C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations 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 includes an emergency designation under section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would just take the time to advise the gentleman that our leadership knows of the gentleman's concern. As the gentleman has noticed from the debate that has taken place today, there is a strong disagreement as to whether these amendments would actually solve the problem or add to the problem. Now, this situation deserves hearings, it deserves an opportunity to be investigated by the committee that has jurisdiction and has more knowledge than the Committee on Appropriations. So, I would be happy to tell the gentleman, the leadership already knows about this debate. I repeat, there is a strong difference of opinion as to what the effect of these amendments would be. Those on our side believe that they would be negative, have the opposite effect of what your side believes. The amendments should be considered by an authorizing committee that has jurisdiction, and they can have hearings and investigate and make the decisions based on what the facts really are.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond in this way: This is an important subject. This is an important matter. What I am trying to do is to protect the institution, and the institution provides for appropriations bills and for authorization bills. The way to deal with these issues, because they are authorizing in nature, they change the law, is to write a bill, introduce it, take it to the committee of jurisdiction and persuade that committee to bring the bill to the floor. If we do not do that, what happens is every appropriations bill that comes before the Congress is going to get overburdened with amendments that are not appropriations in nature. At the end of every year, Members complain bitterly sometimes that everything is being held up, we cannot come to a conclusion on this or that. Most of the issues that hold us up at the end of a Congress are legislation on appropriations bills, riders that have no place on appropriations bills. We are trying to protect the integrity of the rules of this institution. Just one further point: All of these amendments that we are talking about here were presented in the committee, and they were debated at great length in the committee, and in fact there were votes on all of these amendments in the committee. So there have been votes at the Committee on Appropriations level.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment and will not exercise the point of order until the gentleman has had his 5 minutes to explain.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 10 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

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 may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wish to make sure that my reservation on a point of order against the Farr amendment is protected.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations 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 includes an emergency designation under section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and, as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. Therefore, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, according to the agreement, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield half of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to control the time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctantly rising to oppose the gentleman's amendment. He talks about a .33 percent cut across-the-board, but what he does not point out is that 75 percent of the fiscal year is already gone, which means that 75 percent or more of the money allocated to the agencies have already been spent. Let me give one example. In the event that this amendment were to pass, the aid to Israel, which has already been released and sent to Israel, they would have to give us a refund of $9.5 million. If we were to pass this amendment, we would be cutting WIC by $13.3 million. We would be hitting the rural rental housing program with a deficit of $2.3 million, and $29 million would have to be cut from the Pell grant program. Furthermore, $25 million would be cut from the special education programs. LIHEAP, the program that we just doubled from the President's budget in this bill, would have to be reduced by $5 million. Child care, $3 million would be cut from funding to help States provide assistance to families for child care. On border and port security, both the Customs Service and the INS would have to reduce staffing and overtime hours at ports of entry, likely causing delays and reducing the frequency of inspections along the border. With the Coast Guard, something we all support, the Coast Guard would lose $11 million because of this amendment, which would further exacerbate the shortages that the Coast Guard already has, something we are trying to improve in this bill. On VA and medical care, if .33 went out across the board, as the amendment said, VA medical care would be cut by $65 million. I do not think we want to do that. FEMA, although this is supposedly returning money that was rescinded from FEMA, it would be cut by $5.3 million. That does not make sense to me, when we take it out with one hand and put it back in with the other hand. These are only a few of the examples. I am sure there are many more, if we had the time to do this. But I just ask our colleagues to oppose the Toomey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Freylinghuysen).

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this House knows that when I make an agreement, I keep it. As I said, I think everybody in this Chamber knows that if I make a commitment, I keep it. I agreed not to press the point of order at the beginning of the debate so the gentlewoman could have time, and we agreed that each side would have 15 minutes. She had her 15 minutes and then went on to violate the agreement by taking another 5 minutes. I am not going to respond in kind or rebut this at all; but the point is, the arguments of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) should be made on an authorizing bill. They should not be made on an appropriations bill. The other authorizing issues she is concerned about are practically meaningless. This is a very significant change of the basic law. I would suggest to anyone else listening to this conversation that if we are going to violate the agreement that we had earlier in the day, I will press the point of order on everyone at the beginning of the consideration of the amendment, and I will not provide the additional 20 minutes that I have agreed to. If we are going to make a deal, let us keep the deal. Let us do not violate it.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct something that was just said, veterans health care is discretionary. Veterans health care is discretionary and would be affected by this amendment. I mentioned earlier, as have others, 75 percent of the fiscal year has gone by. By the time this bill goes to the other body, gets conferenced, goes to the White House, 80 percent of the year might be gone. The money is going to be spent. This does not work. The money is obligated, and it is just not going to work. This amendment is not as good as it might sound. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.