C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would, in the same tone that my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), just spoke, I would like to say to him and to all the Members that if we wanted to be political about this what we would have done would be to have all the checks delivered to those offices of the Members who voted for the tax cut and let them send out the checks with a little message to their constituents. Now that would have been political. The way we are doing it now is really not political, and I think it is important that people understand in plain English what this is all about.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Sanders amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the following specified amendments to the bill, and any amendments thereto, be limited to the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as an opponent: Number one, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), as printed in part B of the Rule, for 20 minutes; and an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding the tax rebate mailing and high-intensity drug trafficking areas, for 30 minutes. This request has been agreed to by the minority and the majority.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order at this point.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment as agreed to earlier today and that there would be 10 minutes on each side. So, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order until that 10 minutes on each side has been concluded.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have had the opportunity to review the amendment. We find it to be a very positive amendment. For the majority, I accept this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there will be an appropriate time to consider this amendment. When the authorizing bill is passed, the vehicle will be available. But at the present time, I must make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states, in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I insist on the point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wonder if the gentleman would speak a little more directly into the microphone and explain what his request is.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reserve a point of order. Although this amendment was not part of the originally agreed- upon unanimous consent, I will not make the point of order until the gentleman has his 5 minutes, but after he has explained the amendment, I will make the point of order against the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman as the new chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. He has done an exceptional job in bringing a great communication between the Congress and the District of Columbia. This is a good amendment. As he said, this is not Federal funds, this is District of Columbia funds. This is a germane amendment, it is an appropriation amendment, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in support of the previous question and also will be rising in support of the supplemental appropriations bill. There are 435 of us in this Chamber and if each one of us were to write our own version of this supplemental, there would probably be 435 different versions; and we cannot have that. In our process, that is not the way it works. So the Committee on Appropriations, in an effort to allow Members to make a major contribution to the final product, the Committee on Appropriations asks for an open rule. I have never asked the Committee on Rules to give me a closed rule on any appropriations bill. This is an open rule, meaning that any Member who has an amendment that is germane to the bill, that is an appropriations item, that they will be able to offer that amendment. We would possibly agree with some; possibly we will not agree with some. We will make that determination once the debate takes place. As an announcement to our Members, I wanted to tell them that although we were late getting our numbers, specific numbers, from the administration, we are still well under way. This is the first appropriations bill of the season. However, if we look at it technically, it is the last appropriations because of the fiscal year 2001 season because it is a fiscal year 2001 supplemental. For the benefit of the Members, the Committee on Appropriations has reported out this supplemental, plus three other of the major appropriations bills for fiscal year 2002. The fourth appropriations bill has already been reported by the subcommittee, and next week there will be four additional subcommittee markups. I say this so that Members will know that the Committee on Appropriations is moving expeditiously, despite the fact that we got off to a very, very late start. I listened with interest to what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) said on the amendment that he would offer, and I cannot disagree with him. There is a large list of shortfalls in our military services. There are many things that they need that we are not providing. We are anticipating a very substantial budget amendment from the President sometime within the next couple of weeks that will address many of the issues that the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) raises. Those of us who work with national defense issues every day of our legislative lives are concerned that there are tremendous shortfalls in the needs of our national defense establishment, shortfalls in the needs of quality-of-life issues for our men and women who serve in uniform, and we are going to address those. The bill that we provide today has certain budgetary constraints. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 sets certain budgetary restraints. The $6.5 billion presented by this bill is the top line in those budgetary constraints. There is not much we can do about that. So we present a bill with the best advice and consent that we could have from the appropriations members to use that $6.5 billion in a cost- effective way. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for giving me this opportunity, and I do hope that we can expedite consideration of the previous question, the rule and get right to the bill. This could be a long day.