[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 443 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 443

       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. 4426) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995. All points of order 
     against the bill and against its consideration are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Appropriations 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 pending question shall be the adoption of 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Appropriations now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     designated and shall be debatable for ten minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. All points of 
     order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute, and against provisions in the bill if so amended, 
     are waived. If the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute is adopted, then the bill as so amended shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. No further amendment shall be in order except those 
     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 except as specified in the 
     report, 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 amendments printed in the report 
     are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote by 
     electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
     the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes. 
     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 adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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 with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 443 will allow the 
House to consider H.R. 4426, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1995. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points 
of order against the bill and its consideration.
  The rule provides that after general debate, the pending question 
shall be the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Appropriations and now printed in the 
bill. The committee amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. All points of order against the 
committee amendment and against provisions in the bill, if amended, are 
waived. If the committee amendment is adopted, then the bill as amended 
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
amendment under the 5 minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  Under the rule, no further amendment to the bill is in order except 
for the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed and by the named proponent or a designee. The amendments 
shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent.
  The amendments shall not be subject to amendment except as specified 
in the report and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of 
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points 
of order are waived against the amendments. The rule further permits 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone a recorded vote 
on any amendment made in order by this rule, and to reduce to 5 minutes 
the time for voting after the first of a series of votes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4426, the foreign aid appropriations bill is a 
carefully crafted piece of legislation. The committee appropriates 
approximately $13.6 billion for U.S. foreign aid programs which results 
in a reduction in spending of about $1 billion from last year. The bill 
successfully balances the need to exercise fiscal constraint while 
still meeting our moral obligation to assist those suffering from 
hunger and poverty around the world.
  I want to particularly commend the committee, under the leadership of 
Chairman Dave Obey, for including $275 million for child survival 
activities which save and sustain the lives of up to 15 million 
children a year. The Agency for International Development [AID] 
reported to Congress that its child survival, basic education, and 
micronutrient programs have a far-reaching impact on the lives of 
children and their families in more than 60 countries. In addition to 
the $275 million for child survival activities, the committee also 
included $135 million for basic education and $25 million for 
micronutrients.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, while the committee included identical 
amounts for these programs under last year's bill, AID did not spend 
all the funds provided. I will later engage Chairman Obey in a colloquy 
making it clear that the intent of this legislation is to spend the 
amounts provided for these very successful preventive programs.
  Overall this is an excellent piece of legislation that challenges our 
ability to target funds in the most needed areas while operating under 
tight budgetary constraints. The rule is designed to facilitate House 
consideration of our important foreign aid related issues. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt it, 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, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It 
is unfair, undemocratic, and elitist, disenfranchising nearly every 
Member of Congress and the voters whom they were elected to represent. 
I will say up front that my visceral opposition to this rule is not 
based on that it brings a foreign aid bill to the floor. Instead I 
oppose this rule because it strikes at the very foundation that the 
people's House was intended to play in our great constitutional system, 
namely to control the power of the purse and set the spending 
priorities for the funds collected from hardworking taxpayers.
  I oppose closed rules, Mr. Speaker. I believe they are anathema to 
the concept of deliberative democracy. Unfortunately, the Committee on 
Rules often receives requests for restrictive rules. When this happens, 
it is usually because legislation is highly technical or a bill could 
become a Christmas tree of unnecessary special-interest projects or tax 
breaks.

                              {time}  1410

  No such claim is made for this appropriations bill. That is why I 
believe that we have a solemn responsibility to the American taxpayers, 
and to the institution, the House of Representatives, to reject this 
rule. In short, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations came 
before the Committee on Rules and said he opposed cutting amendments 
being offered against his bill because many of them would be popular. 
Members would vote for them. They would pass.
  Mr. Speaker, in a deliberative democracy, where we have 
representative government, would that be so bad? Are we at the point in 
this House that serious and thoughtful amendments to spending bills are 
going to be gagged because they might earn the votes of the elected 
representatives? The Committee on Appropriations, at least on some 
spending bills, appears to believe that they know so precisely how 
taxpayer money should be spent that they will set all the figures, and 
then no other Members will have even a chance to reduce the amounts.
  That is fine if a colleague is one of the privileged 59 members of 
that committee, but for the other 375, regardless of your view of 
foreign aid, this is an unfair process. We cannot condone the selective 
disenfranchisement of the 225 million Americans who do not have the 
privilege of being represented by a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Yesterday, a Republican candidate was elected to the House of 
Representatives from the second District of Kentucky for the first time 
in over 129 years. That is not just another watershed election for 
Republicans in a rising tide against big unresponsive Government in 
Washington. It is also worth noting that it was the election to replace 
the highly respected chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Bill 
Natcher. Chairman Natcher regularly stated that appropriations bills 
should come to floor under the regular order, permitting all cutting 
amendments. He believed in letting democracy work in practice. We all 
know he considered casting votes the highest duty of a Member of 
Congress.
  This foreign aid appropriations bill has become a harbinger of an 
increasingly insulated appropriations committee. To provide some 
perspective of how things have changed, from 1979 to 1986, no 
appropriations bills were protected from cutting amendments. Since 
1987, the Foreign Operations bill has been protected from these 
amendments six times, and in the last 2 years, the legislative branch 
bill has also been so shielded. The House leadership has apparently 
decided that democracy is not longer a suitable process for these 
sacrosanct bills. The trend, Mr. Speaker, is certainly in a bad 
direction.
  As I said, amendments were gagged on this foreign aid bill because 
they were popular, because they would pass. Three amendments to 
increase funding for anti-narcotics initiatives, brought by esteemed 
leaders on this issue such as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] 
and others were blocked from consideration. They would increase funding 
for that critical antidrug program being cut by the administration, 
cutting from less important initiatives. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am 
going to call for the defeat of the previous question to make in order 
the Rangel-Gilman-Oxley amendment to fully fund the antinarcotics 
program.
  Amendments by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to cut $50 
million from the International Development Association, or by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to cut $5 million from the Agency 
for International Development, or by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] to cut $9.6 million from the International Fund for Ireland, 
amendments, which each should be in order under the regular 
appropriations process, were denied. Those programs should face the 
scrutiny of debate and the test of democracy, which is a vote. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to 
cut funds for foreign aid to countries that fail to vote with the 
United States even 25 percent of the time in the United Nations is 
blocked by this rule precisely because it would probably pass this 
House. Finally, the proposal offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Mica] to reduce development aid and shift the resources to export 
promotion programs is gagged to protect the committee's bill from 
scrutiny.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put in the Record at this 
point the rollcall votes held in the Committee on Rules on amendments 
blocked by the rule, including the ones I have mentioned. I would also 
like to include a chart on the increasing number of restrictive rules 
reported by the Committee on Rules, including their instances on 
appropriations bills.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The information referred to is as follows:

 Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Motions to Proposed Rule for 
  Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal 1995 (H.R. 4426)--
                        Wednesday, May 25, 1994

       1. Open Rule.--Provides for two hours of general debate; 
     makes in order the Appropriations Committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute as original text for amendment 
     purposes; provides for an open amendment process under the 
     five-minute rule; waives clauses 2 and 6 of rule 21 against 
     provisions of the bill. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, 
     Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat, Gordon.
       2. Strike 3-Day Layover Waivers.--Strike the provisions 
     from the rule that waive clause 2(l)(6) of rule 11, the 
     three-day layover requirement for committee reports, and 
     clause 7 of rule 21, the 3-day layover requirement for 
     appropriations reports and published hearings. Rejected: 4-4. 
     AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       3. Permit Motions to Strike.--In addition to the amendments 
     made in order by the rule, insert the following language at 
     the appropriate place: ``Notwithstanding the forgoing 
     provisions of this resolution, it shall be in order to 
     consider amendments under the five-minute rule to strike any 
     paragraph, section, item or proviso from the Committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute.'' Rejected: 4-4. 
     AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       4. Gekas Amendment No. 5.--Amends the provision withholding 
     25% of the funds for Greece pending a report by the Secretary 
     of State to the Appropriations Committees on alleged Greek 
     violations of the U.N. sanctions against Serbia by striking 
     the requirement that the funds not be obligated until at 
     least 15 days after a separate notification has been 
     submitted. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. 
     NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       5. Cunningham Amendment No. 6.--Reduces funds for the 
     Development Assistance Fund and increases funds for 
     ``International Narcotics Control'' by $55 million. Rejected: 
     4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, 
     Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       6. Burton Amendment No. 9.--Reduces operating expenses for 
     the Agency for International Development from $517.5 million 
     to $512.325 million. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       7. Burton Amendment No. 10.--Includes India under those 
     Nations for which international military education and 
     training assistance shall be prohibited (the bill now bars 
     such assistance only to Indonesia and Zaire). Rejected: 3-5. 
     AYES: Solomon, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, 
     Gordon, Quillen.
       8. Burton Amendment No. 11.--Strikes the provision 
     withholding 25% of the Foreign Military Financing funds to 
     Turkey subject to certain conditions. Rejected: 3-5. AYES: 
     Solomon, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, 
     Quillen.
       9. Solomon Amendment No. 17.--Reduces amount for Economic 
     Support Fund and increases amount for International Narcotics 
     Control by $52.4 million. [En bloc] Rejected: 4-5. AYES: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, 
     Gordon.
       10. Solomon Amendment No. 21.--Reduce amount for U.S. 
     contribution for the International Development Association by 
     $50 million. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. 
     NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       11. Goodling Amendment No. 22.--Reduce funds for Economic 
     Support Fund by $27.75 million; for International Military 
     Education and Training by $6.5 million; and for Foreign 
     Military Financing Program by $7.3 million. Rejected: 4-5. 
     AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, 
     Gordon.
       12. Klug Amendment No. 23.--Reduce funds for International 
     Fund for Ireland by $9.6 million. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, 
     Gordon.
       13. Mica Amendment No. 24.--Reduce funds for Agency for 
     International Development by $51 million; and Mica Amendment 
     No. 25.--Increase funds for Export-Import Bank by $51 
     million. [En bloc] Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       14. Gilman Amendment No. 26.--Reduce funds for independent 
     States of former Soviet Union by $85.3 million and increase 
     funds for International Narcotics Control by $52.4 million. 
     [En bloc] Rejected: 3-5. AYES: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier. 
     NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT 
     VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Goss.
       15. Crane Amendment No. 29.--Limits the percentage of U.S. 
     voluntary contributions to the U.N. after calendar year 1995 
     to no more than the ratio of U.S. population to total 
     population of U.N. member states. Rejected: 3-4. AYES: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier. NAYS: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, 
     Goss.
       16. Gilman Amendment No. 30.--Authorizes President to 
     establish a program to facilitate transition to full NATO 
     membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and 
     Slovakia, provide assistance under various security 
     assistance programs funded by bill, and permitting the 
     President to expand transition assistance to other emerging 
     Eastern European democracies. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: Solomon, 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       18. Burton Amendment No. 31.--Prohibits assistance to South 
     Africa if the government is suppressing opposition parties, 
     is not respecting human rights and due process of law, or is 
     not following free market economic policies; and Burton 
     Amendment No. 33.--Prohibits assistance to South Africa is 
     communists are serving in the cabinet. Rejected: 4-5. AYES: 
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. NAYS: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, 
     Gordon.
       19. Motion to Report Rule.--Modified closed rule, waiving 
     all points of order. Adopted: 5-4. AYES: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. NAYS: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. NOT VOTING: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       Amendments in motions 4-18 above shall not be subject to 
     amendment but shall be debatable for not to exceed 20-minutes 
     equally divided between the proponent or a designee and an 
     opponent; en bloc amendments are to be allowed where 
     indicated and not subject to a division of the question in 
     the House or Committee of the Whole; and appropriate points 
     of order are waived against those amendments which require 
     waivers.
                                  ____


     H.R. 4426--Providing an Open Rule for the Foreign Operations 
                           Appropriations Act

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``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 the consideration of the 
     bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and the first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. After general debate 
     which shall be confined to the bill, and which shall not 
     exceed two hours to be equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Appropriations now printed in the bill 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule, and said amendment shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the bill or 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to 
     comply with the provisions of clauses 2 or 6 or rule XXI are 
     waived. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
     for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and 
     any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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, with or without 
     instructions.''.
       Explanation: This amendment to the proposed rule provides 
     for a 2-hour, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4426, 
     the ``Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
     1995,'' and makes the Appropriations Committee's amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute in order as an original bill for 
     the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. Clauses 
     2 and 6 of rule 21 are waived against provisions of the bill 
     and substitute. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to 
     recommit, with or without instructions.

                                  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).............................................           68      14         21       54         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 May 25, 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. 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)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. ------, May 25, 1994..  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  .................................
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule is not about foreign aid. It is 
about democracy here in Congress. If our country's foreign aid programs 
are designed to promote democracy and freedom abroad, it is a pitiful 
shame that the legislation funding those programs is now regularly 
considered under the most antidemocratic unfair procedure we have. The 
American people want a Congress that is involved in spending decisions, 
and is accountable for their decisions. This rule goes against those 
desires.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] very much for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the foreign operations 
appropriations for fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments made in order by this rule is an 
amendment I shall be offering to increase funding for voluntary family 
planning assistance by $100 million. This increase would be paid for by 
cutting programs in the bill, across the board, by three-quarters of 1 
percent.
  Increasing population assistance by $100 million will bring total 
funding for population assistance to $669 million. That amount is 
significantly closer to the amount the United States would need to 
spend next year to fulfill our commitment to the 1989 Amsterdam 
Declaration, the multinational plan for making voluntary family 
planning assistance available universally by the year 2000. (Meeting 
our commitment fully would require that we spend $800 million next 
year.)
  I want to note that this amendment provides a smaller increase in the 
population account than I thought I would be proposing when I sent a 
letter to my colleagues on this matter last night. and I want to draw 
to my colleagues' attention also that the amendment does not cut 
exclusively from the World Bank and other financial institutions, as 
that letter stated but, rather, from all accounts in the bill. The 
proposed amendment was changed after discussion of the amendment with 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] when the Committee on Rules was considering amendments to H.R. 
4426.

  This amendment will enable us to devote more of our limited foreign 
aid dollars to a purpose that will help a greater number of people in 
the developing world than anything else we can do--and, in fact, is 
essential for the wellbeing of every person on Earth, now and in the 
future.
  There is nothing more important we can do to improve the lives of 
people in developing nations than to ensure that they have the means to 
choose the number and spacing of their children.
  And there is nothing more urgent that we must do to keep the Earth 
habitable, than to slow the rapid growth of the human population.
  The world's population now exceeds 5.6 billion, and is growing by 
almost 100 million people every year--260,000 everyday--with nearly 95 
percent of the increase occurring in developing nations. If effective 
action is not taken in the five remaining years of this decade, as 
today's 3 billion children in the developing world reach their 
childbearing years, the Earth's population could quadruple to over 19 
billion by the end of the next century.
  The rapid growth of the human population underlies virtually every 
environmental, development, and national security problem facing the 
world today. In much of the developing world, high birth rates are 
outstripping the capacity of nations to make even modest gains in 
economic development, leaving growing numbers of their people living in 
a state of intractable poverty.
  This year, it is particularly important that we show our strong 
commitment to providing our fair share of the cost of making family 
planning services available worldwide. Leaders from over 190 nations 
will be convening at the International Conference on Population and 
Development in Cairo in September, and the U.S. will be in a stronger 
position to exercise leadership on the issue if we are providing an 
amount that is closer to the full amount needed to do our share to 
achieve universal access to family planning.

                              {time}  1420

  All the other types of foreign aid we can possibly make available 
will be of little benefit to nations which continue to be overwhelmed 
by their rapidly growing populations. Our limited foreign assistance 
dollars will be a far greater help to greater numbers of people if we 
spend more of them on family planning assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 4 minutes to me, and 
again I want to express my support for the rule. I look forward to the 
consideration of the amendment later in the day and the opportunity to 
discuss the need for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of 
the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Metarie, LA [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the substance of this bill later on, 
but I rise now in opposition to the rule.
  I support the bill. It is a fundamentally sound bill, maintaining the 
trend of ever-lower yearly foreign aid appropriations.
  The chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, and the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has dealt fairly with me throughout the process, 
and I appreciate his cooperation.
  But many of the remaining Members of the House are not getting 
adequately heard on this bill. Their amendments proposed to the 
Committee on Rules have not been permitted under this rule, and 
accordingly I must oppose it.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham], had amendments to restore cuts in the 
international narcotics program, none of which were allowed but which 
could be addressed if we defeat the previous questions.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] had an amendment to provide 
an across-the-board cut. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
had a very thoughtful amendment to strike funding to countries that 
vote overwhelmingly against us in the United Nations. The gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Mica] had an amendment to cut AID operating expenses, 
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] had several amendments on 
South Africa. There were various other germane amendments that could 
have been made in order.
  The House leadership has put the House under the gun, and if we do 
not complete debate on this bill today, we may not for several weeks. 
But that is little excuse for pushing the bill through without adequate 
consideration of legitimate, constructive amendments. Therefore, I must 
oppose this rule and urge defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I thank the gentleman from California, and 
I rise to join my good friend from California in opposing this rule and 
denouncing everything it represents.
  Mr. Speaker, this is yet another gag rule--a rule that takes from 
every Member of this House, the right to offer amendments to cut or 
strike spending on foreign aid.
  Mr. Speaker, the growing reliance by the Democrat leadership on 
restrictive rules for appropriation bills is further evidence that this 
institution--as it is presently being run--cannot conduct its 
legislative activities in a responsible manner that is either 
explainable to the members, or accountable to the public.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 97th, 98th, and 99th Congresses, from 1981 
through 1986, only one general appropriations bill was subject to a 
restrictive rule, and that restriction applied only to one narrow 
section of the bill--and even it did not deny Members the right to 
offer germane amendments.
  It was during the 100th Congress that the Democrat leadership began 
to restrict the standard amendment process itself.
  In the 100th, 101st, and 102d Congresses, from 1987 through 1992, 
five such restrictive rules were imposed.
  Today, we are confronted with the fourth such restrictive rule in 
this 103d Congress alone. And No. 5 is just around the corner: On the 
legislative branch appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if all this were not disgusting enough, we have to add 
to it the doubletalk that comes daily from the Democrat leadership.
  On the one hand, the Democrat leadership will say that A to Z 
spending-cut debate is unnecessary.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will yield in just 1 minute.
  They say it is unnecessary because Members already have the right to 
offer cutting and striking amendments on appropriation bills.
  And then, on the other hand, that same leadership will turn around 
and deny Members their right to offer those amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, which is it?
  I hope every Republican, and all Democrats who care about due 
process, will vote to defeat this previous question; that will allow at 
least one major amendment cutting ill-conceived Russian aid by $52 
million and using those funds to stop illegal drugs coming into this 
country.
  Vote no on the previous question.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Certainly, I will yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
one of the most respected Members of this House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman this 
question: Would the gentleman tell me at whose request I first made the 
request to provide for a structured rule on the foreign aid bill?
  Does the gentleman remember at whose request that was done?
  It was done at the request of the Reagan administration. Mr. Reagan 
was President. He understood that this bill was occasionally demagogued 
and he asked for assistance by providing for a rule that would enable 
him to get his foreign aid bill through, and we cooperated.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The time of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
ranking Republican on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman 
from Middleton, NY [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, 
which regrettably precludes Republicans from having any real say with 
regard to the foreign assistance policies contained in this 
appropriations bill. More specifically, it denies many of us the 
opportunity to offer any of the three amendments--proposed by 
Republicans and Democrats alike--to restore the more than 35 percent 
cut from the President's international narcotics control budget for the 
State Department for fiscal year 1995.
  The last foreign assistance authorization bill was enacted in 1985. 
Republicans have been promised for more than a year that we would have 
an opportunity to join in a bipartisan reform of the foreign assistance 
program. Regrettably, this bill will likely be the only foreign 
assistance bill this Congress will enact.
  As a result of the proposed cuts in the international narcotics funds 
in this bill, domestic consequences will be severe, allowing more and 
cheaper drugs on our streets, and in our schools. Inevitably, there 
will be increased crime, health care costs and a significant loss of 
worker productivity. Our costly efforts for community policing provided 
for in the crime bill, will be adversely affected as well.
  These new local community police efforts will be swamped by the 
increased drugs from abroad that surely will follow the second year of 
severe cuts in this vital front line program against cocaine and heroin 
headed for our shores. Witness the recent 44 percent increase in heroin 
hospital admissions here in our Nation.
  If the Colombian Cali drug cartel was listed on the stock exchange 
today the phones on Wall Street would be ringing off the hook with buy 
orders.
  More importantly what we really have before us is an abdication by 
the President of any leadership in the battle against drugs, having 
made no substantial effort to restore his full budget request.
  Nor, did we learn of any real personal, critically necessary efforts 
by the White House to restore these cuts.
  In November 1993, the White House announced with great fanfare the 
President's new international narcotics control strategy stating:

       The President stressed the need for American leadership in 
     the fight against international drug trafficking. He pledged 
     to work with the Congress to ensure adequate funding for 
     international counterdrug programs.

  Regrettably, these were hollow words. There is really no beef to this 
administration's so called drug strategy. This is not the time to throw 
in the towel on our international antidrug efforts.
  These are foreign policy concerns that have domestic consequences. We 
are hopeful, that this trend does not continue, but we are skeptical 
based on this latest performance.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to oppose the rule to defeat the 
previous question, and to report back this rule with the Gilman-Rangel-
Oxley amendment that would do what the President wanted us to do.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in understanding that the 
motion to defeat the previous question is only for the purpose of 
allowing one amendment to the rule?
  Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, that is my understanding. I would 
like to yield to the ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] with regard to that.
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from New York is absolutely correct. I said 
in my opening statement that what I plan to do is if we defeat the 
previous question, having control of the opposition, I have one 
amendment, which at this moment is sitting at the desk, which I plan to 
offer. That happens to be the Rangel-Gilman-Oxley-Solomon-et al. 
amendment to do what we think is absolutely necessary here.
  That is my intent. That is what I said in my statement, and I plan to 
stand by that. That is why I am going to urge defeat of the previous 
question, so we can make the gentleman's amendment in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New 
York City [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my friends and colleagues, it is more 
difficult to get more partisan than I am as a Democrat. But there comes 
a time when our Nation is facing a serious problem that it just 
shatters the walls of party labels.
  I do not know when it happened or where I was when it happened, but 
somehow the crisis as it relates to drug addiction and the problems 
that occur when we ignore it, it seems as though somewhere the war has 
been won or it has gone away, or that certainly no part of the Congress 
is prepared to deal with it.
  Oh, we talk about violence, we talk about crime, we talk about our 
health bill. But if you talk about all of those things, why do you not 
stop and think why are we having so much crime?
  Seventy percent of the people in those jails are there because of 
drug addiction. Why are we having so much hemorrhage in our health 
bills? Because most of the people that are in these hospitals are in 
there with gunshot wounds, addiction, children being born addicted to 
drugs, paying $5,000 to $7,000 a day for each and every one of these 
cases.
  Yet when someone comes and says can we help do something about it, 
and they come to the Congress, you see what we have done. Some of us, 
Republicans and Democrats, have worked around the clock, working with 
this administration. And not just this one, whether it was Nixon or 
whether it was Carter or whether it was Ford or whether it was Reagan, 
we tried to work together, not as Democrats and not as Republicans.
  But if we are having a war against crime, why are we cutting back on 
the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration? Why is it every time 
we turn around to fight the war, we cannot get the bullets and the 
ammunition?
  Now, all of a sudden we are asking for $152 million. We are asking 
for it because if there is anyone that has been involved in the war 
against drugs, it has been our friends in Colombia. The days are over 
now when they used to point their fingers at us and say the reason why 
the cocaine is thriving, the reason why the opium crops are thriving, 
the reason why marijuana is thriving, is because of American demand.
  No, it is more serious than that now. As an effort of the 
partnerships that the United States has made with the Organization of 
American States, they have seen that drug addiction and drug 
trafficking have threatened the fragile democracies that we have in 
this hemisphere, and at a time when things are beginning to work, at a 
time when they are asking us to continue to assist them so that we 
cannot just depend on the elimination of the crops. That will never, 
never happen unless we reduce consumption, but we have to fight it in 
education, and you cannot name one program that is designed in 
education to prevent our kids from going on drugs.
  We have to do something about rehabilitation, and not one of you know 
of a Federal program that supports it that can effectively say they 
rehabilitate our kids.
  We have to do something about crime, and what do we do? Three strikes 
and you are out. Mandatory sentences. Executions. Is that stopping 
crime? Is that stopping drug addiction? There is no border between 
Burma and Thailand as we see the heroin pouring into these United 
States, and what are they doing in districts throughout this country? 
They are giving away the heroin on the street so our children will 
become addicted to it.
  And what are they asking for? $152 million. What do we lose every 
year as a result of doing nothing with drugs? $500 billion, when you 
take into consideration how many people we lock up, how many people we 
keep in the hospitals, how much we lose in productivity.

  I am not saying that we can win this war. But if you ask for $152 
million for the International Narcotic Force in the State Department? 
It was not Republicans who asked for it, it was not Democrats who asked 
for it, it was the President of these United States asking that our 
credibility abroad be kept intact. And where do we ask to take it away 
from? We ask to take it away from the Soviet Union.
  Now, I do not know how any of you feel about Communists, and maybe 
you forget quickly, but I fought against the Communists. And I have to 
say if they can redeem themselves for $52 million, why not give the $52 
million to the communities that never were Communist in the first 
place? They are asking for the same hopes, the same aspirations as the 
former Soviet Union. They are out of work. They are out of hope. They 
are relying on drugs. Why can we not say America first? It is a simple 
thing to me.
  Now, I know that as a Democrat I am going against the rules. We are 
not supposed to ever defeat the previous question. But then I have to 
decide, what is more important, the previous question, the Democratic 
tradition, or the millions of kids that can honestly say that this 
country and this Congress has not done a darn thing to allow them to 
believe that we ever can do it right?
  I ask my Democratic friends to look at this. When the previous 
question is defeated, we are not turning the bill over to the 
Republicans. We are just asking for one amendment. This is not breaking 
any budget.
  If some of your constituents are supporting the Soviet Union and it 
is going to defeat you at the polls, then believe me, you are excused. 
But if, on the other hand, you believe that the money is better spent 
keeping these drugs out of your districts, I ask you to defeat the 
previous question, let the rule come back with this one sole amendment, 
and let us get on with the people's business.

                          ____________________