Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 376 introduced by the distinguished minority whip, Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri. It would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability of designating the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, Missouri, as a part of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield or as a separate unit of the National Park System.

I support this bill. I commend the leadership and persistence of Mr. Blunt on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to, at this time, yield to the sponsor of the bill, the minority whip, such time as he may consume, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield as much time as he may consume to the author of this particular piece of legislation, the distinguished and debonair Congressman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

The tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia has touched the hearts of all of us, and Mr. Gohmert should be commended for his attention to this.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to support H.R. 497.

H.R. 497, introduced by Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina, would

authorize the Marion Park Project to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion.

The work authorized by this legislation will be completed with private funds provided by the Marion Park Project and not by the Federal Government. Congressman Joe Wilson and Congressman Henry Brown should be commended for sending us such an outstanding bill.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 497.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume for this wonderful project honoring General Francis Marion, better known as the Swamp Fox in the Revolutionary War, to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, anything that deals with some place called Eutaw Springs in South Carolina has to be a good project. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when I was young, growing up, I would often ask my mother if I could go to my friend's house to play, and she would say no. And instinctively I would then say, well, Billy's mom lets him go. And my mom would then say, I know, but I am not Billy's mom and I don't care what Billy's mom lets Billy do.

Well, that was an important lesson that I learned. Unfortunately, some of our courts have failed to learn that specific lesson, and that is why I feel honored to be able to stand here and talk about the Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution, which my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, briefly introduced in his remarks.

This bill states that ``judicial determinations regarding the meaning of laws of the United States should not be based in whole or in part on judgments, laws or pronunciations of foreign institutions unless those foreign judgments, laws and pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.''

Now, why would we do this? This only sounds logical. We are doing it simply because one Supreme Court majority admitted that they referred to laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of our 8th amendment.

Another case, the Court once again took into account the European Court of Human Rights in establishing the belief systems that they came up with.

Now, you may ask, once again, so what? What does that mean?

Justice Scalia made a good answer on what that means. ``It lends itself,'' as he said, ``to manipulation.'' In fact, it invites manipulation. If I am a judge who wants, in some way, to overturn a decision, I need some reason for it. I have to sound in some way like an attorney. I need to cite something. You can't cite something that is American because what I am trying to do is overturn two centuries of American precedent. So you find some intelligent man living in Zimbabwe or Poland or somewhere else in the world and cite his examples, and it looks very lawyerly. But it is, of itself, a manipulation.

Precedent is extremely important in our system of justice. Having a standard that does not change is important for the judge so that he realizes the standard he used in case A and case B will always be the same. It is even more important for citizens, for individuals, so that they know whether they go before judge one or judge two it will once again be the same standard that will be used in that situation. When we break those precedents, when we allow foreign precedents to take over, what we are simply doing is opening up the process for arbitrary and capricious decisions to be made. We are not in the process of, as someone once said of evolving our standards of decency as a mark of the progress of the maturing society. Because as Justice Scalia again said, sometimes society does not mature; it simply rots.

And the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to prevent change, not to encourage it, so that you leave people guessing as to what is appropriate, what is politically correct and what is indeed legal.

Satchel Paige used to talk to young pitchers when they were trying to learn how to pitch and being too cute at the plate by hitting the corners and were walking people. And he simply said, ``throw strikes. Home plate don't move.''

If we allow the court system to base their decisions on foreign opinions as opposed to American precedent, then home plate moves and home plate moves in a way that hurts citizens of the United States.

Now, there are some lawyers, maybe Supreme Court Justices, and others who would say that my comparison of my mom's reasoning to foreign law used in an American court would be inaccurate or oversimplistic. Perhaps so because, after all, they say, didn't our Founding Fathers look to foreign law when they were forming the Constitution? Indeed, if you read the Federalist Papers, you will see lots of references to the Swiss system and the German system. It is full of it. But the issue at hand is, once the Constitution is established, then our job is to try to understand what it meant when it was adopted, not search for some hook to find an alternate opinion for personal reasons or personal pique. Now, that is the key.

We shouldn't care what Billy's mom or foreign courts let Billy do because our court is not Billy's mom.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding me this time.

I suppose I speak to you here and declare it first a nonconflict of interest. I was not here on this floor when the original resolution to approve the use of force was made; therefore, I took as my role and responsibility when I came in here to make sure that we did everything in our power to make sure that our policy objectives were indeed followed through and successful.

You know, in the other Chamber, in the original House floor there is a beautiful sculpture sitting up there which is a clock made out of a chariot. The clock is actually the wheel, then there is a chariot. And in that chariot is the muse of history with this tablet in hand writing down what we do on the people's floor, the subject and our actions in history.

Perhaps it is good that that still stays out those doors and down the hallways and is not here today, because when the muse of history records what we are doing today and yesterday and tomorrow, and maybe Friday, that history is going to be written with an element of contempt.

There are some people who have opposed this war from the very beginning; they still oppose it now; and I give them credit to their commitment to consistency, although I don't necessarily agree with their decision. Some of those have also criticized this resolution as also being too weak of a resolution, for indeed the resolution today is a nonbinding resolution. By definition, it means it does nothing. It changes nothing, but allows us all to make statements for media consumption and allows some of those who made the original vote to use force the ability to shirk the responsibility of that particular action.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity of going back to Baltimore and watching a play, ``Wicked.'' And in the play, the main character, the male lead, Fiero, is in love with Elphaba. And she tries to distance herself from him by saying, ``Yeah, but you're thoughtless and shallow.'' And Fiero says, ``I know, but I am a deep shallow.''

This resolution is a deep shallow. It may have words aimed at the White House and the White House action, but regardless of those words, when history is written the finger of accusation will not point to the executive branch, who has been consistent, it is going to point back here to Congress, to our actions.

Our Constitution gives Congress the responsibility of the declaration of war. Instead, we passed a resolution approving force. With a war declaration, there is a commitment to action and to ultimate goals. A resolution of force implies something less, and it allows Members of Congress who did that to say, yes, I agreed with force but I didn't expect it to be used this way. Or, I wasn't really that serious. Or I didn't expect it to be anything more than a little war taking place. It is a process that allows you to be deeply shallow.

This resolution may clear the conscience of some people, it may put political distance between others, but it does noting for soldiers, it does nothing towards a U.S. victory, to benefit this country, or to improve the body politic. Our words, our actions, our votes will be looked on in history with contempt, for they are indeed in this issue deeply shallow.

In conclusion, I would like to describe the good that will come from this resolution for our Armed Forces.

Yes, that about sums it up.

Mr. Speaker, with disdain of the process of this flawed message that is so limited in its scope it does nothing to help those Members on either side of the aisle explain their nuances of their belief or this situation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 79 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, you know, about roughly three decades ago, Congress decided to offer dental health plan benefits to Federal employees. And as they sent out the price sheet to all the Federal employees and circulated amongst them, on that price sheet was a column that said what is not covered in the dental health plan. Underneath that column of what is not covered in the dental health plan was ``teeth.''

On the issue that we have before us right now, which deals with student payments and loans, I think if we had another column which said what is not covered in this bill, you might also have the word ``students.''

This particular bill is one that is extremely disappointing to me. Of the half dozen message bills that we had last week and continuing on this week, this is the one that for me held out the most hope for the future.

In fact, my disappointment is only perhaps met by yesterday when I went to the airport planning to fly into Washington, DC, and ended up in Baltimore. No offense to some of our wonderful staff who live there, but I didn't want to be in Baltimore, it didn't help me out.

This is another one of those bills. I say that from some kind of personal concept, because 2 years ago, I had four kids in college at the same time. This year, I have got three kids in college at the same time. Next year, I go back to four kids in college. Sometime, I hope the hemorrhaging will stop.

But I was hoping in some way that this could do some wonderful things for me. But this bill does nothing to expand the opportunity for kids to go to college. It does nothing to actually help kids as they are going through college. It only impacts graduates, and then only temporarily for a small period of time, the very people who probably need it the least.

Earl Weaver, the old manager of the Baltimore Orioles, used to try to bait the umpires by going in their face and simply saying, are you going to get any better, or is this it?

In all good deference, is this it? There is a significant problem we have, and hopefully once the rhetoric of the power plays of the couple of weeks are past, we can do some bipartisan work. For, indeed, the ranking member from California, my good friend, Mr. McKeon, does have a bill which addresses the real needs of kids in public education and higher education at the same time, and it builds on a foundation of increasing support for higher education that has been going by the Republican Party for years and years and years.

It does try to expand access, which is what we should be doing. It does try and help those who are in school right

now, to support them. To be honest, I may even vote for this bill. This is one of those whoop-te-do bills. It doesn't spend a whole lot, it doesn't address a whole lot, it doesn't help a whole lot.

But, to be honest with you, what it does for my kids in college right now is nothing. What it does for the friends of my kids in college right now is nothing. What it does for the students I taught in high school who are still in college is basically nothing, when it could have done so much more and should have done so much more, and we need to move forward to do so much more.

There has to be something more. This isn't hopefully as good as it gets.

Mr. Speaker, in one of my favorite plays of all time, ``Inherit the Wind,'' the attorney Henry Drummond is talking to his client and his client's fiancee about a lesson of life based upon an experience that Drummond had when he was 7 years old, and by his own admission, a self-described expert on rocking horses.

He saw in the store window, Golden Dancer, a rocking horse with a red mane, blue eyes, beautiful gold with purple spots on it, and there would always be a plate glass window between him and Golden Dancer because it would have cost a week of his father's salary. But on his next birthday as he woke, he saw at the foot of his bed, Golden Dancer. His mother had scrimped on groceries, his father had worked nights for a month and they had purchased the very high-priced Golden Dancer.

He jumped out of the bed and jumped on to the rocking horse. As he began to rock, it broke. It busted in half. Golden Dancer was made of rotten wood. Despite all the glitz and glamour around it, it was held together by spit and sealing wax. They had purchased Golden Dancer, but at too high a price.

Often for us as individuals as well as society, we go after Golden Dancers, and they are purchased at too high a price. Embryonic stem cell research in my opinion is a Golden Dancer, and it would be purchased at too high a price. It is a glitzy golden dream that is out there.

Last year we were discussing this bill, a lot of doctors and genetic researchers on this floor, the overwhelming majority of whom were opposed to this process, because we can do the research without having to go through objectionable processes and procedures to do it, without having to deal with the issue of innocent life.

If embryos are being destroyed, it is not right that taxpayer money should be used to expand that process in what I find to be a morally objectionable way and objectionable process regardless of what that Golden Dancer may or may not be. To me, this is still an issue of ethics: Does the manner in which we spend our tax dollars promote a policy that one form of innocent life at a stage is more important than another innocent life at a different stage? Will we, by our tax policies, condone tax spending, condone a policy that says innocent life can be destroyed for utilitarian purposes? Because if we do that, whatever the reason may be, in my contention that cheapens society and it cheapens us, and it gives us a cavalier attitude of life at the beginning of the process which leads to a cavalier attitude of life at the end of the process and who knows in between.

This is a Golden Dancer that for me is too high a price for what it does to us as a people and as a society.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1101 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1101 allows for consideration of the conference report on House Resolution 5682, the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. It provides for a closed rule with 1 hour general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration, and it provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

The underlying bill is not only an excellent bipartisan bill, but also a tribute to the skill and wisdom of one of the body's most distinguished and respected representatives, the Honorable Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, a representative from Illinois's Sixth Congressional District for the last 32 years.

It is fitting that this underlying bill is named after Chairman Hyde, in recognition for his long and faithful service and commitment to American ideals as well as nonproliferation activities. Yesterday we had many people pay their respect to this great man, and this is a fitting conclusion with this bill today.

I would also be remiss if I did not also thank the ranking member, Representative Lantos of California, for his repeated efforts and his strong efforts in pushing this legislation forward and the hard work he also put in, in a dedicated and respected manner, to come up with a truly bipartisan bill and a bipartisan conference report.

We should also thank the conferees for their efforts to come in here with a conference report that is focused, that is clean, that is direct and without extraneous materials added to it. It is one that actually goes to the heart of the issue in a very direct report and is a very good conference report.

To the substance of the bill, which was passed on July 26 of this year by an overwhelming majority, with 359 of our colleagues supporting the bill, it contained a myriad of important measures, beginning with a Sense of Congress Resolution that the preventing of proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the means to produce them, and the means to deliver them are critical objectives

of United States foreign policy, and that sustaining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and strengthening its implementation, particularly its verification and compliance, is the keystone of the United States' nonproliferation policy.

We live in an uncertain world where any number of demagogues would pay any price to obtain the technology to inflict pain and suffering on the world's inhabitants.

Because of that it is important that India's commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and America's commitment is the same, and it makes the world a safer place.

This bill, with additions added by the Senate, and one of those unique elements actually strengthens the overall bill itself. It provides for the administration to report to Congress of its activities in forwarding this particular agreement. It provides for an affirmative response by Congress to that agreement that is there. And it provides for greater control on nonproliferation efforts between both of our countries in this very uncomfortable and unstable world.

I have to commend Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos, the entire conference committee that did a wonderful job, excellent work with this particular committee report.

With that, I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, without speaking to the merits of the allegations made by gentleman from Ohio, he should indeed be happy with this particular resolution and conference report coming to us. For not only does it take the country of India that did not sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and provide that both the United States and India will work together to try and combine ourselves so we are working within the parameters of that treaty, it also provides for the administration to present any results of their negotiation back to Congress, and forcing Congress to actually take an affirmative approach ``yea'' or ``nay'' on the results of those negotiations, which once again will allow all Members of Congress to again have some kind of say in the ultimate process.

I also appreciate once again what the conferees did with this report in trying to narrow the focus down to the specifics of how the United States and India deal together in separating civilian and military uses of this new type of energy, and not trying to expand it into other areas which may indeed

make the process much more complex and the questions much more difficult to answer.

Madam Speaker, this once again is a very clean, specific and focused conference report

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Texas for her very articulate expression of what this resolution and this conference report does indeed do, and refocusing the debate on the specifics that brought an unusual harmony together from both sides of the aisle and to a specific report and specific conference report that is here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to urge Members' support of the rule, providing for the consideration of the conference report for this particular piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan bill. It was based in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion, which is a unique combination we have.

It is a nice, harmonious way to actually end this particular session of Congress on something that does move us forward when you focus in on what the bill is actually about, and the issues that are actually handled in this particular report

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I appreciate yielding from the three distinguished gentlemen from Georgia, including my namesake who has preceded me here as well as on the voting list every time we look up there on the board.

Indeed, Delta has an impact in the State of Utah as well. Delta and its feeder services have about 7,000 employees; they fly 350 flights out of Salt Lake City every day; they have added 30 nonstop flights since their recovery process is going through. It is significant not just to the consumers of Utah but the entire Intermountain West and indeed the West, as we now have a situation of competition that exists.

US Air had a hub in Las Vegas. It merged with America West with a hub in Phoenix. Delta has a hub in Salt Lake. That has a competitive overlap which gives the consumers of the West a choice in where their air travel goes and the kinds of air fare in a free market environment.

The southeast of this Nation has basically the same situation, with a hub already for US Air in Charlotte as well as Delta in Atlanta. Those are very close hubs geographically. It makes no sense, especially in the West, of a company, even though they have said they would, to maintain a hub in Las Vegas and Phoenix and Salt Lake at the same time. Business sense would say something would have to close. And if that happens, the net result is that there are fewer air travel opportunities and less competition for consumers in our area of the Nation. In fact, and the concern I also have is the merger between America West and US Air I am told resulted in four times as many fare increases in cities as it did in fare decreases. Now, I am also told that if this merger would go through, there would be near monopolistic competition, as some of you have already mentioned. Twenty-three States would be in a near monopoly situation; 71 cities, including those in the East, would have almost monopolistic situations, with 57 percent of the slots and 44 percent of the gates controlled by simply one company. That does not lead to better economic situations and better choices for our customers and our citizens.

If this was a willing merger, I would not be so upset, but it is not. Delta does not wish to enter into this arrangement. They wish to stay a stand-alone strong company, and I would suggest that is significantly and fundamentally a different situation than US Air was in when they merged with America West. It is a company that is in economic recovery and very close to being in full economic recovery. And as the gentleman has already said, this is a company where the morale of their employees is on the upswing.

As the gentleman from Georgia said, the employees are now coming back to this company as they have now turned the economic corner and can enter the market a strong, viable, stand-alone company, giving extra service, giving extra opportunity, giving consumer choice, which is for the betterment of all our constituents. Were this merger to go through, the service would be less in the Intermountain West, the choices would be less in the Intermountain West, and there would be significant harm done to my constituents.

So I agree with my good friends over here that this is not in the best interest of any of our areas; it is not in the best interests of the flying public of America. And I also oppose this forced hostile takeover.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, December 8, 2006, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 44 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, of all of the water-related bills that the Resources Committee has discussed, in my opinion this is still the best dam bill that we have, which would expand the growth of the Arthur Watkins Dam and Willard Bay.

Yesterday the Science Committee produced several bills that came to this body to try and help with the issue of drought. That was the purpose of this bay and dam in 1957 when it was produced, to make sure that we can provide adequate water resources for agriculture, and the growing population in the State of Utah.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, and specifically the staff and the subcommittee chairman for bringing this bill to the floor, and to fulfill my commitment to the majority leader, I promised as soon as we passed this bill to get a haircut, no later than Tuesday of next week.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3626, the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005. In terms of water-related bills, this is one of the best dam bills the Committee on Resources has considered this year. H.R. 3626 will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study which will consider enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins dam. In my home county of Box Elder, Utah, this facility is better known as Willard Bay.

Willard Bay is a popular recreation facility, drawing in outdoor enthusiasts from all over Utah. It is known for its great fishing, water skiing and beaches. Willard Bay is the furthest downstream facility operated by the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. The first phase was constructed between 1957 and 1964, with additional improvements being made as recent as the last decade. Willard Bay is an important water storage facility in my state and district. With its 215,000 acre feet capacity, the water resource in Willard Bay meets the culinary and recreational needs of hundreds of thousands of my constituents in the Top of Utah.

As the population of Northern Utah grows, the need for additional water storage capacity is acute. Utah recently emerged from a 5 year period of drought. Winter of 2005-2006 was favorable and helped to recharge our reservoirs, lakes and aquifers. However, being in the Intermountain West, there's no guarantee that every year will be a good water year. In the high deserts of Utah, every drop of water counts.

The water engineers of the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District are the brightest and hardest working individuals in their field. They have figured out how to use almost every drop of water in the reservoir. However, it is disconcerting to look out over the reservoir during the hot summer months, when there is a drought, and not see any water in the reservoir. By studying the feasibility to increase the storage capacity, we will hopefully be in a better position to meet the water needs of our people, in the next decade.

The administration testified in favor of H.R. 3626 at a congressional hearing last November. H.R. 3626 was subsequently discharged from the House Committee on Resources on a voice vote. It is a good bill and much needed by my constituents. I appreciate Chairman Pombo and his staff for their excellent work in bringing this dam bill--the best of all of them--to the floor today.

I am not aware of anything on the calendar.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 946 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

House Resolution 946 provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany Senate 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 and waives all points of order against its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually proud to stand in support of this rule the underlying legislation, which reauthorizes important vocational education loans and programs. In our ever-changing economy, it is clear that education and training is more vital than ever before to both our Nation's economic growth and competitiveness, as well as the quality of life for individuals and their families.

This conference agreement will, among other things, direct the States to assess the effectiveness of State programs for career and technical education, with an emphasis on math and science, and also establishes performance indicators for those programs.

It will enhance coordination between secondary and post-secondary vocational programs and strengthen the role of the States in administering these programs, and this is a funding of a legislative priority.

This legislation allows for increased flexibility for States who choose the option to combine the Perkins State Grant with the Tech-Prep programs into one program, leading to greater program efficiencies. This once again is a State option.

It allows for the States to provide ``incentive grants'' to encourage and recognize exemplary performances in carrying out career and technical education programs.

It also will ensure the continued access to teachers for professional development certification.

Mr. Speaker, in 1917, the government first funded training for vocational programs relating to national defense. In 1963, we passed the first Vocational Education Act. It was modified in 1984 as the Carl Perkins Program, and again in 1990. So this program has been here in some way for 90 years in this Nation helping those vocational programs and training our citizens for their future.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to try and address my remarks to the bill we have before us and hopefully keep them germane to the particular issue we have in front of us.

We have a very good conference report. It is a conference report which is just what a conference report is, a negotiated compromise between both parties and both Houses of this Congress, which means, in essence, we have 535 different opinions and we have compromised down to one bill, which I think satisfies the base needs of all of us, or at least the vast majority of us who are in Congress right now.

This is legislation that reflects legislative priorities as to funding for vocational education.

It provides more funds than perhaps the programs that have been assigned to us by the Constitution would do to this particular body. But it does reflect those priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution because a ``yes'' vote moves us forward. A ``no'' vote on this resolution would harm kids. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.