[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4603, DEPARTMENTS OF 
   COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
    APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1994

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 461 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 461

       Resolved, That points of order against consideration of the 
     bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
     agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and making supplemental appropriations for these 
     departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1994, and for other purposes, for failure to comply with 
     clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI or clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill, all points of order against 
     provisions in the bill or failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with 
     ``notwithstanding'' on page 3, line 18, through ``Act,'' on 
     line 19; beginning with ``That'' on page 36, line 16, 
     through, ``Provided further,'' on page 37, line 6; and 
     beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 48, line 25, through 
     ``Treasury'' on page 49, line 4. Where points of order are 
     waived against only part of a paragraph, any 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. The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall have 
     precedence over a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
     and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
     have been adopted, if the amendment is offered by a Member 
     designated in the report.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], 
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. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 461 is the rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4603, the fiscal year 1995 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and 
for the Judiciary and related agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. The rule waives clause 2(L)(6) of 
rule XI, requiring a 3-day layover, and clause 7 of rule XXI, requiring 
that relevant printed hearings and report be available for 3 days prior 
to consideration of a general appropriation bill, against consideration 
of the bill.
  In addition, clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations or legislative provisions in a general appropriation 
bill, is waived against all provisions in the bill with certain 
exceptions. This waiver, protecting certain sections of the bill 
against points of order, is necessary because the bill contains 
appropriations for several agencies that have not yet been 
reauthorized.
  The bill also contains a number of general provisions, many of which 
have been carried for several years. This waiver we believe is 
reasonable, especially since the bill provides funding for agencies and 
activities for which authorizing legislation has not been finalized.
  For example, authorization has not yet been enacted for most of the 
appropriations items in the Department of Justice needed for the war on 
crime and drugs, including the FBI, the DEA, the INS, the U.S. 
attorneys, and the Byrne grants for State and local law enforcement 
assistance.
  In addition, the bill recommends over $2 billion in funding for 
programs included in the crime bill, which is currently awaiting action 
by a conference committee.
  Several programs under the Department of Commerce also await 
reauthorization as do several independent agencies and commissions, 
including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade 
Commission.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several exceptions to this waiver, as I 
mentioned all of which are clearly defined in the rule. The exceptions 
were made at the request of the authorizing committees with 
jurisdiction over those particular provisions; they are made in 
accordance with a longstanding tradition in the Rules Committee to 
honor such requests. 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.
  The provisions which remain unprotected under the rule deal with the 
Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, a provision dealing with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, and a provision dealing with user fees under the 
U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration.

                              {time}  1550

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the amendment printed in 
the report to accompany the rule, if offered by the designated Member, 
Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, will have precedence over a motion that 
the Committee on the Whole rise. The amendment made in order limits 
funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce EEOC 
guidelines covering religious harassment.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4603, the bill for which this rule provides 
consideration is a $26.6 billion appropriation for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
fiscal year 1995. The bill is $1.2 billion below the President's 
request and $36 million below the subcommittee section 602(b) 
allocation.
  A number of important programs are funded by this bill, including 
several for law enforcement and immigration, including substantial 
increases in the number of Border Patrol agents, which are among the 
most popular in Congress and the most important to our constituents. 
The committee is operating under severe budgetary restraints and has, 
unfortunately, been unable to fund some of the programs many of us had 
hoped to see funded.
  As one Member who represents the area in Los Angeles that was hardest 
hit by the January earthquake, I would like to thank the committee for 
recognizing the need to transfer the unspent money from the 
Transportation account in the earthquake supplemental bill to the Small 
Business Administration.
  The SBA has been faced with an overwhelming number of applications 
for loans from residents and businesses in the area whose homes and 
companies were damaged or destroyed by this disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, we commend the new chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, and his friend Mr. Rogers, 
the ranking minority member, for their good work in bringing us a 
fiscally responsible measure for financing some of the most visible and 
important agencies of the Government. We know this has been a very 
difficult task for them under the budget constraints.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, this is an open rule, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it so that we may proceed to consideration of the 
bill as soon as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I begin by urging my colleagues to look 
closely at this bill--it is chock full of important programs, like 
immigration and border control and increased funding for prisons. And 
that is why I am disappointed that the arbitrary pressures of 
scheduling have forced the Rules Committee to waive the normal 3-day 
layover period and rush this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems we are on a roll in the Rules Committee--for 
the sixth time this year we have an open amendment process on an 
appropriations bill. That is good news for Members and good news for 
taxpayers, because it means we can make reductions where appropriate. 
But openness does not necessarily mean fairness and there is a 
disturbing aspect to the trend we seem to be setting. These 
appropriations bills are coming to the House floor through the Rules 
Committee, under special protections and waivers even though 
appropriations bills should not have to go through the Rules Committee 
at all. But the Rules Committee has been meeting just about daily to 
crank out these special exceptions, which have the effect of making 
some Members of this House more privileged than others. You see, at the 
same time as we grant permission to certain Members to violate the 
rules of this House, we are denying that same permission to the rest of 
the House membership.

  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle still do not 
seem to understand the fairness argument. But we are being consistent 
in our request: Either do not waive the rules of the House for anyone, 
or waive the rules of this House equally for all Members. In today's 
case, the rules are waived for most of the bill as written--with a few 
exceptions for provisions that step on the toes of the chairmen of the 
Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees. And, in a welcome 
surprise, the rules have been waived to allow our colleague, Mr. 
Taylor, to offer an amendment suspending the highly questionable new 
religious harassment guidelines at the EEOC--these guidelines are 
outrageous and unworkable and they should not be implemented. Your 
friendly government is telling you you must work in a religious free 
environment. I congratulate Mr. Taylor for his persuasive testimony 
before the Rules Committee yesterday.
  But the rules were not waived for other Members seeking the same 
opportunity--the chance to have important and relevant matters 
addressed on this floor. For instance, the House will not consider an 
important shift in priorities--cutting money from the antitrust 
division at Justice to ensure that sufficient funds are devoted to 
combating violent crime. Mr. Schiff was turned down despite the 
excellent case he made that this President and most Americans have 
asked for more funding and attention to violent crime--not antitrust 
crime. And we will not consider an amendment pertaining to deportation 
of felony criminals who happen to be from Mexico, and who end up turned 
loose in society rather than taken out of society because of problems 
with the law. Lamar Smith gave us a remedy. And we will not have a 
chance to consider a crucial amendment offered by the ranking member of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, to cap the U.S. 
contribution to U.N. peacekeeping missions at 25 percent. This is a 
matter not just of U.S. funds, but also of U.S. involvement in 
potentially open-ended, ill-defined and dangerous multilateral 
peacekeeping adventures.
  I doubt most Americans know the bill for peacekeeping right now is 
about $1.25 billion. A billion of that is already owed. A quarter of a 
billion is out there prospectively for other adventures that we may go 
into, things like Haiti that some of us do not think are such a great 
idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I am especially troubled that we will not consider three 
different amendments dealing with United States involvement with Haiti. 
Mr. Livingston and Mr. Lightfoot raised this issue to ensure that 
United States troops do not get sucked into a quagmire in Haiti. While 
some might say this bill is not the proper place for the Haiti debate--
I warm my colleagues again that timeliness is a major issue here.
  We have significant indication that the administration is heading 
toward unilateral military intervention in Haiti--apparently at the 
will of the Black Caucus, Randall Robinson and Haitian exile President 
Aristide. In the words of one unnamed administration official: ``We are 
no longer in the negotiating business.'' As U.N. official Dante Caputo 
noted in his now infamous memo cited by ABC News and the Wall Street 
Journal, the United States has actually served as ``a brake to a 
diplomatic solution'' in Haiti. Caputo also concluded that the 
administration considers an invasion of Haiti a ``chance to show, after 
strong media criticism of the administration, the President's 
decisionmaking capability and firmness of leadership in international 
political matters.'' Last month this House voted against military 
intervention in Haiti--a vote that was reversed after 2 weeks of heavy 
pressure on majority Members by their own leadership. With the House 
clearly divided on the issue of United States military invasion of 
Haiti, Members should be concerned that we may end up with troops in 
Harm's Way in Haiti in the coming weeks. That certainly makes the 
prospective peacekeeping funds in this bill, $222 million, which could 
be used for a Haiti operation, especially relevant. But under this 
rule, we won't have the opportunity to debate that question unless a 
procedural motion to rise is defeated--a rare occurrence on this floor.

  Mr. Speaker, the unfair nature of this rule is not just a partisan 
problem--we were even prevented from extending fairness to majority 
Members seeking flexibility in one of their amendments. Members should 
be clear--just because something is labeled an ``open rule'' does not 
make it fair or mean it is the best it can be. In this case, we have 
certainly come up short of that mark.

  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed 
Rule on H.R. 4603, Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations, 
                    Fiscal Year 1995, June 22, 1994

       1. Rogers--An amendment providing that no funds in the bill 
     may be used to pay more than 25% of a U.N. peacekeeping 
     operation. Vote (Defeated 3-6):Yeas: Quillen, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays: Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Moakley, Bonior, Wheat, Solomon.
       2. Livingston--An amendment providing that U.S. troops may 
     not be used against Haiti unless contingency plans for using 
     U.S. troops against Cuba have been developed. Vote (Defeated 
     3-7): Yeas: Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Bonior, Wheat, Solomon.
       3. Livingston--An amendment providing that no funds in this 
     bill may be used to support U.S. troops against Haiti unless 
     contingency plans for using U.S. troops against Haiti have 
     been developed. Vote (Defeated) 3-7): Yeas: Quillen, Dreier, 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat, Solomon.
       4. Lightfoot--An amendment to prevent peacekeeping funds 
     from being used for a U.N. operation in Haiti including U.S. 
     troops without first seeking authorization from Congress. 
     Vote (Defeated 3-7): Yeas: Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. 
     Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat, Solomon.
       5. Smith (TX)--An amendment providing that no funds in the 
     bill may be used to return to Mexico any Mexican national who 
     is a prisoner convicted of a felony in the U.S. without a 
     final order of deportation. Vote (Defeated 3-7): Yeas: 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat, 
     Solomon.
       6. Schiff--An amendment to transfer funds from the Anti-
     Trust Division of the Justice Department to the U.S. 
     Attorneys appropriation. Vote (Defeated 3-7): Yeas: Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, 
     Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat, Solomon.
       7. Condit/Thurman--An amendment to provide $600 million to 
     reimburse states for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens to 
     be paid for by an across-the-board cut of 2.3 percent. Vote 
     (Defeated 4-6): Yeas: Quillen, Dreier, Goss, Beilenson. Nays: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Bonior, Wheat, Solomon.
       8. Adoption of Rule--Vote (Adopted 7-3): Yeas: Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Nays: 
     Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Not Voting: Bonior, Wheat, Solomon.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers], the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have to rise in opposition to the rule, 
and I do so reluctantly.
  The Commerce-Justice-State bill can be separated into two parts in my 
mind. One is the peacekeeping for the U.N. portion of the bill, part 1; 
part 2 is the rest of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, overall I strongly support the rest of the bill. But 
there is a grave deficiency with respect to the U.N. peacekeeping 
contributions that the United States is being asked to make that should 
concern every Member of this body and certainly every taxpayer in this 
country. This bill contains $1.2 billion to pay the bills the United 
Nations sends us for peacekeeping just for this year. Included in this 
amount is $670 million for a fiscal 1994 supplemental appropriations 
bill embedded in the 1995 appropriation bill.

                              {time}  1600

  This fiscal 1994 supplemental, Mr. Speaker, is being paid for by 
using the savings the Congress voted last February as part of the 
supplemental appropriation to aid the victims of the Los Angeles 
earthquake. Where did those savings come from, Mr. Speaker? They came 
from very hard-earned savings that Congress made, they came from 
popular domestic programs like education, low-income housing, among 
others.
  Also included in this bill is another $533 million for both fiscal 
1994 and 1995 U.N. peacekeeping bills handed to the United States by 
the United Nations. I would point out that the $670 million in the 1994 
supplemental as well as the $28 million in the 1995 bill go to what the 
United Nations calls our arrearage to them, past-due bills they say we 
owe. There is only $222 million in the fiscal 1995 bill for prospective 
peacekeeping operations and we all know that that will be insufficient. 
Why are we providing all this money? Because the United Nations has 
sent us $1.1 billion in bills we have not appropriated and should not 
fully pay, in my view. And why should we not fully pay those bills? Mr. 
Speaker, because the number and the costs of peacekeeping missions 
voted by the United Nations have exploded without any regard for the 
budget constraints that the U.S. Congress faces. A mere two missions 
existed just 6 years ago, just two peacekeeping missions. And now they 
number 16 for which we are assessed. The price tag, 6 years ago, was 
$30 million. Today it is $1.5 billion. And because the United Nations 
continues to bill the American taxpayer for too much of these costs, 
the United Nations sends our taxpayers a bill for nearly one-third of 
the cost, 31.7 percent, and our allies do not pay enough. Japan is 
billed for only 12.5 percent, Germany for 8.9 percent, Great Britain 
for 6.4 percent, and China 0.9 percent. Is that fair burdensharing, I 
ask you? I do not think a single Member of this body could say, 
``yes.''
  If we are going to give the United Nations a billion dollars, is it 
not time that the Congress demanded fairness? This bill does not do 
that.
  I asked the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment to give 
us some fairness at the United Nations. My amendment would have kept 
the U.S. share at 25 percent at a savings to us of $214 million for use 
for other priorities, which we certainly have. The Committee on Rules 
refused. Now while I appreciate that the Committee on Rules made in 
order the Taylor amendment, and while I support the overall bill, Mr. 
Speaker, I cannot support this rule.
  I reluctantly say that because I think the chairman and the 
subcommittee have done a very good job. But I rise to reluctantly 
oppose this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I am disappointed, 
although not surprised, that the Rules Committee has declined to grant 
the waiver Mr. Livingston and I requested with respect to an amendment 
concerning Haiti.
  The Lightfoot-Livingston amendment limits funds in the peacekeeping 
section of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 
appropriations bill from being used for a U.N. peacekeeping operation 
in Haiti, in which United States troops are to be deployed, without 
first seeking authorization of Congress. For the House to consider this 
amendment we must now defeat a motion to rise and report at the end of 
consideration of the bill.
  I do not offer this amendment out of any disrespect to the new 
chairman of the Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee and my friend, Mr. 
Mollohan. He and Hal Rogers have done a fine job in crafting a bill 
under difficult financial circumstances. As Mr. Rogers has said 
previously, remove the sections on U.N. peacekeeping and we have 
ourselves a good bill.
  But what an interesting brand of leadership the majority party brings 
this House. The leadership of the majority routinely defies the 
President on matters like Bosnia, NAFTA, and China. However, when 
American lives are potentially at stake, they twist arms to reverse 
votes and evade their responsibility as members of the legislative 
branch.
  The Lightfoot-Livingston amendment does not prevent the President 
from committing the United States to acting unilaterally in Haiti. Nor 
does the amendment prejudge how this House would vote on such an 
invasion. But if the President decides time and policy allows the 
United States to work through the Security Council process, then time 
also allows for an authorization from Congress. By denying Mr. 
Livingston and me the opportunity to offer this amendment, the majority 
party is clearly showing its lack of confidence in the President's 
ability to persuade the American people why we should invade Haiti.
  Let me also comment on the Rules Committee's decision to deny Mr. 
Rogers the opportunity to offer his amendment to limit our contribution 
to peacekeeping operations to 25 percent of all U.N. peacekeeping 
expenses. The U.N. is headed down an expensive road and this 
administration is so enamored of multilateral solutions that it refuses 
to see the long-term costs and risks.
  For example, the U.N. has increased its peacekeeping staff by 99 
percent in last 9 months. You can be sure the U.N. did not reduce staff 
in other parts of its operation to cover that increase. This 
administration now provides intelligence information to the United 
Nations on a regular basis, the only nation that provides such 
information acknowledged to come from its intelligence service. Most 
alarming of all, U.N. Ambassador Albright does not feel that U.S. 
personnel are at any special risk in peacekeeping operations.
  Frankly, there are other serious questions about the President's new 
peacekeeping policy. Despite the President's allegedly tough new 
criteria, which are actually no different than the criteria announced 
at the President's speech before the United Nations last fall, the 
United States has not voted against a single peacekeeping mission.
  Second, despite these new criteria, allegations have arisen that the 
United States vote-swapped peacekeeping votes in the security council 
with the French last fall. Although we have requested the U.S./U.N. 
cables which might clarify this situation, so far the administration, 
citing executive privilege, has refused to supply Congress with those 
cables.
  Finally, it appears that Colin Powell's language to protect U.S. 
soldiers serving in the field in U.N. operations was removed at the 
request of Ambassador Albright after U.N. Secretary General Boutros 
Ghali objected. Again, attempts to clarify this situation have been 
stonewalled.
  I would hope this House, at the least, agrees that if we are going to 
deploy troops to Haiti, the people's elected representatives should be 
consulted before our sons and daughters are placed in harms way.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and, if necessary, vote 
against the motion to rise at the end of this bill so this House can 
perform its constitutional duty with regard to Haiti.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to our friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak because of a matter outside the scope of 
the bill to which this rule applies has a significant effect on an 
issue within the bill's scope. First, however, I wish to salute the 
subcommittee as well as its chairman, because I believe no prior 
Congress and no prior administration have done so much to help with the 
serious problems of illegal immigration in the United States, 
particularly in the Southwest.
  The bill which we will take up following adoption of this rule 
provides for $54.5 million for up to 950 new and desperately needed 
Border Patrol agents. This legislation recognizes that illegal 
immigration patterns may have changed, possibly as a result of a shift 
away from locations that received additional Border Patrol positions in 
fiscal year 1994, the so-called bubble effect.
  In Nogales, AZ, which did not receive supplemental new agents, we 
have seen a dramatic increase in undocumented immigrants and illegal 
border crossings. The resources we spend stemming illegal immigration 
at the border should pay great future dividends in the form of savings 
on medical, education, public safety, and corrections costs.
  However, we face another problem even with the adoption of this bill. 
To fund the INS at the level called for in this bill, the crime bill 
conferees must increase the authorization for the INS from the Crime 
Control Trust Fund by at least $185.4 million for fiscal year 1995.
  A draft conference report circulated by the crime bill conferees 
indicates that out of the $30.2 billion in the proposed crime control 
trust fund, only $400 million over 6 years would be authorized for the 
INS--approximately $66.6 million for fiscal year 1995.
  The integrity of our immigration initiatives will be seriously 
undermined without an adequate authorization from the pending crime 
bill.
  Today, I joined with 25 of my colleagues in a letter to the crime 
bill conferees urging them to provide at a minimum $252 million in 
fiscal year 1995 authorizations to the INS from the crime control trust 
fund.
  Given what I believe will be strong support for the Commerce, 
Justice, and State appropriations bill coming before us today, I 
believe the crime bill conferees can increase the INS authorization 
levels knowing that this Congress and the country stand behind them.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], a distinguished member of 
the committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous matter.)

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on the 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. The rule is allegedly 
open. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House do not allow 
funding limitation amendments unless the motion to rise is defeated, 
and that is a fact which confuses the issue so that we will not 
directly confront matters which, I believe, are extremely important.
  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and I requested waivers from 
the Committee on Rules so that we could offer our important amendment 
requiring congressional approval for a peacekeeping invasion in Haiti. 
Without waivers, which we did not get, the administration's plans for 
the invasion of Haiti may never receive adequate scrutiny by this 
Congress.
  President Clinton's administration has notified the United Nations 
that unless Mr. Aristide is reinstated, we may invade Haiti within a 
couple of months. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is a very dangerous 
and ill-advised policy. If the President wants to use the United 
Nations as a tool to send United States troops to Haiti, he should have 
to seek authorization from Congress, just as President Bush did before 
the commencement of Operation Desert Storm.
  There is no United States strategic national interests at stake in 
Haiti. The Haitian military force would be easy to defeat. But what 
happens afterwards? Our troops will be vulnerable to mob attack, 
sniping and terrorism. Furthermore, the CIA has briefed Members of 
Congress, evidently, that Aristide is mentally unstable and prone to 
violence. Mr. Aristide is not worth risking a single U.S. life in 
uniform.
  Lawrence Pezzullo, the former special adviser on Haiti for the 
Clinton administration, claims that the United States backed away from 
a plan for national reconciliation in Haiti because of domestic 
pressure from supporters of Aristide. Writing in the Washington Post, 
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pezzullo said:

       By abandoning the track of multilateral negotiations, which 
     was forcing Haitians to take political responsibility for 
     effecting change in their country, we have taken on full 
     responsibility for Haiti's future.

  Mr. Speaker, we should not put United States servicemen at risk so 
that President Clinton, by force of arms, can rescue his wholly failed 
policy of restrictive sanctions against the poor Haitians. The 
President should be required to seek approval from Congress if he wants 
to put more United States lives on the line in a United Nations 
peacekeeping expedition to Haiti.
  Taking the administration's plans further, I think the administration 
could bring some much needed consistency to its foreign policy if it 
persists in this effort however. That is why I asked yesterday the 
Committee on Rules to make an amendment in order that, if the Clinton 
administration persists in its plans to invade Haiti, they should not 
stop there. They should go forward and also invade Cuba in which all of 
the horrors of Haiti also exist and have existed for so many years 
since the takeover by Fidel Castro.
  Now I do not think we should invade Haiti or Cuba, but, if we are 
going to invade Haiti to restore democracy, we should do the same thing 
in Cuba. The Committee on Rules did not waive the rules necessary to 
offer this amendment obviously, or the one to force President Clinton 
to come to Congress before invading Haiti. I am not serious about the 
Cuban thing, but I do think and do believe that my colleagues should 
defeat this rule because, if it fails, they should defeat the motion to 
rise so that at least the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] can offer 
our important amendment on Haiti, and maybe the President will come to 
Congress before he launches that ill-advised invasion.

   Amendment to H.R. --, as Reported (Commerce, Justice, State, and 
    Judiciary Appropriations, 1995) Offered by Mr. Lightfoot of Iowa

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the payment of any United States contribution for 
     a United Nations peacekeeping operation, when it is made 
     known to the Secretary of State that--
       (1) such operation relates to Haiti;
       (2) military personnel of the United States will be 
     deployed in such operation; and
       (3) such operation has not been specifically approved by 
     the Congress.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] who had an amendment before the 
Committee on Rules yesterday.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] for yielding this time to me. I also rise to oppose this rule, 
and I also rise, as my colleagues have said before me, reluctantly.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a proposed open rule, which is a 
welcomed development. We have seen several already this year, and I 
commend the Committee on Rules on making that recommendation to us.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the idea of an open rule, as has been 
stated, is not the only issue before us. It is not the only matter in 
which the Committee on Rules can influence the outcome of a bill. The 
other issue is, as in the word used by the gentleman from California; 
it is in the word ``protection.'' The Committee on Rules can offer 
protection to the bill, or amendments, or parts of the bill. Protection 
of course in this context means protection from the otherwise rules of 
procedure in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I sought a protection in that I sought to be able to 
offer what should be two amendments and which will be two amendments as 
one amendment. I am seeking to transfer funds from the Antitrust 
Division of the Department of Justice to the U.S. Attorney's Office. If 
my plan is adopted, the Antitrust Division will still get an increase 
in funds for the next fiscal year. They will get an increase of 5 
percent instead of the 13 percent now recommended by the subcommittee. 
The difference between 5 percent and 13 percent, which is about $5.5 
million, will go to the U.S. Attorneys where their fight is against 
violent crime.
  Now, in order to put these together; in other words, in order to 
consolidate them so the Members would have one vote, yes or no, on this 
idea, I needed to be allowed to offer an en bloc amendment. The 
Committee on Rules declined, and ordinarily I would walk away from that 
because no Member has a special right to special protection, even 
though, without this special protection, my amendments could be 
confusing to Members because the first amendment would be just a cut in 
the Antitrust Division without a specific reference to where the money 
will go if that cut is granted, a cut in the increase. Now, if that is 
all there were to it though, I would say these are the procedures that 
ought to be followed, but the rule is filled with protections for other 
parts of the bill and for another amendment. A number of provisions in 
the bill are protected against points of order. An amendment is being 
offered, an amendment that I believe I will support, that seems very 
reasonable under the circumstances. It is there because we have offered 
it through the Committee on Rules, a protection from the rules of the 
House.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, the bill that is being presented on the floor 
is in violation of the rules of a 3-day layover before it is presented, 
and the whole point is, Mr. Speaker, that all Members should be on a 
level playing field. Either everyone who requests a reasonable 
protection on a rule of procedure should be granted that protection or 
nobody should be granted such protection.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding the time, and I rise to join him in opposing this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of the fact that my friends on the other 
side of the aisle are about to start asking, ``What is it that will 
make you Republicans happy?''
  Here we have a rule that permits all Members to exercise their right 
to offer amendments to cut or strike--and the one legislative amendment 
that is made in order is by a Republican.
  ``So, what do you Republicans want?''--I can hear it now.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why Republicans go before the Rules Committee 
to ask for legislative amendments on appropriations bills to be made in 
order is very simple: this is very often the only chance Members have 
to express the will of Congress concerning Federal agencies and 
programs.
  If this House focused as much effort on conducting the public's 
business, as it does on preserving the prerogatives and interests of 
the one-party Democrat leadership, we would not be faced with 
appropriations bills such as this.
  Fully 54 percent of the funds to be appropriated by this bill will go 
to agencies and programs that are acting without the cover of 
authorizing legislation.
  Fifty-four percent. That is more than $14 billion in this bill alone.
  That is not the fault of the appropriators.
  The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the gentleman 
from Kentucky, [Mr. Rogers,] and their subcommittee members have done 
the best they could with this bill and the funds they have to work 
with.
  The fault is with the one-party Democrat leadership that rules--and 
misrules--this House.
  So, Republicans are going to continue to ask for legislative 
amendments on appropriations bills--for as long as large numbers of 
Federal agencies and programs continue to function without proper 
authorization because this House cannot do its job.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would, at least, like to thank the 
Rules Committee for making in order the very important amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  The proposed guidelines--mandates--on so-called religious harassment 
in the workplace should not be enforced; indeed they should be trashed.
  The Senate evidently thinks so, by a vote of 94 to 0. And the House 
will be given an opportunity to be heard on this same question when the 
Taylor amendment is presented.
  There are several other important Republican-sponsored amendments 
that are not made in order under this rule: Amendments concerning the 
escalating costs of U.N. peacekeeping missions; possible United States 
military intervention in Haiti; the financial burden on State 
governments that is caused by illegal immigration; and the crushing 
caseload that is being carried by Federal prosecutors.
  The issue of U.N. peacekeeping can be addressed, at least in part, by 
a straight amendment to cut. And I will offer such an amendment at the 
appropriate time.
  But I do urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. A vote against this rule is 
a vote against the continuing abuse of power by the Democrat Party in 
this House.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as is more often than not the case, we are here talking 
about an issue of fairness. I know that my friend from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] likes to refer to this as an open rule. It does call for an 
open amendment process. But the fact of the matter is, there are a 
great many items here that emerged from the Committee on Appropriations 
that require protection. By protection, it means that they cannot be 
struck down, because in the rule, we protect those items.
  So what it means is that members of the Committee on Appropriations 
are treated above the rest of our membership here. I think that that is 
a major mistake and it is a very serious attack on the whole prospect 
of allowing Members to be able to work their will on this issue.
  I would like to raise one particular item in this bill that concerns 
me as we proceed. We have reported out $1.2 billion for the U.N. 
peacekeeping forces, and at the same time there is a reduction in 
funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. It seems to me as we 
look at this issue, the work of the National Endowment and Democracy 
has been so important in trying to encourage democratic expansion and 
free markets, that if we had a greater opportunity to expand the work 
of the National Endowment for Democracy, it would naturally follow that 
the necessity for numbers like $1.2 billion for U.N. peacekeeping 
forces would be reduced.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. It is not fair. It in fact does 
impinge on the opportunity that Members who are not on the Committee on 
Appropriations should have, and I hope we reject it and come back down 
on the floor under the standard operating procedures.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the gentleman to a certain 
extent. Anything that anyone finds objectionable in the bill can be got 
at by a motion to strike. Under an open rule, everything in this bill 
can be got at by a motion to strike.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we will be allowed to consider the Taylor-
Wolf amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill.
  The Taylor-Wolf amendment merely suspends any funding for the October 
1, 1993 proposed guidelines that all sides agree are flawed. All sides 
oppose the present language and this amendment does not restrain the 
EEOC from proceeding on refining and improving new guidelines and does 
not stop the EEOC from proceeding on religious harassment cases under 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
  The ACLU:

       Under the guidelines as originally proposed, an employer 
     could conclude that the mere utterance of a religious 
     reference or the sighting of a religious symbol, if offense 
     to a single employee, must be expunged from the premises.

  The American Jewish Congress:

       There is a danger that the guidelines will be used by some 
     to justify suppression of legitimate religious speech in the 
     workplace. There is, indeed, already evidence that the fear 
     of lawsuits alleging religious harassment has already done 
     so, as employers put prophylactic measures into effect in 
     order to ward off potential religious harassment suits* * *.

  Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council:

       The guidelines broaden employer liability for religious 
     harassment to the point where it would be rational for an 
     employer simply to impose a religion-free workplace * * * 
     many of our constituents are very concerned that they will be 
     forced to remove religious calendars, take the Bible off 
     their office shelf, stop wearing a cross or a star of David * 
     * *.

  A major airline has already issued guidelines stating that all 
personnel are not to:

       Posses nor display, in any manner on * * * premises any 
     material which may be construed by anyone to have racial, 
     religious, or sexual overtones, whether positive or negative* 
     * *.

  In the majority of workplaces the employer does not independently 
know the religious beliefs of employees and should not be required to 
abide by such an overly broad standard that would force employers into 
a religious-free zone at the workplace.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

         The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist 
           Convention,
                                                    June 22, 1994.
       Dear Representative: I'm writing to urge you to oppose the 
     motion to rise on the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
     Appropriations Bill in order for the House to be able to 
     consider Taylor/Wolf amendment. As you know, this amendment 
     would deny funding to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission for the purpose of implementing, administering or 
     enforcing the guidelines covering harassment in the workplace 
     based on religion.
       The Christian Life Commission is the public policy and 
     religious liberty agency of the Southern Baptist Convention--
     America's largest Protestant denomination with 15.4 million 
     members in more than 38,400 congregations nationwide.
       On June 20, I sent a letter to Representative Wolf to 
     inform him of our support for his amendment. We have now 
     learned that the Taylor/Wolf amendment may be impeded from 
     consideration due to parliamentary rules.
       Last week the Southern Baptist Convention in its annual 
     meeting overwhelmingly adopted a resolution which warned that 
     the guidelines ``pose a grave risk to religious freedom in 
     the workplace.'' The resolution urged, ``religion should be 
     deleted from the proposed guidelines and that the subject of 
     religious harassment should be addressed separately in the 
     guidelines on religious discrimination.''
       The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our position 
     that the motion to rise on this appropriations bill will be 
     regarded by our organization as the critical vote on whether 
     the House of Representatives opposes the EEOC proposed 
     guidelines on religious harassment.
       Please support the Taylor/Wolf amendment--by opposing the 
     motion to rise--and protect religious liberty in the 
     workplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James A. Smith,
                                 Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____

         Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 1994.

                     Support Taylor-Wolf Amendment

       Dear Colleague: You may have received a letter recently 
     from the ACLU, the People for the American Way and some 
     religious groups regarding an amendment that we intend to 
     offer to the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill 
     this week. This letter mischaracterized the reach and scope 
     of the amendment we will be offering.
       Our amendment will merely limit the funding for the EEOC's 
     proposed guidelines of October 1, 1993 covering religious 
     harassment in the workplace. The amendment reads as follows:
       ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
     to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines of the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering harassment 
     based on religion, when it is made known to the Federal 
     entity or official to which such funds are made available 
     that such guidelines do not differ in any respect from the 
     proposed guidelines published by the Commission on October 1, 
     1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266)
       The amendment applies to the October 1, 1993 proposed 
     guidelines only. It is a very narrow amendment. It would 
     prevent the implementation during the next year of the 
     proposed guidelines that virtually all sides agree are 
     misguided. This amendment would not prevent religious 
     harassment claims from being pursued at the EEOC; it would 
     only prevent these proposed guidelines from being used to do 
     so.
       If you have any questions regarding this amendment please 
     call Caroline Choi (x56401) or Barbara Comstock (x55136).
           Sincerely,
     Charles Taylor,
     Frank R. Wolf,
                                                  Representatives.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 1994.

                  Religion-Free--``Workplace Reality''

       ``Rather than wasting critical time resolving these 
     conflicts * * * all personnel are requested to observe the 
     following guidelines:
       ``Technical operations personnel should not possess nor 
     display, in any manner, on * * * premises, any material which 
     may be construed, by anyone, to have racial, religious, or 
     sexual overtones, whether positive or negative, or which 
     contain or suggest profanity or vulgarity.
       ``Supervisors are requested to conduct periodic inspections 
     to ensure that all areas are clear of material * * *--Delta 
     Airline guidelines, January 1994.
       Dear Colleague: A ``religion-free'' workplace is what is 
     threatened by the EEOC proposed guidelines. The above 
     guidelines have already been promulgated by a major airline 
     under the current climate on this issue. (See memo on back.)
       The ``Taylor-Wolf'' amendment rejects this notion that the 
     workplace must be ``religion free'' and that supervisors must 
     be engaged in ``periodic inspections'' to clear out Bibles or 
     other religious items an employee might have at work just 
     because they might be ``offensive'' to one employee. 
     Religious freedom is a fundamental right enshrined in the 
     First Amendment of our Constitution; it cannot be regulated 
     away and should not be attempted by any government agency.
       The ``Taylor-Wolf'' amendment will prevent the EEOC from 
     using any funds to implement the guidelines as proposed on 
     October 1, 1993. These proposed guidelines have been 
     criticized as unduly broad by those across the ideological 
     spectrum.
       If the Rules Committee does not protect this amendment from 
     a point of order, it will be necessary to DEFEAT THE MOTION 
     TO RISE in order to consider and vote on this amendment. We 
     would appreciate your support in this effort to ensure 
     religious freedom in the workplace.
           Sincerely,
     Charles Stenholm,
     Frank R. Wolf,
     Charles Taylor,
     Buck McKeon.
       Representatives.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: Earlier today, leading NASCAR drivers came 
     to Congress to express their support for the Taylor-Wolf 
     amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations 
     bill. Their statement is reprinted below.
       We urge you to support the Taylor-Wolf amendment when the 
     House takes up the appropriations bill tomorrow. If the Rules 
     Committee does not make the amendment in order it will be 
     necessary to DEFEAT THE MOTION TO RISE in order to vote on 
     this amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Charles Taylor,
     Frank R. Wolf,
                                                  Representatives.

  Leading NASCAR Drivers Support Taylor-Wolf Amendment To Stop EEOC's 
                  Attempt To Curtail Religious Liberty

       Statement by: Darrell Waltrip, Ernie Irvan, Hut Stricklin, 
     Jr., Lake Speed, Don Miller, and Max Helton.
       The professional racing community, like many others in 
     professional sports, participate in a number of religious 
     activities in the workplace. Chapel services prior to Sunday 
     races are an important part of our lives. Of necessity these 
     services must take place within the confines of our somewhat 
     unusual workplace.
       We believe we speak for the vast majority of the drivers 
     and other members of the racing community, as well as the 
     sentiment of most of our millions of fans, when we say that 
     we find any limitation upon our religious liberty to be 
     absolutely unacceptable.
       It is for this reason that we urge the Congress of the 
     United States to pass the Taylor-Wolf Amendment to the budget 
     bill which funds the EEOC and other agencies. The EEOC 
     regulations, which are the target of this Amendment, have 
     been criticized by religious and legal organizations from all 
     sides of the political perspective. And in a non-binding vote 
     last week, the Senate voted 94 to 0 to urge the EEOC to 
     delete the so-called religious harassment guidelines from its 
     proposed order.
       We are here today to make sure that the EEOC's efforts 
     which would curtail our religious liberty are stopped by 
     binding legislation. Our freedoms are too precious to be left 
     to non-binding votes alone. We want protection that is 
     effective and that is why we urge the House to pass the 
     Taylor-Wolf Amendment.
       A major airline has already implemented the proposed 
     guidelines by banning all religious speech whatsoever from 
     the workplace. Legal departments of other agencies may reach 
     similar conclusions. And it doesn't take a first class pit 
     mechanic to understand that some Federal judge somewhere 
     might eventually rule that any discussion of religion or 
     display of religious symbols or materials violates the EEOC's 
     rules.
       No one favors true religious harassment. We are informed 
     such harassment is already made illegal by Title VII and 
     other federal laws. But voluntary chapel services, Bible 
     studies, religious symbols, and discussions of the gospel and 
     other religious topics among adults in the workplace would be 
     threatened if these EEOC guidelines are allowed to become 
     final.
       In an effort to strain out the last gnat of religious 
     harassment, the EEOC appears ready to swallow up major 
     portions of our religious liberty. We are unwilling to remain 
     in the stands when our liberty is at stake. The EEOC needs to 
     have the brakes applied to this effort. And we hope that 
     Congress will bring this sorry episode of big government 
     intrusion upon our liberties to a screeching halt.
                                  ____

                                         U.S. Catholic Conference,


                                Office of the General Counsel,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 1994.
     Douglas A. Gallegos,
     Chairman, Office of Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment 
         Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Gallegos: The United States Catholic Conference 
     (``Conference'') submits the following comments in response 
     to the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding Guidelines on 
     Harassment Based on Race, Color, Religion, Gender, National 
     Origin, Age, or Disability (``Guidelines''). 58 Fed. Reg. 
     51266(1993) (comment period extended to June 13, 1994. 59 
     Fed. Reg. 24998 (1994)). The Conference advocates and 
     promotes the pastoral teaching of the U.S. Catholic Bishops 
     in many diverse areas of the nation's life, including the 
     free expression of religious ideas and fair and equal 
     opportunity in employment. The Conference is also an 
     employer, as are the tens of thousands of Catholic 
     institutions throughout the country. Thus, the Conference has 
     analyzed the Guidelines from the dual perspectives of 
     advocate for religious freedom and religious employer.
       However, well-intentioned, in the area of religious 
     harassment, the Guidelines need substantial revisions. In 
     their present form, the Guidelines (i) create confusion which 
     will have a chilling effect on religious expression in the 
     workplace, (ii) fail to distinguish between secular employers 
     and religious employers, and (iii) do not take into account 
     the Supreme Court's recent decision in Harris v. Forklift 
     Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993). Each of these three 
     factors is discussed in more detail below.


        chilling effect on religious expression in the workplace

       Plainly words, gestures, and other conduct designed to 
     communicate negatively against a person on account of 
     religion is harassing and illegal. What separates this 
     actionable behavior from protectable behavior is intent. 
     Employees deserve, in clear cases, the benefit of the law 
     against the insults of others, when that behavior seeks to 
     punish or coerce the employee on account of religious belief. 
     For this reason,the Conference believes it appropriate to 
     include ``religion'' in the categories of protected classes 
     in the EEOC Guidelines. Excluding religion at this point 
     could very well communicate the wrong conclusion, namely, 
     that religion is less worthy of protection.
       The difficulty for the EEOC is that positive actions about 
     religion, including expression of personal belief, is at the 
     core of the values protected by the Free Exercise Clause. The 
     Guidelines do not allude to this distinction, although it is 
     very real and, we submit, the cause (in part) of the recent 
     confusion over these Guidelines. Without support for 
     constitutionally protected religious speech, the Guidelines 
     invite contentious behavior or employee zeal in creating a 
     ``religion free'' environment, despite the Constitution.
       Employers generally are pragmatic and cost-conscious. They 
     like to avoid controversy and reduce expenses. One way to 
     achieve these goals is by adopting policies designed to avoid 
     costly litigation. In their present form, the Guidelines are 
     likely to cause some employers to overreact and adopt 
     workplace rules that will suppress religious expression on 
     the part of employees and supervisors. By choosing to 
     sanitize workplaces from religious expression, some employers 
     will undoubtedly hope to avoid problems generated by those 
     employees who might complain about religious expressions of 
     others. This draconian approach is not farfetched--it has 
     been reported that a major airline adopted just such an 
     approach in reaction to the Guidelines.
       Two factors primarily contribute to the Guideline's 
     potential chilling effect on religious expression. First, the 
     use of subjective and ambiguous terms (such as ``denigrate'', 
     ``aversion,'' ``offensive'') without concrete examples will 
     only confuse employers. Second, the Guidelines do not even 
     acknowledge the First Amendment rights of employees and 
     employers to the free expression of religious ideas, either 
     in words or through conduct. The Guidelines' emphasis on the 
     alleged victim's perspective, see 1609.1(c), does not inform 
     employers that other employees also have rights. An employer 
     that sanitizes its workplace in response to the Guidelines 
     may very well find itself in violation of Title VII by 
     discriminating against employees who may, for example, wish 
     to wear religious symbols, have religious pictures or 
     materials at their work stations, or discuss religious 
     issues. In short, the Guidelines need to be more balanced in 
     areas involving religious expression.
       The Guidelines can be improved in several ways to decrease 
     their potential chilling effect on religious expression. 
     First, reduce the number of ambiguous and subjective terms. 
     They confuse, rather than clarify, matters for employers. 
     Second, expressly state in the Guidelines that employees have 
     rights to free religious expression that employers need to 
     balance in adopting policies. Employers need to know that, if 
     they overreact, they may find themselves in violation of 
     Title VII. Finally, providing concrete examples of what is 
     and what is not religious harassment would help employers 
     immensely in understanding their Title VII responsibilities. 
     This could be done with specific descriptions of actual 
     situations, or by including questions and answers as was done 
     in the case of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, see Appendix 
     to 29 C.F.R. Part 1604.


                          religious employers

       Congress accorded religious employers special treatment in 
     Title VII. Title VII has two provisions exempting religious 
     organizations for activities which, if engaged in by secular 
     employers, could constitute religious discrimination under 
     Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2000e-1, 2000e-2(e)(2). 
     With regard to section 2000e-1, the U.S. Supreme Court noted 
     that the exemption ``is rationally related to the legitimate 
     purpose of alleviating significant governmental interference 
     with the ability of religious organization to define and 
     carry out their religious missions.'' Corporation of the 
     Presiding Bishop versus Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 339 (1987). Title 
     VII does not require religious organizations to employ 
     individuals who act contrary to the religious beliefs of the 
     organization. See Little versus Wuerl, 929 F. 2d 944 (3rd 
     Cir. 1991). It should be noted that the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 also contains exemptions for 
     religious organizations. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12113(c) (1) and (2). 
     The Guidelines, however, do not even acknowledge the 
     distinction between religious employers and secular 
     employers.
       The failure to acknowledge this distinction invites 
     litigation to test whether the Guidelines or the exemptions 
     control in particular situations. Although it might seem an 
     obvious legal principle that statutes trump regulations (and 
     certainly guidelines), some might even assert the Guidelines 
     are an ultra vires action of the EEOC in not even noting the 
     statutory exemptions. It is not too farfetched in this 
     society to speculate about re-litigation of Amos as a 
     religious harassment case. In that case, pressure was brought 
     to bear on the gymnasium employee to correct his status vis-
     a-vis his church. The Guidelines invite their interposition 
     as a defense against exempt behavior, a ``non-adherent's 
     veto''. A simple reference to the preservation of the 
     exemption would be of great assistance.
       Beyond this scenario, there are other differences between a 
     General Motors and a Catholic seminary, with regard to 
     environment. Both are employers subject to Title VII. Many 
     religious organizations will have religious symbols and 
     artwork throughout their facilities. Often they may have 
     religious activities during the workday. Title VII does not 
     require a religious organization to change its religious 
     mission activities because an employee may be offended by 
     some aspect or another of his environment. It is not beyond 
     the realm of possibility that some disgruntled employee might 
     attempt to utilize the Guidelines to exercise a heckler's 
     veto over the legitimate activities of religious 
     organizations. See May 2, 1994 Press Release of American 
     Atheists (calling for a strict standard of no religion in the 
     workplace). The Guidelines' emphasis on the victim's 
     perspective exacerbates this concern, as does the reality 
     that there is constant litigation attempting to drive 
     religion out of the public square.
       The Guidelines must acknowledge the statutory exemptions 
     for religious employers in Title VII. Religious employers 
     must be allowed to conduct their operations and activities in 
     a manner consistent with their religious beliefs and 
     practices.


                  Harris versus Forklift Systems, Inc.

       After the EEOC published its Guidelines, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court decided Harris versus Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. 
     Ct. 367 (1993). There are some apparent inconsistencies 
     between the Guidelines and the Harris decision. These include 
     the following:
       1. Quoting an earlier opinion the Court said that the 
     ``mere utterance of an epithet which engenders offensive 
     feelings in an employee'' does not implicate Title VII. 
     Harris at 370. The Guidelines suggest otherwise in footnote 
     4.
       2. The Guidelines adopt a purpose or effect standard, see 
     section 1609.1(b)(1)(i) and (ii), while the Court adopted an 
     objective and subjective standard, Harris at 370.
       3. The Guildelines incorporate into the reasonable person 
     standard the victim's perspective (relying of the 
     ``reasonable woman'' standard adopted in 1991 by the Ninth 
     Circuit in Ellison versus Brady, 924 F.2d 872). The Court in 
     Harris used only a reasonable person standard, Id. at 370. 
     While a reasonable woman standard may be appropriate in the 
     sexual harassment context, its utilization in religious 
     harassment cases may be unworkable. The religious 
     affiliations of employees is not readily apparent to 
     employers in contrast to gender. The multiplicity of 
     religious denominations and sects further complicates the 
     matter. How will an employer or the EEOC determine the 
     perspective of the ``reasonable'' Catholic, Methodist, Jew, 
     Muslim, etc.?
       The Conference recommends that the EEOC review the 
     Guidelines in light of Harris and make adjustments where 
     appropriate.


          Conclusion and Recommendation for Future Rulemaking

       While the Conference is recommending substantial revisions 
     in the Guidelines, we do recognize that religious harassment 
     can and has occurred. It is a proper area of concern for the 
     EEOC. If handled appropriately, guidelines could be helpful 
     to employers and employees alike. Therefore, we are not 
     recommending that the EEOC withdraw from all efforts to 
     address religious harassment through guidelines.
       The task of balancing the free religious expression rights 
     of employers and employees in the workplace with Title VII's 
     goal of protecting employees from illegal religious 
     harassment is a delicate one, as is evidenced by the enormous 
     response to the Guidelines. For the reasons discussed above, 
     we recommend that the EEOC address the distinctive nature of 
     religious issues. We recommend that, given the diversity of 
     opinions and the sensitive issues involved, that any future 
     guidelines on religious harassment be published again in 
     proposed form for public comment before they are finalized. 
     Where important First Amendment liberties are involved, it is 
     more important that guidelines are done correctly than 
     quickly.
       Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mark E. Chopko,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the point that has been made by 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] about EEOC, the religion-free 
environment problem. Some would say why do we bother to have these 
hearings at the Committee on Rules; it is all cut and dried and not 
worth going up there. Let me tell you, it was worthwhile. We had 
wonderful testimony yesterday. A lot of people were shocked to find out 
that in this place here, where we are now working--at least we think we 
are working, and I hope most people think we are, I feel we are--we 
would be in violation of that rule because of the inscription over the 
Speaker's chair that says ``In God we trust.'' This is not a true 
religion-free workplace.
  Now, that is an absurdity I think that most of America would say, 
``Come on, will you people please get real here?'' And that is what we 
are trying to do. I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor], bringing this process forward through the Committee on Rules, 
showed just how ridiculous some of these rules and guidelines have 
become. It is an area of unintended negative consequences, a good idea 
that went wrong.
  I feel that that kind of thing does, indeed, deserve to be noticed, 
as it has been pointed out, and corrected. But more important than 
that, the Committee on Rules hearing process does work, because that is 
how we got to this point. So there is hope.
  Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to point out that we have a difference 
between an open rule and a fair rule. How we keep a rule open is one 
thing, and I congratulate the majority for helping us on that. How we 
make it fair, the way we protect things, is another matter. And that is 
the area of our opposition. It is merely in the protection and the 
inequity, the unequal treatment, the double standard for some Members 
as opposed to others. That is what we are asking that we change.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 2 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, Chicagoans have been following some of 
EEOC's work through the Chicago Tribune and Mike Royko's columns and 
they are mad. And they have a right to be mad. A Government agency 
which is charged with the important role of enforcing the laws against 
job discrimination is proceeding, at least in one case, in a way that 
is just incredible.
  Recently in Chicago, a restaurant owner, Hans Morsbach was notified 
by the EEOC in writing that he was guilty of hiring discrimination. The 
letter charged that he placed an ad with a hiring agency for someone 
who was ``young'' and ``bub,'' and thus is guilty of age 
discrimination.

  According to the Tribune, Morsbach was informed by EEOC that he must 
now hire four people over the age of 40, give them back pay and 
seniority, and post a notice in his restaurant stating that he will no 
longer discriminate because of age. The EEOC has decided he is guilty 
and determined his sentence and if he does not comply, he will be 
hauled into court and must hire an attorney to defend himself. What 
really galls, however, is that he is prevented from knowing anything 
about the genesis of the charge against him. EEOC refuses to give any 
information on this, citing confidentiality.
  Well, Morsbach didn't place any such ad with a hiring agency and his 
hiring record is excellent--he has employed a diverse group of 
individuals in his restaurant. Morsbach doesn't know what hiring agency 
is involved, when the incident occurred, or what the word ``bub'' 
means. Regardless, Morsbach must invest time and resources into his 
defense when he goes to court to prove his innocence.
  Mr. Speaker, this is crazy, crazy that out of the blue comes a charge 
the accused knows nothing about, crazy that the agency deems him guilty 
but at the same time refuses to tell him anything about the charge, and 
crazy that his only recourse is an expensive court proceeding.
  This is an important agency charged with the role of protecting the 
civil rights of employees and protecting them against discrimination. 
But in this case, and apparently many others, it proceeds like the 
Spanish Inquisition.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In concluding, let me remind my colleagues that this is in fact an 
open rule. The waivers that are included are there to protect agencies 
without authorization which I believe most of us are fully supportive 
of and for some general provisions which have been carried in this and 
similar bills for a great many years and which I think most, if not all 
Members, are supportive of. While they are protected against possible 
points of order, as our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
pointed out ad nauseam, they are all also still subject to a motion to 
strike.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support this very fair rule. It 
is in fact a fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds 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 243, 
nays 177, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               YEAS--243

     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
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     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
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     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
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     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
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     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
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Gunderson
     Kaptur
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Towns
     Washington
     Watt
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1654

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Quinn against.

  Messrs. LEWIS of California, McKEON, and BUYER changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________