[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 71 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: June 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4539, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 447 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 447
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. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
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. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows:
beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 4, line 6, through
``Treasury'' on line 9; and page 87, line 3, through page 88,
line 2. Where points of order are waived against only part of
a paragraph, a point of order against matter in the balance
of the paragraph may be applied only within the balance of
the paragraph and not against the entire paragraph. 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. 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.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Committee on Appropriations may file a supplemental
report on H.R. 4539 as part 2 of House Report 103-534.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Darden). 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
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 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. Speaker, House Resolution 447 is the rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 4539, making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the
President, and certain independent agencies for fiscal year 1995.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. It provides one hour of general
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Appropriations Committee.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, a waiver which is necessary because the Appropriations Committee
needs to file a supplemental report on its updated allocation.
The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI against all provisions in the
bill, with two exceptions. This waiver, protecting certain sections of
the bill against points of order, is necessary because the bill
contains appropriations for several agencies which have not yet been
reauthorized.
The bill also contains a number of general provisions, most of which
have been carried for several years. The request for the wavier was
made by the chairman of the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee and was
supported by the ranking minority member of the subcommittee.
The Committee on Rules believes this is a reasonable waiver,
especially since the bill provides funding for agencies and activities
for which authorizing legislation has not been finalized.
Some of the agencies that remain unauthorized are the U.S. Customs
Service, the Bureau of the Mint, the Office of Special Counsel, the
Federal Election Commission, and the office of the drug czar in the
White House.
The bill also carries language permitting activities not authorized
by law, but which have been carried in appropriations acts for many
years. Many of these so-called good government and financial management
provisions which, for instance, permit agencies to require reports on
controversial spending items and allows transfers amongst accounts.
Several new provisions are included, but all are subject to a motion to
strike--as is every item in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee made two exceptions to the waiver,
which are clearly identified in the rule so that members are fully
informed. The exceptions were made at the request of the authorizing
committees with jurisdiction over the provisions; they are made in
accordance with a longstanding tradition in the Rules Committee to
honor such requests.
The two sections which remain unprotected from a point of order deal
first, with the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, and, second, with utility
rebates for certain energy efficiency and water conservation measures.
Further, the rule provides that if only a portion of a paragraph is
protected, a point of order may lie only against the balance of the
paragraph, and not against the entire paragraph. The rule also provides
one motion to recommit.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule authorizes the Committee on
Appropriations to file a supplemental report on the bill as part 2 of
the committee report accompanying H.R. 4539. Under the provisions of
the budget resolution, the Appropriations Committee approved $405
million above the budget request for a tax compliance initiative.
As a result, the Appropriations Committee is required to file this
supplemental report showing the revised 602(b) allocation. The increase
is fully in compliance with the provisions of the budget resolution,
and it is our understanding that it is not controversial. The filing
requirement is included in the rule merely to expedite the process.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4539, the bill for which this rule provides
consideration, is the fourth appropriation measure the House has
considered this year. It appropriates a total of $23.4 billion for the
Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of
the President, and certain independent agencies including the Federal
Election Commission, the General Services Administration, and the
National Archives.
The total appropriation is $1.2 billion less than the
Administration's request and $824.5 million more than the fiscal year
1994 appropriation, part of which is because of an increase in funding
for the Internal Revenue Service.
I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Hoyer, and the
ranking minority member, Mr. Lightfoot, for their good work in bringing
to the House a fiscally responsible measure for financing many of the
agencies that perform the everyday and necessary operations of the
Government.
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, this is an open rule, and I urge my
colleagues support for it so that we may proceed to consideration of
the bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has
thoroughly described this rule providing for the consideration of the
Treasury, Postal Service and general government appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1995. I will not duplicate his explanation, and I am glad
to see that the Rules Committee is improving its record of reporting
out open rules.
The members of the Appropriations Committee have the thankless job of
trying to make limited dollars go a long way. I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate them for bringing forth this fiscally
responsible bill, which provides funding for the Treasury Department,
the U.S. Postal Service, the White House and several other independent
agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record comparative charts of open
versus restrictive rules along with the results of several rollcall
votes on amendments that were offered to this rule in the Rules
Committee hearing on this matter yesterday. I know many of my
colleagues have serious concerns over some of the provisions of this
bill and also over some provisions which are not in this bill. I will
let them speak for themselves on these matters.
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)............................................. 70 15 21 55 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 June 9, 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: Natl. 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).
authorization. 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. 443, May 25, 1994..... MC H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps, 39 (D-11; R-28). 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,
FY 1995. 1994).
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994..... MC H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp, 43 (D-10; R-33). 12 (D-8; R-4)............. A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).
FY 1995.
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994..... O H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
Approps 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed
Rule on H.R. 4539, Treasury/Postal Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1995
1. Amendment to waive points of order only against
unauthorized provisions and to leave legislative provisions
in the bill exposed to points of order. (text attached) Vote:
(Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays:
Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
2. Solomon--Amendment to require a report to Congress on
the status of the White House Drug Testing Program. Vote:
(Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays:
Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
3. Solomon--Amendment to prohibit funds under the bill from
being used to study drug legalization. Vote: (Defeated 4-6)
Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior,
Hall, Wheat.
4. McDade--Amendment to offset the cost of the government-
wide pay raise provided in the bill. Vote: (Defeated 4-6)
Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior,
Hall, Wheat.
5. Lightfoot--Amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the
bill for non-official travel by military aircraft. Vote:
(Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays:
Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
6. Lightfoot--Amendment to prohibit the use of Office of
the President funds in the bill to pay for legal counsel for
private legal and financial matters. Vote: (Defeated 4-6)
Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior,
Hall, Wheat.
7. Wolf--Amendment to require financial disclosure for non-
governmental employees who have White House passes, such as
political consultants. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon,
Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson,
Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
8. Wolf--Amendment to impose deadlines on the amount of
time White House staff members have to obtain their permanent
White House passes. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon,
Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson,
Frost Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
9. Istook--Amendment to establish a disclosure requirement
for White House salaries. Vote: (Defeat 4-6) Yeas: Solomon,
Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson,
Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
10. Istook--Amendment to require a report to Congress on
non-governmental Presidential travel expenses. Vote:
(Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays:
Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
11. Roth--Amendment to reduce funding of Resolution Trust
Corporation by $13.3 billion. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas:
Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior,
Hall, Wheat.
12. Burton--Amendment to require the White House to issue a
report detailing the costs and names of participants in the
President's official Normandy trip. Vote: (Defeated 4-6)
Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior,
Hall, Wheat.
13. Fawell--Amendment to provide an exception from the
waiver protecting unauthorized projects (clause 2, Rule XXI)
for four specific projects in the General Services
Administration, Public Buildings Fund. (text attached) Vote:
(Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays:
Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
14. Bachus--(A) Amendment to prohibit funds for locality
pay or regional pay differential unless they conform with
other executive agencies under Title V; and, (B) Amendment to
prohibit funds for the RTC unless the Thrift Depositor
Protection Oversight Board complies with the Federal Home
Loan Bank Act. Vote: (Defeated 4-6) Yeas: Solomon, Quillen,
Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost,
Gordon, Slaughter. Not voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
Amendments to Proposed Rule on Treasury-Postal Appropriations
H.R. 4539
1. Waiving Points of Order Only Against Unauthorized
Provisions & Leaving Legislative Provisions Exposed--Strike
the words ``clause 2 of rule XXI are waived'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``clause 2(a) of rule XXI are waived'', and
insert at the end of that sentence the following: ``Any point
of order against a provision in the bill for failure to
comply with the provisions of clause 2(b) of rule XXI may be
made only against such provision and not against the entire
paragraph.''.
Explanation: The purpose of this amendment to the rule is
to waive points of order only against unauthorized provisions
and to leave legislative provisions in the bill exposed to
points of order.
fawell
The waiver of clause 2, Rule XXI shall not apply to the
following provisions in the bill:
Page 32, line 10, (Albany, GA, Courthouse).
Page 33, line 2. (Stuebenville, OH, Courthouse).
Page 33, line 11. (Corpus Christi, TX, Courthouse).
Page 36, line 25 and all that follows through page 37, line
2. (Providence, RI, Courthouse).
Page 38, line 23, beginning with the word ``the'' and all
that follows through the word ``; and'' on page 39, line 1.
(all of the above).
{time} 1630
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues also have concerns on the rule itself. I
would like them to speak for themselves on these matters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that I have to stand up here and oppose
this rule on what is otherwise a very good piece of legislation. It is
within the budget, and that is always easy to support.
I oppose this rule because it takes a rather two-faced approach to
the issue of legislating in appropriation bills, and because it shuts
out some very sincere and legitimate amendments offered in the
Committee on Rules yesterday by Members from both sides of the aisle,
Democrats and Republicans, being denied here today. Yes, the gentleman
from California is correct in calling this an open rule as far as that
goes for appropriation bills, unlike the restrictive rules we had last
month on the foreign operations and the legislative branch
appropriation bills. And we are grateful for the fact that we can at
least reduce or strike provisions in the bill. That is what is allowed
under the rule of the House, and that is the way it should be.
But there are times when we ask for what we call open-plus rules,
because certain amendments require a waiver of points of order, and
this is one such instance, even though we traditionally do not like to
waive points of order. I do not like to waive them.
Why should this rule be any different? The main reason is most of the
amendments requested in the Committee on Rules go to, and you ought to
listen to this, Members, go to the Executive Office of the President of
the United States, which is not subject to an authorization bill. So
this is really our only opportunity to offer legislative provisions
affecting that office.
Let me underscore that point by putting it this way: This is our only
chance to effectively exercise oversight over the White House through
legislation and help clean up the mess that exists down there at the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and believe me, it is one messy
operation.
Let me just cite some of the amendments that were submitted to the
Committee on Rules and rejected on a party-line vote. I myself had two
amendments. One would require a status report on the White House drug-
testing program, which may no longer even exist there without anybody's
approval to stop it, and the other would prohibit funds in the bill
from being used to study drug legalization, which is threatened by
President Clinton's Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders. She thinks it is a
good idea to legalize these illicit drugs killing our kids.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], ranking Republican on the
Appropriations Subcommittee, had two amendments that would prohibit use
of funds in the bill for nonofficial travel by military aircraft, and
we all know about the little problem there. And the second would
prohibit the use of funds from the office of the President for private
legal and financial matters.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], sitting back here, would
require financial disclosure for those nongovernmental employees, such
four well-known political consultants who have temporary or permanent
White House passes. The other would impose deadlines on the time, and
this is so terribly important, for White House employees to obtain
their passes, a continuing scandal after some 18 months of this
administration.
I could go on and on.
There were some 15 Republicans and another few Democrat amendments
denied out of hand, and, yes, these all required waivers of points of
order for them to be offered under the open-plus rule.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would hasten to point out that the Democrats did
not flinch in protecting most of the 135 provisions already in the bill
from points of order, including some pork-barrel projects that my
friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], wants to get at,
sitting next to me here.
What this rule says then is that the appropriators are more
privileged and presumably more competent and wise than the other 375
Members of this House when it comes to deciding how to legislate in an
appropriation bill. How do you like that, Members?
Try to explain that to your constituents who thought each of us had
equal rights on this floor.
But even more troubling, it seems to me, this rule says the Congress
is not willing to exercise proper oversight of the White House when it
is controlled by the same party as the Congress, Democrats at both ends
of Pennsylvania Avenue. We are not willing to demand the same standards
of this administration that the Congress was so willing to exercise
when we had a Republican President. That should not be the case.
We are still supposed to be an independent branch of the Government,
not a subsidiary of the executive branch. We are still responsible
under the Constitution for appropriating tax dollars and scrutinizing
their expenditures to guard against the misuse of public funds.
Let us ponder that proposition a moment before voting on this rule
and then do the right thing by voting it down and bringing back a rule
that allows us to fully and freely exercise those responsibilities of
being watchdogs of the Treasury and guardians of the purse strings of
this Government. Our constituents who pay the bills of this Government
with their hard-earned tax dollars should expect no less of both of us
on either side of the aisle.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 4539.
As the ranking Republican on the Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Subcommittee, I offered several amendments myself,
as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] pointed out, in both the
subcommittee and the full committee markup that I would like to have
offered here on the floor, but we were denied the right under the rule.
The majority denied the right for us to offer limitation amendments
based on the argument that they would constitute authorizing on an
appropriation bill. I would like to point out, however, that the rule
also waives points of order, as the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] mentioned, against some 135 authorizing provisions that are
already contained in the bill.
The question is: Where is the logic in all of this? Clearly the
Committee on Rules does not object to authorizing language in an
appropriation bill. The true reason, I suspect, is the majority does
not want any criticism of the White House to come out in this bill.
The reason that we are pushing on this rule is that there is just no
other vehicle for White House oversight. It is a permanently authorized
budgetary item. It is never discussed, and this is the only vehicle
that is available anywhere in Congress to talk about the operations
there.
I think that as a Congress, we have been negligent in providing some
badly needed oversight.
Supporting this rule continues to slide under the rug many conflicts
of interest, the ethics violations and some of the budgetary
shenanigans that have been perpetrated.
If you want to continue to cover up, simply support this rule. If you
want to show the American people you will not condone or ignore abuses
of power and tax dollars, then oppose the rule and tell the Committee
on Rules to let this body do its job on oversight over the dollars we
provide for operations of the executive branch.
Whether there is agreement or disagreement on the issues, I think
that Members of Congress should at least have the opportunity to
express their opinion, and if in that process the amendments fail, then
that is how it is supposed to work. But I think we at least should be
allowed the opportunity to offer those amendments.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
We were foreclosed to offer two amendments.
The two amendments are as follows: One, there are a number of people
in the White House, Mr. Begala, Mr. Greenberg, Mandy Grunwald, and
James Carville, who have White House passes that enable them to visit
the White House 24 hours a day, and they have complete rein like no
other administration has had.
Now, if you have read the book by Bob Woodward called ``The Agenda,''
let me tell you what Bob Woodward says in the book. He says:
Howard Paster was in a slow burn as he listened to
Greenberg * * * It was outrageous that the outside
consultants were providing the president with major policy
option papers in confidential memos that Paster often never
saw or saw only too late. If lobbyists with business clients
had this kind of relationship with the president, it would be
a giant scandal. the consultants had clients, some
businesses, some politicians like Senator Moynihan, who paid
big fees for their work. Paster wasn't sure the political
consultants were that different from other outside
businesses. He resented their influence and was sure they
presented Clinton with a potentially serious liability.
Valuable inside information and conflicts abounded.* * *
Now, I believe these amendments would have been helpful to save this
administration and future Republican and Democratic administrations.
Now, some people say, ``Well, Wolf is just being partisan.'' I would
like to insert at this point in the Record a copy of a letter that I
sent to President Bush on the same issue when he hired Jim Lake to work
not in the White House but in the campaign.
U.S. Congress,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 8, 1992.
Hon. George Bush,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Today I was one of the 145 House
members who voted against H.R. 5100, the ``Trade Expansion
Act.'' But I wanted you to know that despite this vote in
support of the Administration, I am very distressed with the
Administration's apparent indifference to the role of
influence peddling by Japanese companies.
With the trade deficit with Japan being one of our major
economic problems, I believe the Administration would be far
better served making the free trade case if they did not have
high level staffers on board who have profited from lobbying
on behalf of Japanese firms that continue to close their
markets to the United States.
For example, Jim Lake, your current Deputy Campaign
Manager, has lobbied for such clients as Mitsubishi, Suzuki,
and the Japan Auto Parts Industries Association. While I
consider Jim Lake personally a good person and I do not mean
to assail his character in any way, I would offer, that at
the least, having those who have been well paid lobbyists for
Japanese corporations in high-level positions in the campaign
undermines ``free market'' arguments and certainly gives rise
to serious perception problems by the American public. I know
it certainly makes it harder for me to make my case to my
constituents on this important issue.
Please consider these concerns. I support the
Administration's free trade initiatives, but I also believe
that the free trade argument can be made best when our own
House is free of foreign entanglements.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress.
____
July 9, 1992.
Mr. James Lake,
Deputy Campaign Manager, Bush-Quayle '92, Washington, DC.
Dear Jim: Enclosed is a copy of a letter that I wanted you
to see that I recently sent to the President following the
recent House vote on H.R. 5100, the ``Trade Expansion Act.''
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
Enclosure.
{time} 1640
Let me just say if we had accepted this on a voice vote it would be
over. I predict, I predict that the Clinton administration or Congress
will fold on this issue because as the American people find out--and
the Wall Street Journal has done two editorials, AP did a piece today,
the Washington Post has done an editorial--as journalists and people
who are interested in ethics picked this up, this administration, as
any administration, they will fold. Why put them through the process,
why pound and pound? I am going to write every Senator on the other
side, on both sides of the aisle, asking them--they who are not
encumbered with a Rules Committee--to offer the same amendment.
Second, we found out in the hearings there were a number of
prominent, high-level people who had not even filed for their security
background check.
Dee Dee Myers, who for a year and 2 months had not even filed the
form, you could almost say we should have a Dee Dee Myers small
business amendment, where small businessmen could say, ``I didn't file
my form because I was too busy.'' You see, Dee Dee said she was too
busy.
Members of the Committee on Intelligence told me that when they would
go down there they would be talking with Dee Dee Myers about Somalia
and Bosnia and the most secretive things. Yet she had not even filed.
We found out a large number of them had not filed.
The other amendment merely says in 30 days you have to file your
background check with the FBI, your application. Then it has to be
finished within 6 months. They usually do it much faster than that, but
we say 6 months. The President has the ability to waive that.
Back in 1988, serving with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on
the Helsinki Commission, Congressman Smith and I went into the last
Gulag in the Soviet Union, Camp 35. When we got in the camp--and this
is the camp that Scharansky was in--the men found out that we were
Congressmen. Chris Smith and I said that we were American Congressmen.
Well, they went on a sit-down strike until they spoke to us.
We interviewed the man on video camera and found out they had worked
for the CIA. Later we found out these three men were turned in by
Aldrich Ames. Aldrich Ames gave the information that put them in the
Gulag Camp 35. As a result of that, 10 men have been killed.
Now, I am not inferring that there is anything like that going on in
the White House, but if my constituents from DIA, CIA, NSC, if your
people and many people throughout the administration, people who work
for Boeing, Honeywell, and TRW have to file these forms, I say the
people in the White House ought to do the same. Because we have been
foreclosed, I strongly urge the defeat of this rule so they can send it
back to the Rules Committee and we can offer these amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4539. Voting
to support this rule will endorse a ``make [their] own rules'' White
House.
This is what Mandy Grunwald had to say about potential conflicts that
might occur from her or other consultants working at the White House
regularly with the benefit of a White House pass--
We asked for information from the White House and DNC
counsel about laws that governed us . . . we found out there
were very few. So we decided to make our own rules.
We decided to make our own rules.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee in declining to allow me to offer an
amendment to address this situation decided it was OK for outside
consultants ``to make [their] own rules.'' I ask you Mr. Speaker, is
this what we have come to? We are going to have so little oversight of
the White House under one party rule that those working at the White
House can just ``make [their] own rules?''
The Washington Post does not think they should be able to make their
own rules. They have written in support of my efforts to start this
process of more White House accountability. The Wall Street Journal
also has supported this amendment. As they point out in an editorial in
today's edition:
As detailed in the [Bob] Woodward book, James Carveille,
Paul Begala, Mandy Grunwald, and Stanely Greenberg constantly
meet with the President and First Lady, develop policies and
market them.
I might add, as detailed in the Woodward book, these outside
consultants were constantly at war with many of the President's
economic advisers and tried to reshape their work on numerous
occasions. This would be all fine and good and just a part of the
process if it were not for one thing: The President's economic advisers
are held accountable--they file financial disclosure, their conflicts
and possible biases are known; the consultants have not filed financial
disclosure and their own biases are not known.
Mr. Woodward reveals that this potential for problems did not go
unnoticed at the White House and described the reaction of Howard
Paster, until recently the White House's liaison with Congress:
It was outrageous that the outside consultants were
providing the president with major policy option papers in
confidential memos that Paster often never saw or saw only
too late. If lobbyists with business clients had this kind of
relationship with the president, it would be a giant scandal.
The consultants had clients, some businesses, some
politicians like Senator Moynihan, who paid big fees for
their work. Paster wasn't sure the political consultants were
that different from other outside businesses. He
resented their influence and was sure they presented
Clinton with a potentially serious liability. Valuable
inside information and conflicts abounded.''
Mr. Paster filed a financial disclosure form. So did the economic
advisers that Carville and company were constantly doing battle with.
What is wrong with applying the same rules to them as apply to those
they are working with day after day?
Unlike other issues where a member can go to an authorizing committee
to address the matter, this bill is our only vehicle to address
systemic problems at the White House. There are only approximately 50
legislative days left this year to address issues. If we do not address
this problem here and now, it will not be solved. In addition to this
financial disclosure problem I had also wanted to offer an amendment
providing for a timely processing of White House passes. As we learned
earlier this year, after repeated denials from the White House, the
White House pass process was in disarray. Hundreds of staffers did not
have permanent passes and many had not even filled out the paperwork to
begin the background investigation process. Security clearances were
not even in place for senior officials such as Press Secretary Dee Dee
Myers. Chief of Staff Mack McLarty did not even get his permanent pass
until March of this year.
Despite over 130 instances of legislating on appropriations within
the fiscal year 1995 Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill, the Rules
Committee declined to allow me to offer what I believe are very
important amendments concerning White House accountability.
As The Wall Street Journal noted today:
If the Democratic controlled House votes against Mr. Wolf
today it will be sending a clear enough message: Ethics laws
are meant to be enforced under some occupants of the White
House, but it's OK if the Clinton White House merely waves in
the general direction of disclosure as its occupants roar
past to get on with their ``agenda.''
The rules in this Congress should not be endorsing the ``make your
own kind of rules policy at the White House.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chairman Emeritus for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, some of the majority members of the Rules Committee
expressed frustration that the minority is opposing this rule. True, it
does allow an open amendment process--something the minority has been
badgering our Democrat colleagues for repeatedly. But as Mr. Traficant,
a member of the majority party, so eloquently stated in yesterday's
Rules Committee meeting on the fiscal year 1995 Treasury/Postal
appropriations bill--this should not be viewed as an open rule. Why?
because this rule provides special protection to 138 provisions tucked
into this bill by the appropriators--provisions that under normal Rules
of the House would be subject to points of order because they violate
the standing rules of this House. While it is true that Members could
offer striking amendments for the line items on that list of protected
provisions--that is a tougher proposition than knocking them out on a
point of order. Now, it would only seem fair that if the Rules
Committee is going to grant special treatment to provisions inserted by
the members of the Appropriations Committee, then all Members should
have that same right. And so, as Member after Member came through
seeking to have the same luxury of rules waivers afforded to their
amendments as was granted to the appropriations--they were denied.
Never mind the fact that many of those amendments go straight to the
heart of real concerns Americans have about the management practices at
the White House. Members had responsible proposals to prohibit the use
of taxpayers' funds for nonofficial travel by military aircraft. Who
could argue with that? We had amendments to require financial
disclosure for non-governmental employees with White House passes--like
the political consultants who roam free in the White House today but
who have no accountability to the people of the United States. But they
do have conflicts of interest, it seems. Who could argue with that? We
had an amendment to require disclosure of White House staff salaries,
which the public pays. Who could argue with that? And we had a proposal
to require the White House to detail to the public how much it cost and
who travelled with the President when he took his large entourage of
nonveterans to Normandy for D-day. Who could argue with that? The list
goes on, but the point is, amendments proposed by Members who are not
on the Appropriations Committee, who are not in the majority, and who
are not powerful committee chairs of Ways and Means or Energy and
Commerce were judged under a different set of criteria than all the
rest of the House under this rule and that is why many of us in the
minority oppose it. This Congress--and that means all 435 Members--is
charged with oversight duties of the executive branch [including the
White House]. But with repeated news accounts detailing management
irregularities, ethical lapses, security breaches, misuse of public
funds and financial conflicts of interest--the majority leadership in
this House is growing increasingly squeamish about its legitimate
oversight responsibility. So today we have a rule that again misses an
opportunity to respond to public concerns--a rule that appears to
reinforce the growing notion of a ``cover-up Congress.'' What a shame.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule because it
waives all points of order against unauthorized appropriations
contained in this bill. I object particularly to the funding for four
unauthorized construction projects totaling over $25 million. The
projects are courthouses in Albany, GA, Steubenville, OH, Corpus
Christi, TX, and Providence, RI.
To the many taxpayers who are listening to the debate, discussion of
the House rules may seem unimportant. It may sound ``inside the
Beltway'' stuff.
In fact, what is at stake here is whether we allow a few powerful
Members of the House to circumvent rules and spend millions of tax
dollars on what I would call pork-barrel projects. Now, by pork barrel
I mean that these spending projects have had no authorizations, no
hearings, no determination of the need for these projects. That is a
failure to, simply, follow the basic procedures of the House in regard
to spending.
To taxpayers who are outraged that their tax money is wasted on pork-
barrel projects I say, Watch this vote very carefully. A vote for this
rule is a vote for breaking the rules of the House and in this instance
allowing $24 million to be spent on what I would call pork.
The Committee on Public Works and Transportation has not authorized
these projects. It violates rule XXI. Any Member of this House should
have been able to strike these projects by simply rising on the floor
of this House and pointing out that the rules have been violated.
The Committee on Appropriations is authorizing expenditures for a
prospectus by GSA on these projects. A prospectus will, in essence, set
in motion funding for these projects. But the underlying law, the
Public Buildings Act of 1959, gives this power only to GSA and to the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. The Committee on
Appropriations thus has usurped that power.
This is a classic case, also, of legislating on an appropriation
bill, also against the House rules.
Who wants these five projects built? Not the General Services
Administration, nor the Committee on Public Works which has the
statutory authority to request via a prospectus; not the President of
the United States. In fact, these projects are not included in the
President's budget.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, since the gentleman [Mr. Fawell] did not have time to yield.
I want to point out to our colleagues that the gentleman under the
rule can move to strike any, each, or all of the five projects to which
he alludes. That is allowed under this rule. I want that to be clear to
all the Members. Each of the projects about which the gentleman has a
problem he may offer a motion to strike under this rule.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill contains
four courthouse projects which have not been authorized by the Public
Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee and the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation. The placement of these projects in H.R. 4539 is a
clear violation of clause 2(a), rule XI, which prohibits unauthorized
projects from being included in an appropriation bill.
Mr. Speaker, the House Parliamentarian has read the language in the
bill concerning these projects and agrees that a point of order would
be appropriate if this was not waived by this rule.
In addition, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] pointed out,
the General Services Administration has not requested funding for these
projects.
{time} 1650
This is a classic example of legislatively placing the cart before
the horse. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way the people want us to do
their business. Anyone who votes for this bill in its present form is
voting to approve courthouses that no one knows how much they will
cost. Our subcommittee, which is the primary one of jurisdiction, has
not requested prospectuses. There have been no hearings. The GSA has
not given its approval to these buildings.
People wonder why in the world there is so much waste in Washington.
There could be no better example than this bill. We are appropriating
money without knowing the total cost or even how much need there is for
these buildings. All over this Nation, Mr. Speaker, people are becoming
angry about Federal courthouses that are costing exorbitant amounts of
money. The Boston courthouse will cost $285 per square foot, if it
comes in on budget.
People wonder why. The reason is that the Congress is passing bills
that have projects in it that the Members know almost nothing about. We
need to go over these things with a fine tooth comb, not rush projects
through that even the people in charge of Federal construction know
almost nothing about.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4539, despite qualifying language, has the
practical effect of giving final approval for funding on these projects
since, once an appropriation is passed by the full House, the sponsor
and the community involved understandably reach the conclusion that
their project has received final approval. Reversal of the decision by
the authorizing committee to proceed with funding as a practical matter
becomes difficult, if not impossible.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat this rule and maintain the
integrity of the authorizing process.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
(Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, this rule fails to make in order a number
of important amendments needed to bring about greater accountability in
the Executive Office of the President. For that reason I must oppose
the rule and urge its defeat.
For the past 18 months, as the ranking Republican on the Committee on
Government Operations, I have seen first-hand the numerous management
problems at the White House. Let me mention just a few: The White House
argued that travel office employees were fired for gross mismanagement,
but the only gross mismanagement was the way the White House handled
the matter; in an attempt to convince Americans that unanswered phone
calls and busy signals were not the result of mismanagement, the White
House spent $27 million on a new phone system. But they violated the
Competition in Contracting Act by limiting bids for the job; last June,
the General Accounting Office found that the White House mismanaged the
purchase of a computer system by failing to follow proper procurement
procedures; 14 months into the Clinton administration, the White House
admitted that more than 100 staffers lacked security clearances and
one-third of the 1,044 employees did not have permanent passes. Talk
about mismanagement; finally, the White House further mismanaged
personnel by allowing numerous employees to double-dip, receiving
double salary payments.
Even more disquieting than these management shortcomings has been the
attempt by the administration to cover them up. Time and time again the
White House has refused to provide information to Congress and to the
public regarding the operations, expenditures, and management of the
White House.
Item: On May 16, the administration refused my request for
information on air missions flown in support of the White House.
Incredibly, on May 24, a senior White House aide took a Presidential
helicopter for a golf outing.
Item: On October 25, 1993, the White House refused my request for
information on staffing levels.
Last December and several times since, the White House refused to
provide information on the President's health care task force. We have
since found out that the task force working groups contained 1,000
participants, not the 511 claimed by the White House. We have also
found that the task force spent at least $4 million and possibly as
much as $16 million on expenses, salaries, and consulting fees, not the
$100,000 identified in its charter.
Somewhere along the line, this administration has come to believe
that it is not subject to the rules, laws, and procedures that have
applied to previous administrations. Security requirements do not
apply, personnel law does not apply, procurement law does not apply,
common sense does not apply.
The amendments my colleagues hoped to offer make clear the fact that
this administration is subject to the laws of the land, and subject to
congressional oversight. Without endorsing all of the amendments, I
applaud the sponsors' efforts to enhance accountability and improve
White House management. It is disappointing that the Rules Committee
failed to make these amendments in order. For that reason, I oppose the
rule and urge its defeat.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I went before the Committee on Rules and offered two
amendments which were ruled out of order. The first amendment would
have ended an outrageous practice at the Resolution Trust Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, there are 3,000 employees at the Resolution Trust
Corporation out of the 3,000,000 Federal employees. They pay
themselves, first of all, 10 percent more than other Federal employees.
But as if that was not enough, they then pay themselves a geographical
adjuster, which is three, and four, and five times higher than other
Government employees. The end result is a clerk doing the same job at
the RTC makes in Washington, DC $4,000 more than a worker at the Energy
Department, or the Agriculture Department, or other departments of the
Government. A privileged few, a double standard, and we are not talking
about a few million dollars here. We are talking about the principle of
the thing.
In San Francisco, if one works for the RTC, their income, their
salary, is adjusted by 31.4 percent because they live in San Francisco,
and the cost-of-living is more there. But if one works for any other
Government agency in San Francisco, they only receive an 8 percent cost
of living increase. Now does it cost 31 percent more to live in San
Francisco, or does it cost 8 percent more? I do not know, but let us
end this outrageous practice. Let us treat all Federal employees with
equity. And let us end this outrageous practice by the RTC.
Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that I would have an opportunity to
offer that amendment, and I think we could have all voted for it.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am always happy when we have an
open rule around this place, and today is one of those glorious days
when we have an open rule. There is only one little problem, and that
problem is that they waive points of order for 130-some amendments, as
I recall. Was it 130-some or 30-some?
One hundred thirty-five amendments; they waived points of order for
those.
And we had an amendment that we thought was very important to the
American taxpayer. President Clinton went to Normandy, as he should
have, to express his concern, and support and congratulations for those
who served our country during the invasion of Europe in 1944. He went
over there to talk about the great heroism and sacrifice. The only
problem was he took 30 U.S. aircraft at an average cost of $10,000 an
hour; that is $300,000 an hour for 20 hours over and back, and that is
$6 million in aircraft. And he took a thousand of his closest friends,
a thousand of his closest friends. I do not think the taxpayers of this
country want to pay for that.
And they were not veterans. He did not ask any of the veterans
organizations to send veterans. We talked to veterans who were wounded
in a hospital in California who said they would have loved to have gone
to see their fallen comrades, to go to those cemeteries. They were not
asked, and yet the President took a thousand of his closest friends.
Mr. Speaker, I am on the oversight committee that is supposed to
oversee and watch these expenditures of the White House and
unfortunately, when we called the White House and said our committee
would like to have this information, they stonewalled it. They said to
us, ``It's none of your business,'' even though during the Reagan and
Bush administrations the same request was made, and boxes, and boxes,
and boxes of information came to our committee.
This is an administration that is very arrogant as far as the
Congress is concerned. They do not want to respond to us. They do not
want to respond to the taxpayers of the United States. They say they
are for fiscal responsibility, and yet we believe the President spent
$10 to $15 million of taxpayers' money taking all these people over
there for a media event when he could have gone in Air Force One and
done just as well.
I am very disappointed, but more than that I am disappointed that the
Committee on Rules would not allow me to propose an amendment which
would cut the money out of the President's budget that we sent over
there unless he gave to the Congress as complete manifest of everybody
that went on that trip so that we would have a full accounting for the
U.S. taxpayer.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. As so
many others, my concern is what is not included in this particular
piece of legislation and what, under this rule, we cannot include.
As a member of the subcommittee that funds the White House and the
Executive Office of the President, I have been trying to do a very,
very simple thing: Find out how much they pay the people who work at
the White House. They refuse to tell us.
{time} 1700
Those of us who are on the committee in charge of the budget for the
White House, they will not tell us how much they pay their employees.
Even though they say they have diminished the number of people who
work there, they have increased the amount that it costs the taxpayers.
Why? Because we are told it is a higher caliber of person who deserves
a higher amount of pay. And yet they will not tell us how much it is.
If this rule is defeated, we will have the opportunity to include the
very simple amendment that I have been sponsoring, to require the White
House to tell us.
Now, in a couple of days we will have another piece of legislation
that hopefully will require at least part of these people to have their
income at taxpayers' expense disclosed. However, that will only cover
about 400 of the 1,400 people who work at the Executive Office of the
President. We need full disclosure of all of those.
Another bit of sunshine that needs to be shed that this rule
prohibits from occurring is about reimbursement to the taxpayers for
consultants and other political friends of the President who travel
with him in what is called an official status when he makes trips that
they may have political purpose as part of them. We are speaking about
people such as James Carville, Mandy Grunwald, Paul Begala and others.
Now, the White House says pursuant to law, if they travel with the
President, which they do with great frequency, they reimburse the
taxpayers. Fine. Just tell us who has made the reimbursement and how
much, so we can check up on it. Oh, no, they say. You cannot know that.
You have to trust us.
These are the same people that spent $13,000 of the taxpayers money
for a helicopter on a golf outing, and they say trust us with
disclosure on travel. Defeat the rule so we can shed some sunshine on
what the White House is doing with the taxpayers' money.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, next week I will be offering
an amendment to strike $13,129.66 from the White House office account
to demonstrate the will of the House that the White House release the
logs and manifests from the Marine helicopter squadron that supports
the President.
This is clearly a symbolic amendment. We would have preferred to put
an amendment in that asks the White House to release this information.
This is in everybody's best interests, particularly the White House's
best interests, to get this information out in the public domain. If
they are telling the truth that there were no other flights of this
type, they will be hailed for telling that truth. If they are not
telling the truth, it is to everybody's benefit to get the information
out now.
This is longer from November than tomorrow will be. This is not a
partisan issue. Everybody is interested in good government. We know
that the amendment is a symbolic amendment, and the money can be put
back in in conference if the information is released now.
In case after case, the White House has given the American people a
Whitewateresque runaround on the release of documents. They have done
it again in this case. They are not releasing documents. They have
given misinformation, conflicting information. It does not serve the
White House well; it does not serve us well. We are held in ever-
decreasing esteem by the American people. We need to do something to
reinstate confidence in this institution and government in general. Let
us start here, please, by releasing the data. I would ask everybody's
support for this very simple, important, symbolic amendment.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer],
the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Fawell], if I can, we have a close working relationship with the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. If the gentleman would
look at pages 38 and 39, at the four projects to which the gentleman
refers, not a nickel, other than preparing the prospectus so the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation can consider it, not a
nickel can be spent on any one of these four projects without the
approval of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, period.
That is the same status that a lot of other projects find themselves
in. Not a nickel can be spent on any one of these four projects
pursuant to pages 38 and 39 of this bill without the approval of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, as I tried to stress in the time I had, this
was legislating in an appropriations bill, to even get into the
authority of the Committee on Appropriations to even order spending to
commence the prospectus process, when GSA and the committee has never
asked for that, and they are the only ones under law that have a right
to ask for it. You are initiating a spending process by authorizing
through the appropriation law.
Mr. HOYER. Heavens forbid that the Committee on Appropriations would
initiate spending. When did the last authorization bill pass the
Senate? My point is, it has not passed.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I will point out to my friend, last year we
had a similar understanding and indeed the Committee on Appropriations
put language in that said none of the money could be spent, subject to
an authorization. That made a lot of sense. But I understand in
conference, that language was dropped out.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
incorrect. In fact, those projects had to be approved with discussions
with our committee and the Senate committee, both committees.
Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will further yield, staff informed me
yesterday and today that the language was dropped out in conference and
there was no requirement that the authorization be approved. So we have
a disagreement here. I certainly may be wrong, but I am not wrong about
the fact that this is what staff clearly informed me of.
Mr. HOYER. We put language in, but that specific language was
changed, because what we did in the House, which was noncontroversial,
was to make it subject to approval of the House committee. The Senate
objected to that and said it ought to be subject to the approval of
both. The final disposition of this issue was that the construction
would go forward unless disapproved by the authorizing Committees, of
either the House or the Senate.
Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield further, staff tells me
indeed it was dropped out. There was a change to the law. Is the
gentleman willing to make the commitment that this year in conference
the House will insist upon its position?
Mr. HOYER. We are not going to drop this language. I will commit to
you.
Mr. SHUSTER. That is comforting, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. I am pleased that I could comfort the gentleman.
Mr. FAWELL. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to simply
bring out the fact that for most of the people of this Congress, of
this House of Representatives, our only opportunity to vote is now. We
do not know what may happen in the future.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time Mr. Fawell, you will have the
opportunity. You can move, and you intend to move, to strike these
projects. It is an open rule. You will have the opportunity to vote,
and everybody else will have an opportunity to vote.
Mr. FAWELL. May I just add, we do not have the facts. There has been
no prospectus, there has been no study. We do not know on the basis of
what has been done what in the world would justify these four
courthouses. Now, so we are told to vote in the dark, and then wait and
hope that some day some few people out there will ultimately make a
decision that is called an authorization. That is voting in the dark,
and that is why we have these kinds of over spending that take place.
The prospectus could have been ordered long ago by the GSA. It could
have been ordered by the authorizing committee. They saw fit not to do
so. In fact, OMB turned down one of these courthouses. But there are no
facts before us at this point to even debate in regard to the merit of
these courthouses in the appropriations.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand the
gentleman's proposition. The fact is though these projects will be
subject to, and without which not a nickel can be spent, the
authorization of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. That
is our process. I wanted to make that clear to the Members, that these
projects have to go through the process.
{time} 1710
I am not going to respond to every point that has been made about the
White House, Mr. Speaker, because i think that would be time-consuming
and I am not going to take that time. I will take it when this bill
comes on for consideration in full.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to nip-in-the-bud this issue about these
planes to Normandy. I am pleased that the gentleman from Indiana is
here. In 1984 President Reagan went to Normandy from June 1 to 10,
1984.
President Clinton went to Normandy June 1 to 8, 1994, not just to
Normandy but obviously to other places, as did President Reagan.
President Reagan went to Ireland, London, France, Normandy, London,
and returned. President Clinton went to Italy, the United Kingdom,
France, the United Kingdom, and returned, so essentially the trips were
analogous.
Mr. Speaker, President Reagan had 43 people on his plane. He traveled
in a smaller plane. It was before President Bush got the new plane.
President Clinton had 45 people, two more. Let me reference the two
additional people. We do not know how many veterans President Reagan
had on his plane, but we do know that there were two veteran leaders on
the plane of the President's. There was Mr. Kenneth Bargman, who is an
Army veteran who enlisted in 1943 and served in the 2d Ranger
Battalion. He participated in the first wave of the D-day invasion.
Currently he is a project officer for the World War II 50th Anniversary
Commemoration, Office of Veterans Affairs.
There was also Mr. William Hathaway, chairman of the Federal Maritime
Commission. During World War II Chairman Hathaway served as a navigator
on a Liberator bomber stationed in Italy with the 376th Bombardment
Group. He was part of the 15th Air Force and flew 15 missions in
support of the European offensive, June 2d to 24th, 1944.
The only point we would make is that, quite obviously, this was a
trip that President Reagan took and that President Clinton took. Both
represented our country in the commemoration of a moment in time for
which our country can be very proud and for which the world can be very
thankful.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
gentleman taking the time to try to clarify this. The problem that we
have is that there were 30 aircraft from 6 bases that were refueled at
Andrews Air Force Base and flew overseas, and we estimate 1,000 people
went.
All we have asked from the White House, as the committee of
jurisdiction that has oversight over the executive branch, is who was
on those planes, did they reimburse the Federal Government, and if not,
how much did it cost the Federal Government and the taxpayers for 30
airplanes, which normally cost $10,000 to $12,000 an hour, to fly over
there? We have estimated. Some of those planes were only $3,000 or
$4,000 an hour, and others were $15,000 an hour. We are talking about
the big transport carriers, the ones that carry the cars and
everything.
We are not criticizing the President for going over on Air Force One,
but he took Air Force One, a backup plane, and 28 other planes, to our
knowledge.
We just want a report, as the committee that has oversight
requirements in this House, we want to know, and we have not been able
to get it. When we called the White House, they stonewalled us and said
simply, ``We do not think you are entitled to that information.''
As far as veterans' groups are concerned, we called the American
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans,
all of them, and they were asked to attend, but none were asked to go
over there and be with the President. The six men we talked about that
were in a hospital in California, those six people were indigent. They
would love to have gone, and they were not asked, as many others were
not.
While the gentleman is trying to explain----
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, how many such persons
were there in that situation when President Reagan went in 1984? I am
sure the gentleman checked.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he
did not take 30 planes, he took two.
Mr. HOYER. How does the gentleman know? He took Air Force One and Air
Force Two; that is correct.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is two.
Mr. HOYER. And additional planes to carry equipment, his car, and
other items. If the gentleman's information is that he only took two
planes, he is incorrect.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman might yield further, that is
standard, and the gentleman knows that, but 30 aircraft, 30 U.S.
aircraft?
Mr. HOYER. I do not know that to be the case. We are going to find
that out. However, we do not have the information, by the way, as to
how many planes President Reagan took.
Reclaiming my time Mr. Speaker, and in closing, I urge Members to
vote for this. It is a rule exactly like we passed last year, almost
verbatim. There is a difference. There is going to be a vote on this
one. It was so noncontroversial last year, there was no vote on this
rule. It was almost exactly like this one. It contained the same
waivers for all these provisions that have been in this bill.
There are 21 new ones, by the way. All those the gentleman
referenced, we voted on over and over again in this bill. Some were put
in by Republicans, some were put in by Democrats, some were put in by
the Reagan or Bush administration. I am not sure the Clinton
administration has put any in.
My point is this: The rule is no different. It is an open rule.
Members can strike anything in the bill. They can strike any number in
the bill. I brought an open rule last year, and this is an open rule
this year. I believe this is a fair rule.
I further want to say, Mr. Speaker, to my friends on both sides of
the aisle, the issue is clear as to why this rule is controversial.
From 1981 to 1993, including 1984, when President Reagan went over
there, no Democrat asked for language in the bill to try to embarrass
the White House
There are seven pages of GAO's report of John Sununu's trips to the
dentist, seven pages on the GAO report. We did not ask for language.
Did we criticize it? We did. Did we write letters? We did. Did we
debate it on the floor? We did. However, we did not try to involve
ourselves in putting language in the bill or report for the White
House.
Mr. Speaker, going into a lot of the other dates, from 1981 to 1993,
not one provision did the Democrats on this side of the aisle offer for
the Reagan or Bush administrations for the White House Office. As a
matter of fact, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] probably
knows, I many times rose to the floor and said that the White House
ought not to be mired in legislative second-guessing.
That was my position when Reagan was President and when Bush was
President. I hope that I do not serve under another Republican
President, but if I do, I will guarantee that I will continue that
position.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman will. Will the gentleman
continue to yield for 1 additional second, because I want to commend
the gentleman?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I do commend
the gentleman. I remember him standing tall on this side of the aisle.
I think he is one of the finer Members on this side of the aisle, and
maybe in the Chamber.
I think the President should have gone, and we all think he should
have gone. He should have gone and shown respect, as he did. He should
have gone and taken Air Force One and possibly Air Force Two, but there
were 30 airplanes there. We think we deserve an explanation, and so do
the taxpayers. We are going to check on that.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Darden). The gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will vote no on the rule. I think
what we have here is some revisionist history. I do remember the
Democrats offering an amendment to strike the Competitiveness Council,
designed specifically to embarrass the White House, so the fact is that
that kind of thing did take place under Democrats.
The thing that has changed here between last year and this year, we
as Republicans now know that this White House is going to stall us and
try to keep us from getting information that legitimately should be in
the hands of the American people about operations in the White House.
The only time we have a chance to bring up that issue is on this
bill. The fact is, on occasion after occasion, ranking members of the
House of Representatives on the Republican side have asked for
legitimate material from this White House and have been told time and
time again, ``No, you cannot have it.'' We lack subpoena power, so we
cannot go and do what Democrats have traditionally done, ask for the
information under subpoena, and Democrats are not cooperating with us
in order to do it.
Let me make another point. under the rules of the House on these open
rules, the Democrats also have rules that prevent us from adding none
of these funds, because we now have a motion to rise that would stop
some of the abuses that we have found time after time on the part of
the White House. We think that this is the occasion when we should have
an opportunity to look at those White House abuses and put things in
this bill to stop what is going on down there.
The White House abuse has become a national scandal. That scandal
ought to be addressed in this Congress. it is obvious it is not going
to be addressed through the legitimate channels, so therefore this is
the bill where we have a chance to raise the issues. That is what we
are attempting to do, and we are now being blocked by a Committee on
Rules that will not permit it to happen.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just say a few things, if I may. I
want to be very clear I am very serious. This vote, in this gentleman's
opinion, is a test of the good faith on the part of our colleagues
across the aisle, because in fact there is no legitimate reason to vote
against this rule. It is an open rule.
We have been asked on many occasions by our friends, and I think
quite properly so, to offer open rules. We thought, quite frankly,
coming into the Committee on Rules yesterday, that our colleagues from
across the aisle would be happy with this rule.
{time} 1720
We were surprised when they were not. They now apparently for the
first time--at least this gentleman has heard from our friend, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], that the demand is for an open
rule, plus. This is something new. It is not in the rules, but I guess
we will be discussing this in the future. But is not something that
ever had been asked for or discussed before.
Yesterday the distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], and he is a distinguished gentleman,
testified in the Committee on Rules. If I may, let me quote him:
``As you know, there are also numerous agencies in the bill which are
not authorized under current law and that necessitates a rule
protecting those sections of the bill against points of order. While I
do not ordinarily support waiving points of order, in this case I
support a rule doing so. Not doing so could create an unwieldy
situation on the floor and place the House in a difficult situation in
conference as was the case a few years ago. Therefore, I appreciate and
support the chairman's,'' that is, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Hoyer's, ``request for an open rule.''
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will my good friend yield?
Mr. BEILENSON. Not at the moment.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman really should.
Mr. BEILENSON. Not at the moment.
Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will do so later, I will wait.
Mr. BEILENSON. This gentleman has not spoken much on this, although
he has been tempted to on other occasions.
Mr. Speaker, why is not the gentleman on his side of the aisle? It is
good to have you over here, Jerry.
Mr. SOLOMON. I did not realize I was over here. I was drawn to what
the gentleman was saying.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, may I finish?
Mr. SOLOMON. We have been admonished for reading from the committee's
testimony. I just wondered why the gentleman was doing it. The
gentleman is welcome to do it, but let us be consistent.
Mr. BEILENSON. This Member has never admonished the gentleman for
doing such. I thought it might be useful to the other Members to know
what the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Lightfoot], said yesterday.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being on this side of the
aisle.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me briefly?
Mr. BEILENSON. Of course. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] told me he was going over there so the
gentleman could get used to being a member of the majority.
Mr. BEILENSON. May the gentleman from California continue?
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], however, and
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and others today and later
yesterday complained that certain amendments were not allowed. Why were
those amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules which
have been spoken about at length today not allowed under the rule?
As I said in my statement originally and again a moment or two ago,
this is an open rule. Any amendment that does not violate the rules of
the House is in order under this rule. The amendments submitted to the
Committee on Rules with two exceptions, the amendment submitted
yesterday all violated points of order and would not be in order under
an open rule.
There were two of them that could be, that do not violate the rules
of the House and that in fact could be offered here today.
As we have pointed out time and again, the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Fawell's concern over those 4 or 5 projects, was arrived at by
offering motions to strike.
It has also been said by my good friend, the gentleman from upstate
New York [Mr. Solomon] and a couple of others that there are 135, give
or take a few, legislative amendments on this bill and that special
treatment was given, therefore, to Members of the Committee on
Appropriations which is not fair to other non-appropriations Members in
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I want Members to understand what we are talking about
here, what those 135 so-called amendments are. Most of them are
provisions that have been in place for years and that simply allow
agencies to continue past operations. We believe that only 21
provisions of the 135 are new, that have been proposed by the committee
and could be considered in any way as real legislative amendments. Most
of those 21 make very minor or technical changes in the law. The eight
that are more significant are as follows, just so Members know what the
complaints are about and what we protected so Members do not think that
members of the Committee on Appropriations have some special privilege
of sneaking their own individual amendments into this bill.
One would allow for both white collar and blue collar pay raises. The
second would require a report on Internal Revenue Service tax system
modernization. The third would require a report from the drug czar. A
fourth would make funds available for construction projects not
authorized by law. The fifth would require new courthouse projects to
meet certain standards. The sixth would allow agencies to finance
recycling through the sale of recycled materials. The seventh would
provide leave for Federal employees donating bone marrow or organs. The
eighth would require reductions in staff when implementing buyout
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, those are the eight major ones and not all those are
major, of the 21 new. The vast majority of the 135 that people keep
alluding to fall into 2 other categories:
One, agencies without authorization, which the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Lightfoot] quite properly alluded to, and the second are so-called
good government provisions.
The agencies without authorization which need to be protected under
the bill and which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] was urging
protection for yesterday are the Mint, Customs, drug czar, Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, National Historical Publications and
Records Commission, the Federal Elections Commission, Merit Systems
Protection Board, Office of Government Ethics, and Administrative
Conference of the United States.
Finally, the so-called good government provisions which would permit
agencies to use funds to operate and maintain buildings, purchase
improvements, automobiles, equipment, and provide awards; require
reports on controversial spending items; and, allow transfers among
accounts. Those are the 135.
Mr. Speaker, to the best of the Committee on Rules' knowledge, no one
had any problems with any of them. None of the testimony yesterday
before our committee spoke to any of them. All of the testimony that we
had and which has been alluded to and repeated today has been on behalf
of amendments which violated the rules and, therefore, were not made in
order. We made in order no proposed amendments that violated the rules.
We are offering instead as we thought our good friends on the other
side wanted and have been asking for and too often they are right and
we have not sometimes in the past been so fair about these rules as we
ought to have been. We are trying now to be more fair. We have proposed
here an open rule. Why is it that our good friends over there do not
accept that in good faith and support our efforts?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson], I know the gentleman is sincere.
Mr. BEILENSON. I am more than sincere. I am correct about that, I
would say to my good friend.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows under the rules of the
House and under the leadership of our very good and respected chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Natcher, the gentleman always insisted that these appropriation bills
be brought directly to the floor, not to our Committee on Rules, and he
was adamant about it. If that were the case, we would not be trying to
offer any amendments that are in the form of legislating in an
appropriations bill. the reason we asked to have amendments made in
order upstairs is because there are 135 instances when the Committee on
Appropriations is legislating.
Let me just give the gentleman two here because these are the two I
questioned, and there are 135 of them.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I just described what the 135 were. Was
the gentleman not listening?
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman did not describe this one.
The committee has included this new provision which provides that
certain pay increases will go into effect. I do not know what pay
increases there are.
Number 34 says the committee has continued language which provides
funds for operation and maintenance of the White House for official
entertainment expenses.
Mr. Speaker, that is legislating in an appropriations bill. We want
the same opportunity, to offer my amendment which says that we want to
make sure that the drug testing is continued in the White House. I am
denied my amendment, yet the committee stuck all these others in there.
That is all. We wanted fairness.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, the portion of the legislation to which
the gentleman alludes may be struck by an amendment by the gentleman or
anyone else. If this bill were on the floor according to the way the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher], God bless him, used to bring
bills here, the amendments which the gentleman is asking for would not
be in order on the floor.
If the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] were carrying this bill
without having gone to the Committee on Rules, none of these amendments
the gentleman and his friends have been asking for would be in order on
the floor.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we were asking to waive certain points of
order and the gentleman knows that.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. In regard to characterizing my comments I made
yesterday, I believe the issues we talked about, there has been pretty
much general agreement that this is what we wanted to do in order to
make sure the bill flowed smoothly.
The point I did make yesterday that the gentleman did not reference
to and that I made today was that we were asking for, I believe it is,
clause 21, paragraph 2, whatever that is. I am not a lawyer so I am not
up on all the fancy phrasing. The bottom line, we were simply asking
for waiving those points of order so that Members on this side could
offer some amendments that they wanted to offer as it related to the
White House situation. We knew they would be ruled out of order because
they would be authorizing on an appropriations package. That was what
we asked for and were denied. That is the only point I was trying to
make.
Mr. BEILENSON. I understand and I appreciate the gentleman speaking.
Mr. Speaker, I tried to make clear in alluding to the gentleman's
testimony yesterday that he was speaking on the point that he just made
quite properly.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I remind my colleagues, if it is at all
necessary, that this is an open rule. To repeat, the waivers in the
rule are there to protect agencies that are without authorization which
I believe our friends in the minority would mostly fully support, and
for general provisions, the great majority of which have been carried
in previous bills, some of them for a good many years. While those
provisions are protected against the point of order, they are still
subject to the motion to strike by any of our colleagues who wish to do
so and who may oppose them.
{time} 1730
Providing an open rule, the Committee on Rules chose to follow
regular procedures for consideration of the bill. Objections, as the
colleagues have heard, to this open rule are based on the desire to
have amendments made in order that would either constitute legislating
on an appropriation bill or are not germane to the bill's provisions
and, therefore, violate the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, a fair rule. It is, in fact, an open
rule.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. 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 236,
nays 177, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 227]
YEAS--236
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
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
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--177
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooper
Cox
Crane
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
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Packard
Paxon
Penny
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--21
Collins (MI)
Foglietta
Grandy
Hastings
Huffington
Jefferson
Kopetski
Moakley
Nadler
Owens
Oxley
Rangel
Ridge
Royce
Slattery
Sundquist
Towns
Tucker
Washington
Weldon
Whitten
{time} 1752
Ms. DUNN changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. McDERMOTT 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.
____________________