that, under the most optimistic 
assumptions, if the Senate could proceed virtually immediately to 
conclude its action on that bill, we are talking about at least a

[[Page H8850]]

week after that point before we could possibly have this bill close to 
coming back to the House and probably a significant number of 
additional days.
  I would add to that that, obviously, the Senate is not going to be in 
a position, based on what has been happening over there, to conclude 
this bill today.
  So I have asked these questions, Mr. Speaker, in order to indicate my 
judgment that the date of December 15 for the expiration of this 
continuing resolution is incredibly optimistic. I do not think it, in 
fact, recognizes reality, and that it seems to me that if we are trying 
to extend this CR to the point where we think that the Congress will 
actually finish its work for this year that the date would have to be 
significantly later, I regret to say.
  I would also say, continuing under my reservation, that with respect 
to the homeland security issue which the gentleman has mentioned, as I 
think has been obvious around this town for years, Congress often loses 
the off button at the end of the session. I do not know who has it, 
but, obviously, it is a whole lot easier to hit the start-up button for 
a congressional session than it is to find the off button at the end of 
the year, and whoever has that off button, I wish they would come 
forward, or we are going to be sitting here Christmas Eve still not 
having our work done.
  I would also say that I think one of the keys to finding that off 
button is a willingness to compromise. I wish I thought I could see 
that on the part of the White House, especially on the part of OMB, 
with respect to the homeland security package. What is at stake in that 
package is, very simply, the security of every American citizen on the 
home front. With something that is that important, in order for 
Congress to finish its business on that item, for instance, we need a 
spirit of cooperation on both sides.
  I must say I do not find that kind of spirit of cooperation coming 
from the White House on this item when we are called down to the White 
House for a meeting and, before we can get a word out of our mouths to 
explain what it is that our concerns are about home-based security, we 
are told immediately, ``Fellows, no matter what you are about to say, 
we are going to veto anything that you are thinking before we have even 
heard what it is you are thinking of.'' I do not think that is a way to 
promote compromise, and I do not think that creates the right 
atmosphere for resolving differences.
  So I would simply say that I believe that, while I am not going to 
object to this, Mr. Speaker, I think December 15 is unreasonably 
optimistic, unless we have a major attitude adjustment on the part of 
OMB, and I have not detected a spectacular capacity of that agency to 
provide that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 76

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 107-44 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 
     15, 2001''.

  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider 
was laid on the table.

                          ____________________