[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 26402-26407]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 26403]]

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.
  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)

[[Page 26404]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 26405]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 26406]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 26407]]

  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.''

                          ____________________