[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10061-H10064]
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, pursuant to the previous order of 
the House, I call up the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 78) making 
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 78 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 78

       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 
     21, 2001''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, December 12, 2001, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will each 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, the legislation before the House, House Joint Resolution 
78, will extend the current continuing resolution until December 21, at 
which time we hope to have all of the appropriations bills completed 
and on the President's desk.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial CR. The terms and conditions 
of the previous continuing resolution 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 the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills that have 
already been enacted into law.
  Nine of the fiscal year 2002 13 appropriations bills have already 
been signed, plus two supplemental appropriations bills. One more 2002 
bill is awaiting the President's signature. That is the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill.
  Most of the government agencies are already operating at fiscal year 
2002 levels. We are prepared to present the three remaining bills, the 
Foreign Operations bill, the Labor-HHS bill and the Defense bill when 
the House reconvenes next week, and we expect those bills to be 
completed and ready to go through the process.
  I urge the House to move the CR to the Senate and so we can get on 
with the rest of the business of the day.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to rise in support of this continuing 
resolution. I think the gentleman is correct. We are hoping that by a 
week from this coming Friday or Saturday someone will have found the 
off button for this Congress and will be able to actually press it and 
shut it down for the Christmas season. Things can always get in the 
way, but I hope that they do not.
  As the gentleman has indicated, there are about three major 
impediments to our adjourning remaining. One is the Labor, Health, 
Education appropriation bill. We are very close to agreement on that. 
The second is the Defense appropriations bill, to which has been added 
the post-September 11 anti-terrorism supplemental. And then we have the 
potential for a stimulus package which could either wind up being a 
true stimulus to the economy or just another tax boondoggle. This 
committee has no control over what is produced on that score.
  Let me simply say, I want to take a couple of minutes because of 
remarks made by previous speaker about what we face next year. I think 
it is useful to note that while this House has had many a fight this 
year, that all but one of the appropriation bills, that this House 
passed, passed with broad bipartisan support, and the Chairman of the 
committee and I, I think, have developed a very good working 
relationship on those bills.
  I have noted with considerable frustration the fact that some people 
in this institution manage with spectacular frequency to aim at the 
wrong targets in blaming, or in trying to assess blame for the loss of 
the surplus or for the fact that the House has not been able to shut 
down.
  Willie Sutton, the famous bank robber, used to say that the reason he 
robbed banks was that that is where the money was. The problem is that 
we have too many people in this institution and elsewhere, including 
some who make their business with a pen or a computer, there are too 
many people who blame the appropriations process, when, in fact, in 
terms of budget problems, that is where the gnats are. And as a result, 
we keep making the same mistakes and recreating deficits all over 
again.
  Someone said once, I do not remember if it is my favorite philosophy, 
Archie the cockroach, or if it was Will Rogers, one of the two, who 
said that experience is that quality that enables you to recognize a 
mistake when you make it again, and that is what I think this Congress 
will go down in history as being noted for.
  In 1981, this Congress passed President Reagan's budgets, and those 
budgets essentially quadrupled our deficits over the next few years 
because they separated consideration of tax matters from budget 
matters, and they wound up blowing a huge hole in the side of the 
deficit by promising very large tax cuts, which had to be paid for by 
borrowing a huge amount of money at the same time the defense budget 
was being doubled.
  It took us 20 years to dig out from those deficits. We finally 
reached the point just 3 years ago where, I think, every American and 
certainly most people in this institution, if not all, took great pride 
in the fact that we had actually turned the corner and appeared as 
though we would be facing a string of surpluses. Some of us thought the 
size of those surpluses would be more modest than others, but 
nonetheless, we faced a string of surpluses, and now, this Congress, in 
one short year, has blown them all.
  Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record at this point an analysis 
prepared by the House Committee on the Budget minority staff which is 
entitled ``What Happened to the Surpluses,'' and if you look at that, 
you will see that we started this year with huge expectations, huge 
surpluses for as far as the eye could see, but by the end of the year, 
they are gone for three reasons essentially.

              The Dissipation of the Budget Surplus, 2001


                           Executive Summary

       1. On November 28, 2001, President Bush claimed that his 
     Administration ``brought sorely needed fiscal discipline to 
     Washington.'' On the same day, OMB Director Mitchell Daniels 
     warned the country not to expect another budget surplus until 
     2005--after President Bush's term of office is up. The 
     unified budget surplus of $304 billion projected for FY 2002, 
     and the cumulative surplus of $5.629 trillion projected over 
     ten years, which this Administration inherited, are gone. 
     Director Daniels blamed the economy and the fight against 
     terrorism, and absolved the President's tax cuts. In fact, 
     last June's tax cut is most responsible for wiping out the 
     surplus, and the Republican stimulus plan, with further 
     permanent tax cuts, would only dig the hole deeper.
       2. The Republican tax cut contributed more than half--54.7 
     percent--of this worsening of the surplus, based on the 
     bipartisan, bicameral estimates of the Budget Committee 
     staffs.
       3. The worsening of the economy, which began well before 
     September 11, has had a significant impact in the near term 
     (2001 to 2003). But, beyond those next few years, the effect 
     of the economy fades as recovery takes hold. The role of 
     increased spending--to counter terrorism and to address other 
     priorities--is not significant.
       4. On net, virtually all of today's estimated cumulative 
     ten-year surplus of $2.604 trillion comes from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund surplus, and is concentrated in the 
     future years, where the outlook is most uncertain.
       5. These events and estimates prove even more that the tax 
     cut was irresponsible. It

[[Page H10062]]

     made the budget more vulnerable to unforeseen crises, 
     economic misfortune, and ultimately the burdens of the baby 
     boomers' retirement.

       . . . we brought sorely needed fiscal discipline to 
     Washington, D.C. . . . we fought for and got a budget that 
     was realistic, that didn't grow way beyond the means of our 
     government.--President George Bush, November 28, 2001.
       . . . it is regrettably my conclusion that we are unlikely 
     to return to balance in the federal accounts before possibly 
     fiscal '05.--OMB Director Mitchell Daniels, November 28, 
     2001.

       OMB Director Mitchell Daniels has warned the country not to 
     expect another budget surplus until 2005--after President 
     George Bush's term of office is up. Director Daniels blamed 
     the economy and the fight against terrorism; he absolved the 
     President's tax cuts. In fact, the Administration advocates 
     further permanent tax cuts in its economic stimulus plan. The 
     Administration's June tax cut wiped out most of the surplus 
     and now they want to dig the hole deeper.
       From May to October of this year--a period of five months--
     the projected 2002 unified budget surplus of $304 billion 
     disappeared, and the ten-year projected surplus dropped from 
     $5.629 trillion to $2.604 trillion. More bad news is sure to 
     come with the economic and budget updates next January. 
     Furthermore, on net, all of today's estimated cumulative ten-
     year surplus of $2.604 trillion comes from the Social 
     Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses. What little 
     surplus remains is concentrated in the future years, where 
     the outlook is most uncertain.
       How did this happen? Economic cycles and the terrorist 
     attacks surely contributed. But there is no doubt that the 
     greatest part of this fiscal injury was self-inflicted--
     through an excessive tax cut.
       After the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) significantly 
     increased its projections of the budget surpluses over the 
     ten-year horizon at the beginning of this year, the 
     Administration and Congressional Republicans proceeded to 
     commit virtually every scrap of the projected surplus that 
     they could to the tax cut. The Congress passed, and the 
     President signed, a $1.346 trillion tax cut over the eleven 
     fiscal years 2001-2011. With an additional $0.386 trillion 
     due to increased debt service, the total budgetary hit from 
     the tax cut comes to $1.732 trillion. Over ten years, the tax 
     cut did leave an ostensible ``reserve'' of about $500 
     billion; but the vast bulk of that sum, 86 percent, arose 
     in the last five years--at which time budget projections 
     are most uncertain.
       What is even more disturbing, the Congressional 
     Republicans, supported by the White House, pursued their tax 
     cut to the exclusion of all other priorities, including a 
     prudent and responsible budget reserve. In his budget address 
     to the Congress in February, the President emphasized that he 
     would address the programmatic needs of the government, pay 
     down the debt, ``[a]nd then, when money is still left over,'' 
     provide a tax cut. But on the contrary, what the White House 
     and the congressional Republicans in fact did was to pass the 
     tax cut first--before retiring debt, before even submitting a 
     defense budget, before passing a farm bill, before providing 
     Medicare prescription drug coverage, and so on. Now, well 
     after the beginning of the next fiscal year, most of these 
     other priorities have not been addressed, much less 
     fulfilled, and the surplus is gone.
       Subsequent developments have demonstrated clearly just how 
     imprudent this tax cut was. First, the Administration, which 
     had been talking down the economy since early December of 
     2000 to sell its tax cut, saw the economy deteriorate in a 
     self-fulfilling prophecy. And since September 11, the economy 
     has slumped even further, while the unavoidable costs of 
     terror-fighting and war have mounted.
       Because of the further slowing of the economy (and 
     associated technical factors), economists of the House and 
     Senate Budget Committee staffs have estimated, on a 
     bipartisan basis, that the surpluses in 2002 through 2004 
     will be reduced by $80 billion, $56 billion, and $8 billion 
     (exclusive of net interest) respectively. These revisions are 
     in addition to the reestimates CBO already had made in 
     August.
       The President and the Congress have provided $40 billion in 
     additional funding to deal with the damage and the security 
     threats, half of which is assumed to recur in future years. 
     Congress appropriated $5 billion in cash assistance for the 
     airline industry, backed $15 billion in loan guarantees, and 
     provided the airlines with relief from liability for the 
     disaster as well. The President's $18 billion defense budget 
     amendment to his original placeholder request has been built 
     into the appropriations process, and further additions for 
     defense appear inevitable. Again, on a bipartisan, bicameral 
     basis, the staffs of the two Budget Committees have concluded 
     that the total costs of these initiatives, plus debt service 
     (on these programs plus the economic reestimates) will reduce 
     the surplus by $124 billion in 2002, and by $793 billion over 
     2002-2011. And these estimates ignore the stimulus bill that 
     is making its way through the Congress, and other unaddressed 
     priorities such as the farm bill, education, expiring tax 
     provisions, and the ballooning individual alternative minimum 
     tax.
       The President's enacted tax cut remains by far the largest 
     single contributor to the deterioration of the budget outlook 
     over the next ten years. Not including the stimulus bill or 
     any other pending tax initiatives, the tax cut contributed 
     more than half--54.7 percent--to the depletion of the surplus 
     over the ten years 2002-2011.
       The worsening of the economy (including technical 
     reestimates) has had a significant impact in the near term 
     (2001 to 2003 or so). Economic and technical factors dominate 
     the figures (62.8 percent) in 2002. However, beyond those 
     next few years, the effect of the economy fades as recovery 
     is projected to take hold. for the last five years of the 
     budget window, the share of the tax cut in the total 
     worsening is over 60 percent--even assuming that all of the 
     tax provisions will sunset at the end of 2010.
       The impact of increased spending unrelated to the terrorist 
     attack is small, averaging only 11.1 percent over the ten-
     year budget window. (For purposes of this analysis, all of 
     the ten-year consequences of the President's request for $18 
     billion per year of additional defense spending are included 
     in this non-terror-related category.) Clearly, the effect of 
     terrorism on the spending side of the budget is far from 
     certain at this time. However, the bipartisan Budget 
     Committee estimates suggests that the cost of recent and 
     likely imminent action will be a small piece of the overall 
     puzzle. Estimated anti-terror spending averages 11.0 percent 
     of the worsening of the surplus over the ten years. (The 
     impact of spending is projected to take a small jump in 2011, 
     if the tax cut actually sunsets at the beginning of that 
     year.)
       Although today's estimated cumulative ten-year surplus 
     remains as large as $2.604 trillion, that figure is not 
     comforting on closer examination. At the beginning of this 
     year, the bipartisan goal in the Congress was to reserve the 
     entire Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses, 
     which were estimated in August to total $2.955 trillion 
     ($2.551 trillion for Social Security, and $9.404 trillion for 
     Medicare). Thus, the remaining projected unified surplus, on 
     net over ten years, comes totally from those Trust Fund 
     surpluses. The surplus that remains is still concentrated in 
     future years, and even that surplus is likely to be eroded by 
     the new economic and budget projections in January.
       The deterioration of the surplus because of the weakening 
     of the economy and the costs of resisting terrorism does not 
     absolve the tax cut. Any future economic weakness, and any 
     added costs for fighting terrorism will reduce the percentage 
     of the total surplus deterioration that is directly due to 
     the tax cut; and the reduction of that percentage might lead 
     some to conclude that the tax cut is less at fault for the 
     worsening budget. Taken to its extreme, this argument would 
     say that the worse the budget gets, the less bad an idea the 
     tax cut was.
       But in a broader sense, such an argument misses a more 
     important point: recent events prove even more that the tax 
     cut was unwise. A central element in leadership and 
     stewardship is to be prudent, to be prepared for adverse 
     contingencies. It is not good stewardship to choose policies 
     that make the budget more vulnerable--to tragedies, to 
     economic misfortune, or ultimately to the burdens of the baby 
     boomers' retirement.
       The budget is almost certain to revert to unified deficit 
     in 2002, and quite possibly in 2003 and 2004 as well. The 
     direction for subsequent years is heavily dependent upon the 
     state of the economy. But the Republican tax cut played a 
     central role in these developments. This fact should serve as 
     a cautionary flag to the Administration and Congressional 
     Republicans who are now promoting a second tax cut which will 
     dig the hole even deeper--a fact which should inform future 
     policy choices, lest budget outcomes prove even worse.

  This document demonstrates that the tax cut that passed earlier in 
the year contributed to more than half of the erosion of the surplus, 
54.7 percent.
  It points out that another significant portion was caused by the 
events in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on this country. And 
it also describes the remaining factors that led to the total 
disappearance of those surpluses.
  Now not only are we facing the likelihood of no surpluses for the 
next few years, we are facing the likelihood of substantial deficits.
  This Congress after they passed the first tax cut, this House again 
went on another binge, promising what it could not responsibly deliver, 
and wound up offering the largest corporations in this country more 
than $25 billion cumulatively in 15-year retroactive tax cuts in the 
form of the repeal of the corporate minimum tax. And it has gone on to 
similar spending binges on the tax side of the ledger. And the tragedy, 
in addition to the loss of the surplus, has been that those tax cuts 
have been primarily directed at the people who need them least; and, 
therefore, they are tax cuts which are likely to have the least 
stimulative effect on the economy.
  If you provide additional unemployment compensation to people, if you 
help them to pay for their health insurance if they have lost their 
job, they will spend, they will spend that money immediately and that 
will stimulate the economy. But the tax cut passed

[[Page H10063]]

earlier in the year by our majority friends in this House, when fully 
effective, will provide a $52,000-a-year tax cut to the wealthiest 
people in this country. They will not spend most of this money. They 
will bank it. They will pocket it. That will not stimulate the economy. 
And yet that is what this Congress is hell-bent on doing. They are 
trying to do even more in that misguided stimulus package.
  So while though the Congress is doing that and while the majority 
leadership is doing all of that, they are objecting to efforts on the 
part of some of us to provide additional homeland security by providing 
a small $5.3 billion add-on to the budget for homeland security items 
as the Senate did last week. It just seems to me that that demonstrates 
that, in terms of protecting the country against future deficits, this 
House leadership has a spectacular ability to eat the hole in the 
doughnut, but they are not doing anything to deal with the doughnut.
  So I do not know where that leaves us for next year, but it does not 
leave us in a very promising position. And the problem is that it will 
not only affect the country negatively next year, it will affect the 
country's economy negatively for a number of years to come.
  We have seen this Congress, in 1 short year, squander the opportunity 
to use those surpluses, to do something with about the problems that 
still remain in Medicare, in Social Security, in prescription drugs, in 
quality education. So I think in the end, this Congress will go down in 
history as a Congress of missed opportunities, misplaced priorities.
  I think that in the last 4 months what we have seen is an 
administration which has provided a very well managed war and a very 
poorly managed economy. I regret that dichotomy because in the end, it 
will come home to bite each and every working American; and that is 
something that simply did not have to happen.
  But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is correct. This 
resolution needs to be passed. I hope that it will be the last one that 
needs to be passed and that we can produce these two or three bills 
that remain on the docket when the Congress reassembles on Wednesday 
next, as I understand the plan is.
  I do want to thank the gentleman. I hope this is the last time we are 
going to be on the floor with one of these. I do want to thank the 
gentleman for doing his duty. When you are the Chair of the Committee 
on Appropriations or, for that matter, any member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, it is your job to expose the entire institution to 
reality. Everyone can have political philosophy. Everyone can have 
their ideology. Everyone can have their political preferences. But in 
the end, numbers do not lie. Members of Congress can lie about the 
numbers, but the numbers themselves do not lie.
  The fact is that the gentleman has tried to stick to the facts. He 
has been victorious sometimes and he has been overrun sometimes. And I 
know if his judgment were allowed to prevail, this Congress could have 
ended a whole lot sooner with really very minor adjustments in the 
overall budget, but adjustments that nonetheless would have been very 
important in strengthening the security of this country. And I regret 
on those matters that we will have to address them at a later day.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations because he is right. When he pointed out how well the 
appropriations process has worked this year, he is exactly right; and 
that is because we had a good working relationship. We had some 
differences but we worked them out. And we got, except for one bill, we 
got very substantial votes on the other bills and I think that is a 
very good sign.
  We got off to a little late start this year because the President was 
late getting started since it took a while to decide who was going to 
be President. So we were fairly late in getting the detailed 
appropriations request from the administration. But once we got 
started, it has been a while ago now, but I hope the House Members will 
remember that we actually passed all of our appropriations bills, 
except 3, prior to the July 4 recess. And two of those three that we 
did not pass, well, actually, all 3 of them, we were very late getting 
the District of Columbia budget request. So that bill is usually late 
because we are late getting their request.
  The other 2 were Labor HHS and Health and Education, and that was 
because H.R. 1 had not passed yet. Shortly after H.R. 1 passed, which 
is the Education bill, then we did pass our Labor, Health and Education 
bill.

                              {time}  1045

  The other was national defense, and we were asked to hold up on the 
national defense bill until such time as the President could send us 
his budget amendment. That amendment arrived about the first week of 
July. Shortly after we received it, we began to do some hearings on the 
budget amendment. Then the August recess came; and so we sat in this 
Capitol building on September 11 to mark up that bill in the 
subcommittee, and it was that morning that the terrible, tragic 
terrorist attacks on the United States took place. The building was 
evacuated, the subcommittee had to leave, and following that we had to 
do the supplementals; so that bill got delayed. But the bulk of our 
work was completed in the House prior to the July 4 recess, and Members 
ought to be proud of that.
  There is another reason we have had to have several continuing 
resolutions. If Members remember, one of the biggest complaints in 
previous years was that at the end of the process, we lumped five or 
six or seven bills altogether in an omnibus bill that no one had an 
opportunity to really understand what was in it, and months later we 
found things in the omnibus bill that surprised many of us. The hue and 
cry went up, no more omnibus bills.
  Mr. Speaker, no omnibus bill this year. All 13 appropriations bills 
plus two supplementals have been done as they should be done.
  So we come to the end of the process and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) is correct, we both believe when the House comes back next 
week, the final appropriations bills will be prepared to be voted on, 
and the House will have completed its appropriations business by next 
week.
  I thank Members for the support and correction that they have given 
us on both sides of the aisle. We have worked around our differences. 
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, we were victorious on 
occasion. We lost a few, but the House worked its will. That is what 
the House is all about, the House works its will.
  We have had strong leadership from the Republican side. The Speaker 
of the House has been a very strong leader and very strong supporter of 
the appropriations process. He understood the difficulties that we 
faced, and understood some of the decisions we had to make. But we come 
to the end of the process now. I think everyone is still smiling at 
each other, everyone is still shaking hands after the bills are 
completed, so I think we end the appropriations season with a pretty 
good feeling, and I thank all Members for that. I particularly thank 
the chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees, and I 
particularly thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as the 
ranking member, and I thank the members of the staff.
  A lot of Members do not know this, but on so many occasions, to get 
an appropriations bill through the process requires many, many, many 
24-hour days where the staff actually stays throughout the night. My 
staff is led by Jim Dyer, our clerk, and the staff of the ranking 
member is led by Scott Lilly. We have a good staff relationship. Some 
of these people work 24 hours a day on many, many days during an 
appropriation season. And it seems like the appropriation season goes 
all year long some years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, when people here say that the staff has worked 24 hours 
around the clock, I think they think that is just figuratively. That is 
not the case. There are a number of occasions when many staffers on 
this committee have had to work for literally 2

[[Page H10064]]

to 3 days without ever having an hour of sleep. They have worked 
straight through. That will have to happen again if we are to finish 
the defense bill and the Labor-HHS bill in accordance with the 
schedule.
  I do want to issue one warning because we have been told with respect 
to homeland security items, strengthening the FBI, giving greater 
security at the border, providing greater assistance to local public 
health officials in the event of an outbreak of biological or chemical 
attacks on this country by terrorists, we have been told do not worry, 
we can do that in March. There is plenty of time to do that in March. 
Members said that again to me yesterday.
  If we look at the calendar for next year, this Congress is scheduled 
in January to have exactly 1 full day of session on January 24 and one-
half day on January 23. The following week we will meet only after 5 
p.m., and the next day there will be no votes after 2. So that is about 
2 legislative days in the entire month of January.
  If we look at the calendar for February, I see there are 6 full 
legislative days scheduled in February, and 3 other days where there 
will be no real action until after 6:30 in the evening. Give or take, 
that is about 7 working days.
  In March, the same thing, about 7\1/2\ full working days. If the 
Congress is to seriously consider supplemental appropriations for 
defense and for homeland security, to expect this Congress with that 
few number of working days to actually get something from the 
President, hold hearings, produce a bill in the House, send it to the 
Senate, have the Senate pass it and have those differences worked out, 
it would be phenomenally rare if Congress were able to act that 
quickly. For those who say ``Do not worry about any security issues 
remaining, we can get this done by March,'' I suggest to those Members 
to read the calendar. It is not so likely.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to urge 
Members to support this continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). 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 12, 2001, 
the previous question is ordered.
  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, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider 
was laid on the table.



                          ____________________