C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is another one of those one-day CRs. We find ourselves here in the House Chamber on Sunday night because the President of the United States refuses to sign a continuing resolution longer than 24 hours. This resolution is to provide for one more day of continuing government funding until tomorrow night. I would report briefly that the negotiations are ongoing this afternoon, negotiations with both parties and both Houses of the Congress. We will be meeting with the representatives of the White House later tonight. We would make every effort possible to conclude those negotiations sometime before tomorrow morning and hopefully be able to write this final bill and to file it in the House sometime tomorrow night and possibly have it on the floor Tuesday. That is why we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have my own ideas as to why the President wants us here day after day, one day at a time, but I do not know for sure what his reason is. However, on your question of amnesty, I would remind the gentleman, that during the development of the Commerce, Justice appropriations conference report, in the closing hours, the President did request a broad-based general amnesty for illegal aliens. The House responded and the conference committee responded with a compromise that would provide amnesty for family reunification. Some of the families had already been granted citizenship, and this would allow them to unify their families. We did that in the Commerce, Justice bill. We have been advised that the President is going to veto the Commerce, Justice appropriations bill, and one of the main reasons is because we did not give him the general broad-based amnesty that he requested. Now, whether or not that becomes a major issue on the development of the Labor, HHS conference report, I am not really sure at this point. I think it is going to depend on what action he takes relative to the Commerce, Justice bill; and if he vetoes that, then we will have to determine how best to deal with that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrist).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for bringing up this issue because this is a good debate. We need to be discussing this issue. I heard some things on that side that I agreed with. In fact, I heard one of my colleagues on the other side say that this should be a partnership. Mr. Speaker, I agree, this should be a partnership. That is where both partners have equal enjoyment of the authority and the jurisdiction. But under the motion to instruct, I just have the feeling and I am really convinced that this would be a one-sided partnership with the Federal Government being by far the most senior partner. Now, that really disturbs me, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) just made the case that the Department of Education could not account for $100 million worth of student loans last year and could not audit their accounts. Now, I do not think I want that educational department running the school districts in Pinellas County, Florida, where I have the privilege of representing the teachers and the students and the parents. But we will soon vote on this issue, and we are going to decide whether or not we want the Federal Government and Federal aid with all kinds of strings on it to our local systems. But I want to make this as a closing argument. We believe strongly in education, and the money that we have already agreed to provide is in excess of what the President requested. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. The money that we are agreeing to provide as we speak today is in excess of what the President of the United States asked for. As we negotiate the final agreement on this appropriations bill, I am convinced that that number will be even higher. So we are not arguing about the dollars. What we are arguing about is who controls the dollars. Our position is that the dollars should be controlled by the people in the school districts, where they know what their needs are far better than the Department of Education or some other bureaucracy here in Washington, D.C. And then I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. I have spent a lot of my time in the Congress, my assignment being national defense, national security, intelligence, and I am proud of the fact that we have a tremendous military capability. We have the best kids serving in our uniforms. They are all not kids but the vast majority of them are. I have visited with almost every one of the sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole who were injured. I visited with them as they came home, I visited with them in the hospital, I even visited with some of them in their ambulances. They are kids. But they provide a strong national defense. We do not have the largest Army by a long shot. There are five or six other countries with a much larger army than we have. In Desert Storm we had 18 divisions. Today we only have 10. That is a tremendous downsizing which I do not agree with. But we have a technological advantage. We have created superior technology, superior weapons systems, and we have smart young people who are able to handle these defense systems. That is important, because without a strong national security, most of these other things we argue about would not even be arguable. In fact, without a strong national security, this Congress probably would not even be here; we would not exist. Some dictator would be running this country. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that without a good, strong, effective educational system, we could not develop the technology that we have developed, that is super, that is better than any other in the world. There are still others out there that have nuclear weapons and have all kinds of threats they could pose to the United States. But we have the great technology, and we have the young men and women who are able to handle, to manage, to administer that technology. If we do not maintain and continue to improve our educational systems, the ability to defend this country deteriorates as we allow our educational systems to deteriorate. We believe in a strong education. We are determined to provide for a strong and effective education. But we understand that when we are dealing with K-12 and local educational communities and local schools and local teachers, that the decisions on whether they need new schools or whether they need more new teachers or whether they need special education, whether they need more books, whether they need computers, those needs should be determined in the school district, by the people who know what their needs are, not by the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. who cannot even account for $100 million worth of student loans this last year. I hope we reject this motion to instruct the conferees. Let the conferees continue on the track that we are on now, which is providing more money for education but guaranteeing that local people, local teachers, local taxpayers, local parents will have control over how that money is spent. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), but I just wanted the gentlewoman to know in advance what my plan was.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, to advise my dear friend from New York that I will be yielding to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) in just a minute, and then I will reserve the balance of my time so I can have a closing statement prior to the time the gentlewoman makes her statement.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) use her time. I think she has considerably more time left than I do.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for helping me make the case that I set out to make a few minutes ago, partially helping make that case I would say. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we will attempt to stay within our time limits that we were assigned. I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who is not only an educator in his own right, but is chairman of the committee responsible for authorizing educational issues. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, I would say that we are not going to support this motion to instruct as we did the last one. Even considering the fact that we supported the last one, there was more political rhetoric that came from the other side than in most campaign meetings. So I suspect that is going to be the same this time because we are not going to support this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, there are major differences between the political parties. One of the big major differences is that one party believes that all of the power should be centralized in Washington, that whoever works in the bureaucracy here is smarter than anybody else in the country. That is not our party, Mr. Speaker. Not yours and not mine. That is their party. We believe that States and local communities and the people in those States and local communities have a right to make decisions for themselves. That is one of the major differences between the two parties. Now, when the Constitution was first written, and we have all applauded the Framers of the Constitution so many times, they originally created a Constitution that created a very powerful central government. They gave all of the power of the government to the Federal Government. But then they realized they had made a mistake and they created what? The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights that protected the people's rights as individuals, that protected the rights of the States as individual States of a union, and what we are trying to do is to maintain what the Framers intended with the Bill of Rights, and that is to protect the rights of the people in our communities to make decisions for themselves, except in those cases where the Federal Government is the only agency that is able to deal with things such as national defense, such as Social Security, such as Medicare, things of this nature. Education has become a large issue; and believe me, we support education. In fact, in this legislation that we are debating here and negotiating, my colleagues will find that we have provided more money in that bill than the President of the United States asked for. The major difference between us, and other speakers will go into this in more detail, but the major difference is who decides how the money is spent. Their side thinks that Washington should decide it all for people in my community, people in his community, people in others' communities; and we disagree with that. We believe that the needs are different in different parts of the country. We understand that there are some school districts where they need more schools and construction is important. We also understand that there are some places in the country where they need more teachers, or they need more special education, or they need more technology, some computers, some laboratories. We understand that the needs are different. They are not all alike in every community in this Nation. Our approach is to give those communities the opportunity to make the decisions on what they will do with the money that we will provide through the block grant. Mr. Speaker, for years and years in this country of ours, people opposed Federal aid to education, and the reason that I heard from my constituents and many of my colleagues heard from their constituents, is that they were not opposed to the Federal Government being interested in education, but they did not want the Federal strings that came from Washington. They did not want the strings that came with Federal aid. They preferred to go it on their own, which they do 95 percent of the time anyway, with local and State funds. However, now we are talking about more involvement on the part of the Federal Government from the standpoint of centralized education from their side than from the standpoint of a block grant as far as we are concerned. We think we are on the right side, and that is the position that we have taken; and that is the position we are going to stand by, and that is the position we are going to support today by opposing this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is an appropriate time for me to make this closing statement because I just listened to my friend saying that this should be a nonpartisan issue. Amen. In fact, I think about an hour ago, I suggested to the gentlewoman when she offered her motion, we accept it. We agree. We have already put in here more money than the President asked for or that her side asked for. So we agree. It ought to be a nonpartisan issue. If they would let it be a nonpartisan issue, it would be. What I cannot figure out is why in the world can you not take yes for an answer? We have agreed to this motion. In the little time that I have, we have heard a lot of complaint from that side of the aisle about how long it takes to get this work done. Here is a perfect example of why it takes so long. They cannot take yes for an answer. Then if you give them a yes, and they do accept it, the next time you sit down together, they move the target. They move the goal post. At one point on the advance funding, we were at one level. The administration and the minority asked for a level. We went to that level. They went another level. We went to that level. Now they have another level. I do not know where they are going to end. Maybe she will tell me in her closing remarks exactly what their top number is going to be. We have accepted her motion to instruct the conferees. There were a lot of complaints about oil company profits, and I think they make too much profit as well, and a lot of talking about price increases to the homeowner and to the motorist. Well, who sets the oil policy of this country? It is the President of the United States and the Vice President. What is the policy? It must not be a very good policy, if there is one, if prices continue to go up and up and up. Maybe because their Secretary of Energy said, and I am quoting him, we were asleep at the switch. An administration should not be asleep at the switch when it is dealing with something that has so much effect on each individual American's economy. There is something else, though, really got me stirred up, and I do not like to be stirred up, I would rather be calm, but one of the speakers on that side of the aisle said that the Republicans cut LIHEAP. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. Republicans did not cut LIHEAP, and I am going to give you the example and I am going to give you an exact number. In fiscal year 1996, there was a substantial amount of unobligated balances for that year and so we did rescind those, but they had not been spent. In 1997, the request was $1 billion. We as a Republican Congress appropriated $1 billion. In 1998, the request was $1 billion. The Republican Congress appropriated $1 billion. In 1999, the request was $1 billion, a very flat number coming from the administration. They never asked for these increases. But in 1999 again they asked for $1 billion. We upped it to $1.1 billion. In fiscal year 2000, they asked for $1.1 billion and, yes, we went $1.1 billion. Now, tell me how the claim, the accusation, the political rhetoric that we cut LIHEAP has any truth or validity. It is just not true. And the American people who are the consumers ought to know this. This campaign rhetoric is okay on the campaign trail because candidates do sometimes get carried away with their facts and their figures. But in this House when we are doing the people's business, facts should be accurate. Facts should be facts. The people's business should come ahead of politics. There again, I want to suggest, we are fighting over something that we have agreed to. Why the accusations? Why the arguments? I have pointed out how we have gone above and beyond for this year and we are supporting this motion to instruct and we stayed with the administration's request in all of the years of the Republican Congress except one where we increased it. What is the argument? Is this a political argument? If it is a political argument, it belongs out on the campaign trail. It does not belong here in the people's House where we are here to do the people's business and put their business ahead of politics.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we support the motion to instruct. I would ask the Members to vote for it.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I take this additional time to say one of the reasons that it has taken us so much time to conclude these negotiations is they cannot take yes for an answer. We agreed to this motion to commit. I said we are at $1.4 billion, which was the request of the minority and the President; and we agreed to the $1.4 billion. Now my colleagues are moving the goal post again. Now my colleagues are going to go to $1.6 billion. We are going to agree to the $1.6 billion. But then are my colleagues going to come back and go to $1.8 billion and $1.9 billon? Why do we not do this all at one time and save the time for negotiation? On gas prices, the great political move of releasing from our Strategic Petroleum Reserves was simply that, political, because, first of all, it was about worth a day and a half of our consumption in the United States. But let me tell my colleagues what happened. The oil was sold to a company who bought the oil and then turned around with a nice big profit and sold it again before it got to the refinery and the consumer. Now, how did that affect those of us who put gasoline in our vehicles? It did not affect me. And I do not think it affected anybody in this Chamber, because when I buy gas and the people in my neighborhood buy gas, the price of gasoline did not go down one penny since the release of the oil reserve, maybe others in other parts of the country have better news than that. But I can tell my colleagues that my constituents did not save even a penny a gallon on the release, the political release, of that strategic fuel oil reserve. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. English).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, that is correct; and this is the amount that the administration agreed to and the minority agreed to.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what I said was, and let me double-check that, we have agreed to advance-fund $1.4 billion.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?