[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.

                          ____________________