[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3759, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1994
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 336 and ask for its immediate consideration
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 336
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3759) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and
against its consideration are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. No
amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in
the report, of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived. With the
concurrence of the minority leader, the amendment numbered 2
in part 1 of the report may be offered in a modified form
that is germane to its printed form. If more than one of the
amendments printed in part 2 of the report is adopted, only
the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted
and reported to the House. At the conclusion of consideration
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tucker). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary one-half hour of debate time to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
{time} 1110
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 336 is the rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 3759, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994. Although
most of this supplemental covers emergency expenses arising from the
disastrous January 17 Los Angeles earthquake, it also provides
emergency funding for humanitarian assistance and peace-keeping
activities, additional funding for the 1993 Midwest flood recovery, and
funds for highway reconstruction resulting from the Loma Prieta
earthquake.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. All points of order against the bill and
against its consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read.
Only those amendments printed in the report to accompany the rule are
in order, and they are to be considered in the order and manner
specified, with debate time also stipulated in the report. The
amendments are not subject to amendment except as specified in the
report, are considered as read, and are not subject to a demand for a
division of the question. All points of order against the amendments
printed in the report are waived.
The rule also provides that the amendments printed in part 2 of the
report shall be considered under the king-of-the-hill procedure, under
which the last amendment accepted by the House prevails.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain the amendments
permitted under House Resolution 336. Part 1 of the report on the
resolution specifies three amendments that may be considered. Thirty
minutes of debate time is provided for the amendment to be offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to strike all of chapter
III of the bill, Department of Defense funds for humanitarian aid,
peacekeeping, and peace enforcing operations in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq,
and Haiti, except for one general provision allowing the Department to
incur obligations in anticipation of receiving burdensharing
contributions.
The second amendment, which may be offered by the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] or the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], may be
debated for 20 minutes and authorizes Federal employee buyouts so that
departments and agencies can meet work force reductions required by the
President's pledge to cut 252,000 Federal jobs. The rule provides that
the amendment may be modified only with the concurrence of the minority
leader. Any agreed to modifications must be germane.
The third amendment in part 1 of the report, which provides 20
minutes of debate time, may be offered by the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Deutsch]. It prohibits the use of funds by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to deny coverage or cause buildings to be torn down
under certain very specific circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, part 2 of the Rules Committee report provides for the
consideration of three amendments under the king-of-the-hill procedure
in which the last amendment accepted by the House of Representatives
would prevail. These amendments, which are offered to allow Members to
consider offsetting the costs of this emergency with spending cuts from
other programs instead of providing the emergency designation as has
been done for all disasters since 1990, are allotted 1 hour of debate
time each.
The first of the offset amendments, to be offered by the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Myers], includes the text of H.R. 3511, the fiscal
1994 rescissions package which rescinds $2.56 billion. The amendment
also includes additional cuts to reduce fiscal year 1994 spending by a
total of $7.5 billion. These cuts are connected with reductions in--
among several areas--Federal positions, defense procurement, military
construction, the Legal Services Corporation, and the World Bank. The
Myers amendment also cuts 1.3 percent across the board for the
legislative branch and an additional $2 million in House franking.
The second amendment, made in order, is to be offered by the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle] along with Representatives Penny,
Kasich, and Condit. The amendment provides for spending cuts of about
$10 billion to offset the entire cost of the emergency appropriations.
The amendment includes several rescissions, the fiscal year 1994
installment of the Federal work force reduction, and changes in various
laws, including the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Act and the Davis-
Bacon Act.
The third in this series of amendments designed to offset the cost of
emergency spending with cuts in other programs will be offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. This final amendment includes
the text of H.R. 3511, rescinding $2.56 billion in fiscal year 1994
funding.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3759 provides $9,719,150,000 in budget authority,
the same as the request made by the administration, 80 percent of which
is to cover expenses arising from the Los Angeles earthquake. All
disaster relief funds in this bill are designated as emergency
requirements under the terms of the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act. Under
this act, appropriations that are designated as emergency requirements
by both the President and the Congress are counted as automatic
increases in the discretionary spending limits.
The emergency designations in this bill are consistent with past
disaster relief appropriations--in 1993 to cover the disaster costs
caused by extensive flooding in the Upper Mississippi River area; and
in 1992 and in previous years to cover the costs caused by other
natural disasters, such as Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane
Bob, the devastating fires in Oakland, CA, and the State of Washington;
the northeast storm that ravaged the New England area; and agricultural
disasters such as the California freeze, the Red River Valley in Texas
floods, the Kansas drought, the Minnesota/Iowa excessive rainfall, the
Southeastern States drought, and the Louisiana/Texas freeze.
The measure provides a total of $7.77 billion for the Los Angeles
earthquake, $1.198 billion to the Department of Defense to support
humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping operations, $435.5 million for
the Midwest floods and fires in southern California; and $315 million
for the Loma Prieta earthquake. The bill's total includes $8.8 billion
in appropriations that will become available upon enactment, and $900
million in contingency appropriations that would become available when
the President transmits a subsequent request to Congress that formally
designates these amounts as emergency funds. The bill also makes
available $1.1 billion in additional Small Business Administration
disaster loans, as requested by the administration, for low-interest
loans to homeowners, renters, and small business owners.
The measure provides $4.7 billion in FEMA disaster relief, including
$700 million to repair school buildings; $1.665 billion is provided in
Federal aid to highways and language is included in the bill to
expedite reconstruction of damaged roads and bridges; $66.6 million is
provided for Veterans Affairs, including $45.6 million for construction
at the Sepulveda Veterans Administration Medical Center which was
closed because of earthquake damage.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of bipartisan negotiations among several
members of the California delegation, H.R. 3759 prohibits the use of
the bill's funds to aid illegal aliens, except for emergency medical
care and shelter, food, water, medicine, and other emergency aid
specified in the bill. The intent of this provision, approved by the
Appropriations Committee, is the result of serious concerns about
providing taxpayers' dollars for long-term disaster assistance to
persons who have entered the United States in violation of the
immigration laws of our country.
Mr. Speaker, as a representative of one of the districts hit hardest
by the devastating earthquake in Los Angeles, I am grateful, as are
other members from our area, to the members of the House Appropriations
Committee for their expeditious handling of the bill to provide
emergency appropriations for relief efforts to the tens of thousands of
individuals adversely affected by the Los Angeles earthquake. The
committee's efforts will ensure that there is no interruption in
providing housing, food, and medical assistance to the victims of this
natural disaster. These funds will also be used to restore essential
traffic systems to millions of citizens in the Los Angeles area, who,
as Members know, are finding it extremely difficult to get around the
county and to get to and from work.
The Los Angeles earthquake, in which 57 people were killed, 6,500
injured, 16,000 homes rendered uninhabitable, and over 45,000
residential structures were damaged, is the largest disaster ever
handled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I have seen the
FEMA operations first hand and have been enormously impressed by the
excellent work of the Agency's Director and of his staff, who are
working literally 24 hours a day processing applications, which now are
in excess of 250,000.
Approximately 100 public schools were severely damaged by the
earthquake, several of which remain closed. Damage to public buildings
was severe--11 were destroyed and another 10 badly damaged.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has already
distributed over 10,000 section 8 emergency housing certificates,
compared with 7,000 vouchers issued in the first year after Hurricane
Andrew.
The Small Business Administration has issued a larger than expected
number of disaster assistance applications. Since January 26, the
number of applications has more than doubled, to 177,000 as of Monday
earlier this week.
Over 38 miles of roadways were closed in the Los Angeles area,
including 4.7 miles of the Santa Monica Freeway, the most heavily
traveled highway in the Nation. Interstate 5, which runs north and
south and serves the whole Pacific coast, was seriously damaged as
well. In addition, over 200 bridge structures are known to be damaged.
Severe aftershocks continue to cause damage in the region. Last
Saturday's 5.0 aftershock added to the over $200 million in existing
damage to California State University at Northridge and further damaged
Highway 101 in North Hollywood.
Mr. Speaker, as one who experienced the earthquake himself and toured
and inspected a large portion of the area with, first, the President
and FEMA Director Witt, and on my own with members of my own family and
members of our district office, our staff in Los Angeles for the past
17 days, I can personally attest to the urgent need for the passage of
this bill. For these reasons, I urge the adoption of this resolution,
so we may act today on this urgently enacted emergency assistance.
Finally, let me say this. As our colleagues know, the earthquake
affected principally the districts that are represented by myself, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the gentleman from California
[Mr. McKeon], the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dixon], and, to a certain extent, I think, represented by some of
our other colleagues. And I do want to take this opportunity to tell
the other Members of Congress, and the people they represent back home,
how profoundly grateful our people are to their constituents and to our
country men and women all across the United States for their generous
and warm-hearted response to our people in their time of great trouble
and of need.
I also want to take this opportunity, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to tell
my colleagues that they should be very proud indeed, be aware of and
very proud of the quick, efficient, and thoroughly effective and
professional response of the Federal agencies to whom we have given the
responsibility of responding to great natural emergencies such as this
one. I cannot adequately express to my colleagues and to the people of
this country how well these people have done their job.
Within 1 day, Mr. Witt, the Director of FEMA, was in Los Angeles, and
two secretaries of the President's Cabinet were there, Mr. Cisneros and
Mr. Pena. On the 2d day the President himself came and spent 6 hours of
the day, not only touring the affected areas, but also presiding at a
conference for more than 3 hours with our mayor and with our Governor
and with a bipartisan scattering of public officials to discuss in
detail what needed to be done in response to the earthquake.
Within 3 days, FEMA had opened 12 disaster assistance centers, or
DACS, and from that time onward, hundreds upon hundreds of Federal
employees, both FEMA employees and SBA people and others from IRS and
Customs and everywhere else, as a matter of fact, from around the
country, and from around the State, have been working 15 or 16 hours a
day, 7 days a week, to process these many hundreds of thousands of
applications, and have done so in the best possible manner. We are very
proud of these people. I want you to know, too, although I have never
had personal experience with FEMA in the past, if they have had
problems in the past, whatever they may have been, I cannot imagine a
group of people, and all of the folks working with them and under Mr.
Witt and the President and the President's Cabinet, to have done a
better job than, in fact, the job they have been doing these past days.
Others have helped out enormously too, both public and private
people. The Los Angeles Police Department has been magnificent. The
National Guard, mostly taken from California contingents, has been
magnificent. Thousands of private people, including especially the
American Red Cross and the Salvation Army, two wonderful groups we know
well and think often about, but really don't realize until you face a
situation such as this what magnificent work they do. Thousands of
volunteers from all over the country, working with the Red Cross and
the Salvation Army.
To name just one small group, some men from the Southern Baptist
Convention, from five to six States, mostly in the Southern United
States, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma, who drove
their own rigs up there and worked at the Red Cross shelters providing
tens of thousands of meals every day for folks who were in need.
When we thanked them, they said it gives us great pleasure to do so,
and we are doing it for the Lord.
But in any case, I cannot tell you how many wonderful heart-warming
scenarios we came across in the 12 or 13 days I have spent all of my
waking time touring the district, the thousands of people who have come
from all over the country to help. And from all of our people, people
in my district and from my colleagues' districts, I just want again to
express to everyone throughout this country who has helped and whose
concerns are with us, how terribly grateful we are. We know what a
wonderful country we have the privilege of representing a small part
of, but a disaster such as this reminds one of how truly wonderful it
is and how truly remarkable the people of the United States are.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this hour we begin the first step toward
full House consideration of this very important measure that is going
to respond to the earthquake that awakened so many of us at 4:31 on
January 17. Anyone who has not been to the districts of the gentleman
from California [Mr. McKeon], the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson], the gentleman from California [Mr.
Moorhead]. the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Gallegly] in the last 2\1/2\ weeks, cannot
comprehend the amount of physical and personal destruction that has
occurred. Every dollar of aid money in this bill that is earmarked for
Los Angeles is needed, and it must get there just as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my friend in expressing great
appreciation to the taxpayers of this country and our colleagues,
Representatives from all over this country, for the tremendous support
that has been shown by the American people.
In addition to the funding, there are a number of other very positive
provisions that are in this bill. It finally moves us in the direction
of addressing the problems of benefits to illegal immigrants. This bill
could not possibly fund all of the disaster assistance, so we need to
assure that benefits are going to those that are lawfully in this
country.
In addition, the bill requires a study of unfunded Federal mandates
and other regulations that can be eased to allow Los Angeles to
expeditiously rebuild. I hope we will be able to act on those
recommendations just as soon as they become available.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are amendments made in
order by this rule, that, if adopted, will also improve the bill. For
example, if my colleagues believe, as I do, that we should pay for the
new funding and not add to the Federal deficit, the rule makes in order
through a king-of-the-hill procedure three amendments to provide
offsetting spending in this resolution.
One amendment, by the gentleman from Indiana, a senior member of the
Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Myers, who will be speaking in a
moment abut this, will provide $7.5 billion in offsets. Another, by the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Penny], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Condit] will provide over $10 billion in offsets.
Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of amendments that were
not made in order by the Committee on Rules that, frankly, could also
improve this bill.
So that we can continue to expedite consideration of this badly
needed disaster aid while allowing additional amendments to be
considered, I am going to urge defeat of the previous question, so that
we can immediately provide an opportunity for these amendments and then
move ahead.
If the previous question is defeated, it will not delay this bill.
That has been said time and time again by members of the Committee on
Appropriations who testified before our Committee on Rules. It will
simply permit me to offer an amendment to the rule that will make in
order three amendments to the bill.
The first is the amendment by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] to
exempt projects funded in the bill from Davis-Bacon Act requirements.
The purpose of this bill is to expedite the earthquake recovery, not to
line the pockets of unions. Waiving Davis-Bacon constraints during this
time of urgent need will make the maximum level of resources available
to assist in the recovery.
The second is the amendment by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson]
which would score the discretionary spending in the bill against the
current cap.
The third is a provision allowing amendments to strike any paragraph
of the bill.
The chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] made a request of our Committee on Rules
that section 603 of the bill not be protected from points of order. If
the previous question is defeated and my amendment is adopted, Chairman
Conyers or any other member would be allowed to strike that section of
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, while I support the full amount of funding in the bill
that will be made available to rebuild Los Angeles, I regret that we
will once again have to debate how to pay for disaster aid. Frankly,
there is some element of truth to the criticism that the budget is set
up to incur spending emergencies so that tough decisions about taxes
and spending can be evaded.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has spent an average of $483
million a year since 1974 on disasters. Yet Congress only appropriated
an average of $191 million a year.
{time} 1130
We know disasters are going to strike, and we know they are going to
cost money. So it seems to me that we should adequately budget for them
with a disaster contingency fund set-aside.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is time to look at a Federal natural
disaster insurance program.
In California, an earthquake insurance policy for a $200,000 home
runs about $300 a year with a 10 percent deductible. For those who can
afford the premiums, they are unlikely to make claims because they
rarely exceed the $20,000 deductible.
For the past several years, my friend from San Bernardino, George
Brown, and I have sponsored legislation to create a Federal earthquake
insurance program, and extensive hearings have been held on the need to
make insurance more affordable and available. I hope very much that we
can act before the next disaster strikes.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I want to expedite consideration of this
bill so that the people of Los Angeles, whom I am privileged to
represent, can get back on their feet. At the same time, I believe that
other Members have good ideas on how to improve this disaster relief
bill, and they deserve an opportunity to be heard.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that these
amendments can be made in order and we can move rapidly to get this aid
package out there.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record some printed material.
Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed
Rule on H.R. 3759
(making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1994)
Wednesday, February 2, 1994
1. DeLay Amendment: This amendment to the rule would make
in order the DeLay amendment which exempts projects funded in
the bill from the Davis-Bacon Act requirements. The amendment
would be non-amendable, subject to 20-minutes of debate, and
clause 2 of rule XXI would be waived against the amendment.
Vote: Rejected, 4-5. Yes: Derrick, Solomon, Dreier, Goss.
Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Hall, Wheat, Gordon, and Quillen.
2.Sam Johnson Amendment: This amendment eliminates the
``emergency'' designation in the bill and scores the
discretionary spending in the bill against the current cap,
and any additional spending against next year's cap. The
amendment would be non-amendable, subject to 20-minutes of
debate, and clause 2 of rule XXI would be waived against the
amendment.
Vote: Rejected, 3-6. yeas: Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays:
Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Hall, Wheat, Gordon, and Quillen.
3. Motions to Strike: This amendment to the rule would
permit amendments to strike any paragraph in the bill. The
amendments would be non-amendable and subject to 20 minutes
of debate each.
Vote: Rejected, 3-6. Yeas: Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays:
Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Hall, Wheat, Gordon, and Quillen.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 54 12 22 42 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Feb. 3, 1994.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 218, July 20, 1993.... O H.R. 2530: BLM authorization, NA.............. NA........................ .................................
fiscal year 1994-95.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. .................................
Supplemental Appropriations. 1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a couple
different issues.
Number one, I am a supporter of the bill and a supporter of aid for
those who have been subject to this great disaster. But I am wearing
here on my lapel an Olympic pin to promote the Olympic Games in
Atlanta, GA, a great American event. The pin was made in Taiwan. I am
disappointed in the Committee on Rules for not making in order a
simple, modest Buy American provision for this 10-plus billion dollars.
Let me just say this: The Traficant amendment suggested that when
entities receiving moneys in this bill, that they buy products made in
America by the hands of the taxpayers that pay for these disasters and
pay to keep this train called American Government coming down the
track.
Beam me up, my colleagues. It is an insult to the American workers.
Congress can pass literally a jobs bill for Mexico, screwing the
American workers, but will not even suggest, when we spend American
money, that the people who are getting our taxpayers' dollars from the
very workers who are paying those taxes, that we do not even buy from
them American products.
This is a shame. I have supported the rules all along here. If this
thing is brought down on the previous question, I will ask that the
Traficant Buy American amendment be also included in this bill. But it
will not cause me to cause the rule any problem.
I support, also, the effort of the gentleman from California
[Chairman Beilenson] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
here for their efforts.
The second point I wanted to talk about is the offsets, the offsets.
I think there are some Members here that really believe that on the
backs of this disaster we could even make a buck with this bill. Where
do the offsets come from?
I want Members to think about this. The taxpayers send the money so
we keep this thing afloat, and we are going to cut the bridges, the
highways, the roads, the water lines, the public buildings for the very
taxpayers who are keeping us afloat.
We are penalizing America to help with this disaster. Let me ask this
question? Why not have taken all this money from foreign aid, damn it?
The truth is, there is not enough guts here to touch that foreign aid
account, which leads me to believe who does Congress really represent
anymore. All I know is this, I do not want to see my area, listen to
the word, ``screwed'' because of the disaster in California. That need
not be.
I would also like to say that when Congress cannot even suggest that
10 billion tax dollars that our hard-working people are struggling to
pay here, cannot even suggest that we might spend some of that money
back to the same people that are building our products and then punish
those same people by taking their infrastructure away, where they may
create some jobs, it drives me literally to a frenzy.
I would like to say this to my colleagues: I think if we are going to
offset, we should take money that is going to protect Japan and
Germany. Let them start paying a few bills, number one.
Number two, let us start cutting that foreign aid account.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
appreciate his very kind comments.
I am looking at the outline of proposed cuts under the Myers
amendment, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has proposed $2
million in cuts from House franking, $25 million in cuts from the World
Bank, $20 million in cuts from the legislative branch.
I think it is very important for us to realize that there are going
to be some very important cuts that are going to be made here.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in a $10 billion
bill, the cuts the gentleman has enunciated are like a fly on our face.
Congress better recognize we have an elephant eating out our behind
here. Billions of dollars should be cut from foreign aid. Billions of
dollars should be cut from American tax dollars. Spending it for the
troops in Japan and Germany, Tokyo and Frankfurt, cashing their checks,
economic development for these other countries, and we are going
bankrupt.
If this previous question is defeated, I want a commitment from the
Democrats that the Buy American amendment will be accepted. I would
like to ask unanimous consent that it be placed in, but I will not
oppose the leaders on this important bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just found on this list in the Myers
amendment $3.2 billion in cuts from administrative expenses at all
Federal agencies so, obviously, there is some very thoughtful proposals
going in here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the ranking Republican on
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, where it has been below zero, I think, for
18 consecutive days.
Mr. Speaker, I would give a guarantee to the gentleman from Ohio
that, yes, we will guarantee, on the Republican side, his amendment for
Buy America. So he has the battle half won.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
You know, it is always difficult to raise any concerns over a bill
that is so desperately needed to provide emergency aid to the victims
of natural disasters.
And I certainly support the expedited consideration of this bill and
the blanket waiver of points of order to permit it to be brought to the
floor of the House today. This is one occasion that warrants putting
the legislative process on a fast-track, as this rule does.
At the same time, we have to be especially careful that we do not
abuse this expedited process by shutting out amendments that should be
considered, or by passing legislation that we do not fully understand.
Even when you move a bill with all deliberate speed, you must still
deliberate--that is, carefully weigh and debate the merits of the
legislation and consider amendments to improve on it. And this rule
makes a partial attempt to ensure such deliberation.
The central issue here today is whether this disaster relief bill
should be self-financed or whether it should simply be chalked up as a
further add-on to the deficit.
Should this emergency supplemental appropriations bill be completely
off-budget, as the President recommends, by giving it an emergency
designation? Or should it be partially or fully paid for by offsetting
cuts, as three of the amendments made in order under a king-of-the-hill
procedure would do.
The last time we confronted this issue on the Midwest flood relief
bill, we were told to wait until ``next time.'' A bipartisan Speaker's
task force would be appointed to study and recommend on how to finance
future disaster assistance.
Well, this is the next time, and the task force has not even been
fully appointed, let alone made any recommendations.
And some are again arguing, ``not now--maybe next time.''
At least this rule allows for some alternative financing mechanisms,
even if they are not supported by the administration or the majority
leadership.
I especially want to commend Representatives Nussle, Penny, Kasich,
and Condit for holding the feet of the leadership and the Rules
Committee to the fire on this issue--as difficult as it is to do so in
the midst of a disaster.
Yes, the Midwest floods were awful, and the California earthquake is
devastating.
But we have another disaster called the Federal deficit--and we are
literally drowning in a sea of red ink, and our children and
grandchildren will be feeling the aftershocks for years from our
ongoing deficit earthquake and the craters it is creating in our
economic base.
As much as we might wish to pretend that we can simply wave a magic
wand called an emergency designation and make the additional deficit
spending go away, it will not disappear with a few words in a bill. It
is here to stay and it is mounting with each new disaster.
How do I explain to my constituents in northern New York, where
unemployment is 12 percent and the average income of those who are
lucky enough to have jobs is $12,000 at best, that we must dip deeper
into their pockets and those of their grandchildren to finance these
disaster relief efforts?
My district is a disaster with plants closing down and moving south
and my constituents being socked with annual heating bills of $2,000
and more due to these devastating, subzero winter weeks on end. Where
is the relief for that kind of disaster?
Yes, we are all humanitarians and we all feel the pain of those who
are left homeless and jobless by floods, fires, hurricanes, and
earthquakes.
But there is a growing sense among many in the population that Uncle
Sam can somehow pick up the tab for everyone and every kind of damage.
We are contributing to an attitude that people do not need to worry
about things like flood insurance or earthquake insurance, or more
rational siting of their homes and businesses.
And the more we contribute to that growing dependency on Government,
and undermine the ethic of individual and community responsibility, the
more our deficit and public debt will grow.
We will stifle any real opportunities for economic growth and job
creation.
Mr. Speaker, we just cannot continue down this road. It is a road to
economic disaster for which there will be little or no relief.
We must begin to turn things around by making some hard choices and
tradeoffs--by facing up to fiscal realities.
The Nussle-Penny-Kasich-Condit amendment, which fully offsets the
cost of this bill by reducing Government spending elsewhere is a clear
signal that we are ready to accept our responsibility both for
relieving disaster situations while addressing the deficit disaster
that endangers this Republic.
Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] in urging that we defeat the previous question
to allow for three other types of amendments. One by Mr. DeLay of Texas
to exempt the Federal projects in these disaster areas from the Davis-
Bacon requirements of higher constructions costs. That alone will
provide additional millions in real disaster relief for the affected
victims.
Second, the amendment of Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas to remove the
emergency designation and apply any breach of the existing
discretionary caps to next year's spending cap.
And third, an amendment to allow Members a simple motion to strike
any paragraph of this bill--a right that should always be ours on
appropriations bills under our constitutional power of the purse.
I think these are modest yet necessary additional steps we can take
to ensure that fiscal sanity will be considered alongside our
humanitarian responsibilities. Vote down the previous question on this
rule and for the Dreier amendment to the rule to give the House a vote
on those three additional things.
{time} 1140
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend,
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] a hard-working member of the
Committee on Appropriations, who was before the Committee on Rules last
night.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Committee on Rules, the
chairman, and all the Members, for making in order in this rule some
cost accounting that has been long overdue. Years ago, I never voted
against a rule of this House, because I thought they were always fair.
I do not mean to be critical today, because I appreciate the fact that
they were very generous, in fact, there are 150 pages of generosity
here.
However, this year and last year I had to vote against some of the
rules that I wish I did not have to vote against, because I felt I had
to give everyone the opportunity. I appeared late in the evening last
night before the Rules Committee, and I guess spent over an hour, and
they listened to me very tentatively. The gentleman from California and
I appeared, representing the Committee on Appropriations.
I ask for an opportunity to present for the House and the American
people an amendment that would be a fair amendment, that would cut
spending where we could, not painlessly, and the committee made that in
order. For that reason I shall support today, and I thank the Members
for that.
I realize they worked late into the night last night, but we do not
want to delay, and I know each of the Members in this committee and
each of the Members of this body does not want to delay any effort for
California, but we simply do have a responsibility, an obligation to
the taxpayers of this country to make certain we pay for it in some
way.
To the gentleman from Ohio, if he is still here, and I guess he is
not, if he will agree to the amendment that I shall offer later today,
I do not want to take highways or bridges out. I think those are high
priorities. However, we cut the Government. The Government should trim
its sails, should start living within its means.
There are many agencies, and I have learned again this morning of
more money we could take out if the rule should provide that, but in
reading the rule, I find it does not permit me to add more money to the
cuts.
What I shall offer later this afternoon, because the rule permits
this, is an opportunity to cut $7.4 billion from this already large
appropriation bill, which I shall be talking about under the
appropriation time. Then the remainder, I think we can cut that by
unnecessary spending, hopefully supporting the amendment of the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and that of the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton], which would knock out some unnecessary spending
in the Defense Department going to Somalia, going to Bosnia, going to
Iraq. There are other cuts we can make that just simply do not belong
in this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for giving that very
helpful comment, and I appreciate his amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in opposition to the rule, because an
amendment that I had offered was not allowed under the rule. In this
country right now we have a provision, a labor standard called Davis-
Bacon. What Davis-Bacon does is basically inflate the cost of Federal
construction projects by mandating that a particular wage is paid on
Federal construction jobs, and that is usually the union wage.
During Hurricane Andrew, then-President Bush, by Executive order,
waived the Davis-Bacon provisions on construction projects to rebuild
Florida, because of Hurricane Andrew. Now President Clinton, the minute
he got into office, reversed that, I guess under pressure from the
labor unions.
That does not seem to me to make a whole lot of sense, to not waive
that provision. In fact, other regulations are being waived by this
bill. The Secretary of HUD, Mr. Cisneros, came in and asked our
committee to waive all regulations other than fair housing,
nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor standards.
Why labor standards? Why inflate the cost of these construction
projects? It makes no sense. We are holding back moneys that could go
to restore the damage that was done by the earthquake. Why? To line the
pockets of the unions in California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tucker). The time of the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. DeLay] has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30
seconds. In so doing, I will say that this is a very important
amendment. If we defeat the previous question on this, we will be able
to make in order this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it has been estimated that on Federal
construction projects, Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of those projects
for anywhere from 10 to 30 percent. OK, I will accept 10 percent. If we
apply 10 percent to this bill, we could save from the deficit about
$500 million, and for those Members who want to spend the money, we
could take the $500 million and use it to restore the damage in
California.
Vote no on the rule. Do not line the pockets of labor unions. Get the
money to those that deserve it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend,
the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], who represents an area that
was very, very hard hit by the earthquake.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. McKeon].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon]
is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, while we have all seen the pictures of the
physical destruction, it is also important to highlight the impervious
human spirit. Hours after the earthquake, waves of volunteers poured
out to assist in emergency disaster relief. In the early hours of the
disaster, we saw the greatest need for help. And the best possible
response.
As daylight broke and people began to uncover the massive
destruction, thousands rushed to local hospitals, police stations, and
Red Cross shelters to help those injured and left homeless, leaving
their own families, to help where it was needed.
As I toured the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital in Santa
Clarita, I saw physicians, like Dr. Darrell Carpenter, who had been on
call for 30 hours straight working in an overwhelmed emergency room.
And I was told of two young 15-year-old girls who rushed to the
hospital in the early hours of the earthquake to volunteer their time.
They were immediately pressed into service and cleared a darkened
basement filled with old medical records and equipment to make room for
emergency medical supplies.
The morning after the earthquake, I visited Jim Menzi, a burn victim,
who refused to go to the hospital to treat his injuries until he could
help his neighbors. Jim put his own life in danger to help others
survive the earthquakes of that morning.
And in Northridge, firefighters and local residents told me about the
brave tenants of the Northridge Meadows Apartment Building who
repeatedly re-entered the collapsed building in search of neighbors who
had not been accounted for. At that complex we lost 16 lives, but
dozens of others were saved because of the courageous efforts of
volunteers and concerned neighbors.
I also saw the hundreds of police, deputies and firefighters who
immediately reported to their headquarters to aid the victims of this
disaster. Many of these dedicated public servants left homes that were
severely damaged and families that were shaken, to aid other earthquake
victims.
And, of course, I saw first hand the collapsed freeway that claimed
the life of Los Angeles Police Officer Clarence Dean who was rushing to
duty in the aftermath of the earthquake.
As I stood there and here today, I am in awe of those who gave so
much of themselves.
Now, it is our time to aid those victimized by this terrible
disaster. Most here today did not have their homes damaged and lives
turned upside down, but we can now help to alleviate the human
suffering by funding the necessary disaster assistance to rebuild
people's homes, businesses, and lives.
It is a small step when you consider what price has already been paid
in human suffering. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with me,
my constituents, and all Americans as we take this first step in
comforting those affected by this disaster and advancing the recovery.
{time} 1150
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, who is the former mayor
of Santa Clarita, for his very helpful contribution, and I want to say
on behalf of all of the Members that we are very, very concerned about
the plight of his constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] the author of a very important amendment that
unfortunately was denied, but if we defeat the previous question we
will be able to make it in order.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the benevolence
of the gentleman in yielding time.
This is not a partisan issue. We need to get out there and help the
people that were involved in that earthquake. But I think, and I think
all of my colleagues agree, that Congress has to realize there are two
emergencies facing this Nation. One of them is the devastating
earthquake that hit southern California, and we need to help them now.
The other and more important I think is the emergency facing the Nation
of our national debt.
The current debt stands at over $4 trillion, and the interest alone
is $213 billion. Congress kind of wastes that interest on America. Over
the last 4 years in emergency aid we have designated about $50 billion.
The emergency nature of this stuff does not need offsets, it needs to
be debated among us and put on budget and paid for.
I think that it is pretty simple. If the previous question is
defeated we can get the amendments in there and can put it on budget
and give us a chance to debate it. If we cannot do it this year, we can
push it to next year under the provisions of the amendment I propose.
I think all Americans want, need and deserve fiscally sound decisions
by this Congress. I think we need to vote now on the previous question
and put these amendments in order.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana, [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding the time to me, and want to say that I appreciate the Rules
Committee allowing an amendment sponsored by the gentleman from
Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank] and myself to deal with some cuts totalling
about $1.2 billion. I was very impressed with the way the Rules
Committee was discussing this last night, particularly the gentleman
controlling the time. Although I wish it were an open rule, it was a
step in the right direction.
I would just like to say that the problem in California falls heavily
on all of us. We hate to see that kind of suffering, and I am certainly
going to support this legislation and support the aid to those people.
I also supported the aid to the hurricane victims and to the people in
the flood that we had in this country last year.
But the problem is that a lot of these people are not insured for a
number of reasons. What we need to do is to have a Federal reinsurance
program like in the Norman Mineta bill, which I am cosponsoring, which
will allow insurance companies to go into every area of the country
where we have had huge losses and still provide coverage, and in
addition to that, the people who live in these areas ought to be
required to have insurance in these high-risk areas like the earthquake
areas, or flood areas or the hurricane areas. The reason for that is
because if they do not have, the Federal taxpayer has to come to their
aid.
The reason a lot of them do not have it is because the cost is so
high. I talked to some of my friends from California and they said that
the cost of earthquake insurance is astronomical. That is because
everybody does not have it. If the local State or community required
that these people have insurance, the law of large numbers, which is a
term used in insurance, would drive the costs down, and if it drove the
costs down, then everybody could afford it. That, coupled with the
Federal reinsurance program, would take a lot of this burden off of the
Federal taxpayer. We cannot continue to spend $90 billion to $100
billion every time we have a catastrophe. So this Government ought to
be urging the States to urge everybody to get insurance in these
catastrophic areas, No. 1, and No. 2, we ought to provide a Federal
reinsurance program to make sure insurance companies are capable of
going into those areas.
If we do those two things, we will provide the kind of coverage that
is necessary to protect these people and take this burden off of the
taxpayers' back.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents important relief for
Americans who are hurting across our country. We must act swiftly to
help our neighbors who have become victims of natural disasters.
My own State of Massachusetts has been a victim of the bitter cold
which has seized much of our country this winter. Fuel demand is up by
over 25 percent this winter, and over 130 people have died because of
the deep freeze.
This legislation provides up to $200 million to be used for emergency
fuel assistance in those States which have been hit hardest.
Millions of Americans rely on the LIHEAP Program for help in heating
their homes each year. To take away heat from low-income seniors, the
disabled, the working poor in this bitter weather would be a gross
injustice.
In this emergency the reliance of millions of people on LIHEAP has
been starkly highlighted, and intensified. I am grateful to Chairman
Natcher for his help in addressing this need, and I will continue to
work with the chairman, my colleagues, and the administration to see
that this program receives adequate funding in the future.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this legislation.
{time} 1200
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], a hard-working member of the Committee on
Appropriations who has worked diligently on this issue.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate and
thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
I rise to express my deep appreciation to the Committee on
Appropriations and the House for the very rapid way in which they are
responding to the people in southern California.
Much of the debate today will swirl around a series of amendments
that address the question of offsets to the cost of this disaster. Many
Members have ideas as to how we might best cut individual programs to
pay for the expenditure that must go forward in order to address this
tragedy.
I want the House to know that in the past I have voted against
offsets that relate to other disasters like the one in Florida or the
flood relief. Everybody has their own idea as to which program ought to
be cut to pay for a disaster. When the country faces a crisis, it is
very important that the Congress respond and not slow down that
response by what can be an endless debate about Federal spending and
deficit priorities.
Indeed, the Speaker is in the process of establishing a task force
that will take on the responsibility of trying to develop such formulas
relative to national disasters. I wish that task force had already met
and completed its work. It has not. Their work will go forward, and it
will be very important work.
In the meantime, I would urge the House to be very cautious about
what is the best formula to offset this disaster expenditure. Indeed,
those ideas themselves could become controversial, and could slow down
the process in the Senate, could delay the delivery of this very, very
important assistance to the people of southern California
The people of California have a very unusual challenge and crisis,
but it is not the last disaster that we will face in the country. Your
State or your community may be next in line. At that point in time, I
would hope we will respond without essentially pounding our chest and
suggesting that we have got a mechanism for balancing the budget as we
go about providing assistance to Americans who desperately need it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Manchester, IA [Mr. Nussle], the courageous gentleman who dealt with
the issue of the disaster in the Midwest last summer.
(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
First, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for their diligent work
in bringing this to us as quickly as possible. I wish it was an open
rule, too, but I believe this is a good start, and I commend both the
Democrat and minority members for their help in doing this.
I want to thank my amendment cosponsors for their work in bipartisan
solution to this problem.
There are really three goals, I think, we need to achieve here today.
Goal 1 is to provide assistance to the people of the earthquake, the
people of the flood. We need to get it out there as quickly as
possible. We can do that. Goal 2, pay for the assistance. I think we
can do that by supporting the Nussle amendment. It pinches everybody
and cuts the low-priority problems out of there. It sets priorities.
Ask yourself this question: Are any of the things we cut so important
that they should not at least wait a few moments while we provide
assistance to the victims?
A third goal is fix the system so that we never have to spend any
more time dealing with this in the future. We obviously have to provide
predictability for the victims themselves as well as for us as the
taxpayers' guardians here in the Congress of the United States.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that I believe very
sincerely that California is one of the greatest places in the world. I
am very privileged to be able to represent California here in the
Congress along with my colleagues who have spoken earlier.
I want to express my appreciation to the taxpayers of this country
and the membership of this body for understanding the urgent need that
we have in our State, and I hope very much that we will be able to
defeat the previous question so we can provide even more in resources
by making amendments like the DeLay amendment, the Johnson amendment,
the striking amendment in order.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank my colleague for his good comments.
I do want to tell the Members that I think this is a fair rule. It
makes in order the major efforts to pay for this particular proposal,
and I think Members have a good choice amongst these various things to
vote on if the rule is approved.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, the devastation caused by the earthquake in
Los Angeles may be hard for many who sit here, 2,500 miles away, to
fully grasp. But I can tell you from having spent days on the ground
and in the air over the devastation that it is immense. It has
destroyed lives and livelihoods, and it has damaged a significant part
of our national economy. It is, depending on which estimates you
believe, either the costliest or the second costliest natural disaster
in our Nation's history.
We cannot sit idly by. This is not just an issue of suffering and
devastation in one area, it is a national issue with national impacts.
We are all diminished if we do not repair and restore as much as we
can.
I want to address here two issues in particular.
First, some have said that expenditure for this disaster should not
be allowed to proceed unless equal cuts are made in the budget we have
already adopted. Nothing in this rule would deny those who want to
argue that proposition from doing so. But I want to make it absolutely
clear that we have never before required offsetting cuts when making a
supplemental appropriation for a disaster. Never--not for Andrew, not
for Iniki, not for the Midwest floods, not for Hugo, not for Loma
Prieta--never. To now require that we go through that exercise before
providing assistance in this one case would be highly unfair and
discriminatory.
The budget we adopt after long and tortuous debate is a planning
document. Disasters cannot be planned and we know that at the time we
adopt the budget. We know that major disasters might happen which would
require us, in the urgency of that situation, to spend additional
dollars on disaster relief. We cannot, when disaster strikes, tell the
people suffering from it that we will be sending aid just as soon as we
redebate and refigure the entire Federal budget--look how long it takes
us to adopt a budget in the first place. It simply is not practical to
say we will rewrite the Federal budget before we aid anyone in a major
disaster. This is exactly the kind of redtape runaround and delay we
have been trying to get away from in disaster relief.
Second, what makes adoption of this rule and bill particularly urgent
is that between the Mississippi floods and the Los Angeles earthquake
we have now completely depleted the emergency relief fund of the
highway program. In fact, we have depleted not only all the cash in the
fund but also all its legally permitted borrowing power. That means
that not only can no more commitments be made for on-system highway
repairs in the Mississippi flood areas and in the Los Angeles area, but
no funds could be committed for highway damage in any State if a
disaster were to strike tomorrow. We need to move this rule and this
bill now not only for the good of southern California, but for the good
of the entire country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 168, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--244
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Natcher
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--168
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--21
Andrews (TX)
Bentley
Browder
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Crane
Ford (MI)
Hall (OH)
Hastings
Kennedy
Kleczka
Lehman
Lewis (FL)
Meek
Mfume
Murphy
Payne (VA)
Reynolds
Shepherd
Smith (OR)
Spence
{time} 1225
Mr. FARR of California changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tucker). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 342,
noes 65, not voting 26, as followed:
[Roll No. 7]
AYES--342
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grandy
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Natcher
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Roemer
Rogers
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walker
Walsh
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
NOES--65
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Boehner
Bonilla
Buyer
Callahan
Coble
Coleman
Combest
Cox
Crapo
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Duncan
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Franks (CT)
Gilchrest
Grams
Greenwood
Hancock
Hansen
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Houghton
Huffington
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
McCollum
McHugh
Mica
Paxon
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Santorum
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Stearns
Stump
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--26
Andrews (TX)
Bentley
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Crane
Hall (OH)
Hastings
Hutto
Kennedy
Kopetski
Lehman
Lewis (FL)
McCurdy
Meek
Mfume
Murphy
Owens
Payne (VA)
Reynolds
Rose
Schaefer
Sharp
Shepherd
Smith (OR)
Swift
Tauzin
{time} 1243
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Andrews of Texas for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________