C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 31, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and opened to amendment at any point.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and I both appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on this issue. As the gentleman knows, our allocation was not nearly as high as we had hoped, and we prepared the best bill that we could while under the current budget constraints. With that said, I agree that the operations on infrastructure portion of the program provides the important funding for State immunization initiatives, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and I both would be very happy to work with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on this issue as we move forward in the process.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Is the gentleman willing to try to work out a unanimous consent agreement that would complete consideration of this bill by tomorrow night, whatever time it might be?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the answer is affirmative.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If we get a unanimous consent agreement, a unanimous consent agreement is binding.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, I understand what the gentleman is saying and, as I said earlier, all of the time so far on this bill has been spent on the amendments from your side. So there would obviously be time required on our side to offer amendments, but I am prepared to make a recommendation to my side of the aisle on a time limitation in order to complete this bill by tomorrow night, if you are willing to sit down and to try to reach an agreement on that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, it is our understanding based on our agreement of last week that we would take the Obey amendments as they appeared in the bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, is that one of the amendments that we had agreed to in the unanimous consent?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would find no objection to accommodating that Member. But I expect that the same agreement of the time limitation would still apply.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I understand it is tomorrow. Just in case something happens between now and then. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, about this time last year we had interfered substantially with a very personal matter relative to our ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, so just in the event that that might happen again, and I hope it does not, I wanted to wish him a happy anniversary, and hopefully he will be able to get to do something proper with his wife this year which he was prevented from last year.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of this bill. This is a good bill. The subcommittee has worked really hard to fashion a bill that meets the needs as best they could with the funding available to them. I would like to compliment and congratulate the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who has done such a magnificent job as chairman of the subcommittee, and his partner and our very dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member, who in his turn served as chairman of the subcommittee. They have done a good job. I rise today to discuss an important role that Congress plays in the whole business of national defense. I have reviewed the Constitution today, as I do periodically. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides the authorities and responsibilities of the Congress, talks about providing for the common defense. It also says that Congress ``has the authority to raise and support the armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.'' I take that responsibility very seriously, as I know my colleagues in the House do, Mr. Chairman. But we have more of a responsibility than just sending troops into combat or declaring war. We have more of an obligation to those who serve in the military of our country not only to give them the best training that is second to none, the best equipment that we hope will be second to none, but we also have an obligation to house them, to clothe them, to feed them, to provide their health care, not only to those who serve in the uniform, but also their families. I want to rise today, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding the time to me, to discuss some issues that are in my opinion very important as they relate to military health care. As many of my colleagues know, during my long tenure as a Member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, and 5 years ago became its chairman, I was totally committed and an outspoken advocate for our military families and their health care. Today, as chairman of the full committee, I continue that commitment, because it is essential. It is an obligation that we have as Members of Congress to care for these troops and their families. That includes proper medical care. That support is evident by the fact that since fiscal year 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has recommended and Congress has approved $66 billion for the defense health program. That is an amount that is $3.5 billion more than the President requested for military health care for that same period. Of that $3.5 billion increase, about $2.5 billion was provided for urgent requirements of the Department of Defense. In other words, the Department's budgets for military health were grossly insufficient when they arrived in the Congress. If Congress had not provided these additional funds, the health care of military families and military retirees would have been severely affected. To give an idea of how much was needed year by year for the last few years, let me add this. In fiscal year 1997, Congress added $475 million over the President's budget for military health care. In 1998, we added another $274 million as a budget amendment. In fiscal year 1999, we added $200 million over the President's budget in our supplemental. In the supplemental for this year, 2000, we added $1.6 billion. That provision is now in conference. Hopefully we will respond to that quickly. Needless to say, this support for military medicine and quality care continues under the outstanding leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). This bill today appropriates over half a billion dollars more than the administration requested for military medicine. I raise the issue because it is important to understand that besides just preparing them for wars and battles, that it is our responsibility to provide health care for those who serve in our military, whether it is at time of war, time of battle, or whether there are injuries in training. Whatever it might be, it is our responsibility. We provide for the hospitals and the clinics and the doctors and the nurses and the corpsmen and the specialists, all who serve our military men, women, and their families. I have been concerned about these extra monies that we have had to increase, but we have done it. I am just not satisfied that all of those monies are being used effectively. To the contrary, I think maybe there is too much bureaucracy. Maybe there is too much administrative staffing. There is something wrong, because my office and the office of the Committee on Appropriations have received numerous complaints. In one of our military hospitals today, as we sit here in this Chamber, lies a retired Marine colonel who received the Medal of Honor in Vietnam, a real hero. He had a serious operation a few days ago, and he laid in pain in his bed for almost a whole day when the pain machine that he was given did not work. These are machines that allows the patient to push a button and a measured amount of painkiller then will enter the body and help ease the pain. For nearly a day, after request after request, that Marine colonel, Medal of Honor recipient, laid in pain. That is just not right. Another case, a young soldier was shot during a training exercise. He was moved to one of our military hospitals. Early one morning he had stabbing pains with every breath that he took. Orders were given to do CAT scans or x-rays to find out what was causing this problem, but it was a Sunday, and the tests that were ordered Sunday morning had not been done even as late as late Sunday night. But thank God for the intervention of a doctor outside of that particular institution who went to that hospital and insisted that the test be done. Those tests resulted in the discovery that this young Marine had two pulmonary embolisms, either one of which could have broken loose at a moment's notice and killed him. That is not right. Something needs to be done. I had planned to offer an amendment today that would have dealt with this issue very, very effectively, but I have been in contact with a member of our Defense Department for whom I have tremendous respect and we have discussed this issue at length. He has promised that he will do everything that he possibly can to correct these situations wherever they might be. So I am not going to offer that amendment today, but I will reserve that amendment for a future date if necessary. Again, I want to remind my colleagues, it is our obligation. We are responsible under the Constitution for the men and women who serve in our uniform, and their health care is just part of it. We provide for the hospitals, we provide for the staff. It is our obligation. If we see something that is not working properly, it is our obligation to fix it. I make that commitment to my colleagues today, that I will be there on the front line to fix these problems wherever I find them.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the chairman for that, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that commitment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight, June 1, 2000, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize Mr. Robert Stine, as he plans for his retirement from the Prince William County School System and Woodbridge Middle School. Mr. Stine has devoted 35 years of his life to the field of education. For the past 17 years he has been the principal of Woodbridge Middle School in Woodbridge, Virginia. Mr. Stine was born in 1944 in Meadville, Pennsylvania. It was at an early stage of life that Principal Robert Stine first distinguished his extraordinary leadership skills. During his youth, he was actively involved in school organizations and rose to serve as President of both the Key Club and the Letterman's Club. He also excelled in several high school sports serving as the captain of the baseball and basketball teams. Following this impressive High School career, Mr. Stine went on to Alliance College where he received his Bachelor's degree in biology in 1966. Five years later he obtained his Masters Degree in Guidance and Counseling from the prestigious University of Virginia. In August of 1970, Mr. Stine began his career in the Prince William County School System. Starting out as a high school guidance counselor and J.V. basketball coach, he quickly moved up the administrative ladder. Mr. Stine took the position of Assistant Principal in 1974. Two years later he became the Principal of Stonewall Jackson Middle School, and later of Godwin Middle School, before accepting his current position as Principal of Woodbridge Middle. For almost two decades he has tirelessly devoted his time and efforts to serving the students, teachers and parents of the Woodbridge community. During his years at Woodbridge Middle School, he and the school have been recognized throughout the state of Virginia for the new and innovative programs the middle school has initiated for its students. The school was one of the first to utilize the proactive disciplinary technique P.A.T.S., which teaches the concepts of rights, responsibilities, behaviors, and consequences to students who attend the school. Under the direction of Mr. Stine, Woodbridge Middle was the first school in Prince William County and one of the few middle schools in the entire state to adopt a school uniform policy. Another important plan developed during Mr. Stine's administration was the school's advisory program. This program, which promotes successful teaming exercises and fairness among all students, has earned national recognition and was featured at a national Middle School Conference several years ago. Mr. Stine was also instrumental in the institution's receipt of numerous awards of excellence, including recognition by the State Department of Education as a Vanguard School. This prestigious designation recognizes Woodbridge Middle as one of the 25 finest learning institutions in the State. Woodbridge Middle School is also a V-Quest School, a distinction given to schools that use creative math and science curricula. With the guidance and direction of Mr. Robert Stine, Woodbridge Middle School has become an outstanding place for adolescents to learn and grow. The teachers are dedicated to the academic, social and athletic development of each student. Parent and community involvement is encouraged in every aspect of the school's operation, and every student is appreciated for their unique background, abilities and talents. Today, I rise to honor Mr. Stine not only as a member of the House of Representatives, but as a proud father who has watched his three sons mature, develop and become better students and people while attending Mr. Stine's school. For that I am very thankful. We will miss him greatly and wish him the best as he moves on to new challenges in the next exciting chapter of his life.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would just urge the Members to pay very close attention to the debate today. We are not talking about just a run-of- the-mill piece of legislation. We are talking about a decision that this House would have to live with for a long, long time in policy and procedure on some of the most important things that we do. Mr. Chairman, of all the legislation we consider, the bills that really have to pass are appropriations bills. So let us be careful that we do not create some procedure or way to conduct a budget process, an appropriations process, that cannot work, that results in longer delays than under the current budget process. I just ask Members to be very careful in how they listen to the debate and how they choose to vote on some of the amendments and on the final package, whatever condition that final package is when we go to a final vote.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the argument that I just heard about weakening the appropriations process, or weakening the House. I believe that we actually strengthen the position of the United States Congress in our separation of powers, in our separate but equal branches of government, by providing oversight of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by the agencies of the Federal Government. Now, if we do not have time to do oversight, we are not strengthening the position of the House of Representatives or the Congress in that whole process. I referred to this chart earlier, and I would ask the Members to look at it again. All of the days and weeks colored in red are days that have gone past, that have expired, that are gone before the Committee on Appropriations ever got a budget allocation. Now, we cannot assign 302(b) allocations to our subcommittees until we get a 302(a) allocation that comes from the budget resolution. When we lose more than half of the year before we can even begin to make our allocations, we are losing valuable time in getting appropriations bills considered, passed in the House and the Senate, and approved by the President of the United States. We run out of time and do not have adequate time for negotiations with the Senate or the President, and we do not have time to do the oversight. And they say, well, do the oversight over here. That is fine, and we do some oversight during this period. But we need to see the President's budget and we need to see the resolution of the Committee on the Budget so we know what kind of oversight we are supposed to provide. We do a pretty good job as appropriators in oversight. We eliminate a lot of the wasteful programs. There is a lot more to be done. We eliminate a lot of duplicative programs. There is a lot more to be done. And if we had more time to apply to this job rather than having to rush and rush and hurry to get the appropriations bills done before the end of September, we could do more oversight. We could strengthen the hand of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Congress as we deal with the executive branch of Government. The branches of Government are supposedly, under our Constitution, separate but equal. It seems that in recent years, the executive branch has become more equal than any other branch, for a lot of reasons. One reason is the confusion that we created in the budget process that was put into effect in 1974. That cost us time and cost us the ability to do the real oversight that we ought to be doing. So I am a supporter of biennial appropriations, and I know a lot of my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations are also supporters. I also know that a lot of my appropriating colleagues are not. But I think it is a good move and I think we ought to support this. While there is a difference of opinion on the Committee on Appropriations, for a number of reasons, it is my opinion, having served on this committee for 27 years that, prior to the time that we had limitations put on us by the Budget and Impoundment Control Act, we had more time to do better oversight. But once the budget act was put into effect and we were given dates that were not realistic as far as appropriations were concerned, we lost a lot of the time that we could use in oversight and in appropriating. So I would just ask the Members to think about this seriously and consider giving us the opportunity to have time to do this oversight and do it properly by supporting this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).