[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 EMERGENCY SPENDING CONTROL ACT OF 1994

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. I also 
appreciate the opportunity to have the President deliver a message at 
the point I speak.
  Mr. Chairman, some people say this is a waste of time, and perhaps in 
terms of legislative accomplishments it will be, but my view is we are 
focusing today on a problem which has plagued the Congress of the 
United States probably since its founding, but certainly since the last 
10 or 12 years, since these appropriation bill pieces of legislation 
have come before us, and we have spent money without much discipline 
and, frankly, not being within the budget caps that have been set by 
the various Congresses.
  Mr. Chairman, if nothing else, we are starting a debate which 
hopefully will culminate in some form of legislation which will help 
address this particular problem. I have an amendment, and I will be 
speaking to the amendment and answering some of the questions which 
have been asked about that amendment later today.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state that there are basically, as 
I see it, two approaches to reform emergency spending which are going 
to come before the House today, the Spratt bill and the Penny-Kasich-
Stenholm amendments, which, by the way, I think are basically 
improvements, and seek to prevent nonemergency projects from being 
added to emergency spending bills.
  Mr. Chairman, the Castle amendment and the Johnson amendment seek to 
address a larger problem of not only making sure that we limit what we 
appropriate, but paying for disaster assistance within our budget 
limits. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has already said 
today, that will be basically crating rainy day funds. I think the 
House should tackle the real problem of emergency spending and adopt 
the Johnson or Castle amendments.
  The Penny-Kasich-Stenholm amendment is clearly superior to the Spratt 
bill because it would allow a point of order against nonemergency 
spending in emergency spending bills. The Spratt bill would only allow 
a motion to strike which could be blocked by the Committee on Rules.
  However, the only real way to improve the emergency spending process 
is to require Congress to pay for disaster assistance within our budget 
limits. Only the Johnson and Castle amendments would achieve this 
critical reform.

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have proposed, the Castle 
amendment, would insert some much needed planning into the emergency 
spending process by setting up a budget reserve account to hold funds 
for natural disasters. These funds would be included in the annual 
spending limits. This is the only responsible way to pay for 
emergencies.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out in response to what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] stated, and I will be talking about 
this more at a later time, if indeed we had an emergency of a nuclear 
holocaust or something else, a wartime emergency that was an indication 
for more than this, and we could not do it without other cuts within 
the budget, we could certainly go back and waive all requirements and 
appropriate at that point in a different sense.
  Mr. chairman, the bottom line is that the ordinary domestic 
emergencies that we anticipate from year to year to happen in the 
United States of America should be done within the budget caps, should 
be appropriated each year, should be under a disciplined process, 
should be addressed in terms of what those expenditures are going to 
be, and it will help with our budget-balancing process. I think for 
that reason this is a good debate, and one which will ultimately be 
fruitful.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor here today because I know there are 
a lot of sincere people here on the floor who want to change the rules 
to tighten up the spending on emergency spending. It certainly needs to 
be tightened up, but as I sat here this morning and listened to the 
debate, I began to think about what happens on the floor almost each 
and every day.
  That is, the Committee on Rules, when they send legislation to the 
floor, decides to waive all points of order, decides to waive certain 
rules, and so, as I listened to the serious debate and the well-
intentions of all of the Members who are involved in it, I scratch my 
head and wonder, why are we doing this? If the Committee on Rules is 
going to continue to waive points of order, waive certain rules on each 
day, then none of this makes any difference whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members, as important as this debate is, 
as important as the amendments are, the amendments of the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], they are good, but until we do something about reforming 
the Committee on Rules where we will actually abide by the rules of the 
House, all of this is nothing more than a waste of time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise the chairman and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, that we have no further requests for time, 
and after a few remarks, I am going to yield back the balance of my 
time, on the understanding that the gentleman from Massachusetts only 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and one speaker.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of things said in this debate. I 
think what this really boils down to is that the U.S. Congress, the 
House of Representatives, has not yet come up with a way to find real 
funds for emergencies, and, as well, not to spend those funds once we 
do find them on nonemergencies.
  That is the task we have set out to do. We do not have a place to go 
to get emergency funds now. We generally load them up on the deficit, 
or create some kind of a might-work pay system, revenue system.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not satisfactory. We have set aside a task for 
ourselves, at the pledge of the leadership, of the majority, to deal 
with this issue. We just do not have a satisfactory result yet.
  Then regarding loading up stuff, Mr. Chairman, the nonemergencies on 
the emergency vehicles that go through, we have not solved that 
problem, either. What is sad about that is, today we have victims, we 
have new victims. While I am standing here, there are victims in South 
Carolina, there are victims in Georgia, there are victims in Florida, 
and perhaps elsewhere, as this storm Beryl goes through and we still 
have not solved this problem.
  I will make a prediction, Mr. Chairman, that we will not have solved 
it before the next storm, catastrophe, natural disaster, happens. That 
does not take a lot of courage to make that prediction. It does take 
some sadness. We just are not getting on with this job.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations said ``We can always add something to an appropriation 
bill.'' That, really, frankly, makes about as much sense as having your 
house on fire and waiting for a passing firetruck to go by and say ``I 
have a fire here. Would you come in and put it out,'' rather than 
providing for a fire department that can respond to a fire when your 
house is on fire.

                              {time}  1220

  I do not think just because we might happen to have appropriation 
bills waiting in the wings is a good way to say, ``Boy, we've solved 
the problems of emergency spending.'' Equally I think it is true that 
sometimes we can do harm to an appropriations bill by adding something 
to it. Some would argue that we add a sweetener or some would argue 
that we add something sour to it. The Rwanda issue was relatively easy 
compared to some. I can think of some appropriations for foreign ops 
appropriation that would be a lot harder.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is a good way to do it. I think we 
are trying to identify emergency spending for what it is, provide a 
fund for it, and provide that that is not abused for nonemergency 
spending. That is a real simple proposition and we really have not 
solved that issue today.
  I suspect the answer to that lies in the joint reform proposals 
embodied in H.R. 3801 which we are not hearing, which we should be 
hearing, which have been split, divided and scattered as far as I can 
see, and I think that is a shame and all those people who have worked 
so hard on reform of Congress basically are very disappointed about 
that. I do feel that we do have a possibility of rescuing something 
from this debate today if we can pass one of the substitute amendments. 
But if we end up with the base Sprattt bill, we have really done 
nothing except go around like a big circus and use this time, where we 
could get right back to square one to do just what we can do as the 
rules permit us to do now if we have the courage to use the rules 
properly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time for closing 
general debate to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we are 
trying, it seems to me for the sake of offering amendments, to make 
something complicated out of something that is very simple. The 
procedure is set up, it works, and as the old saying goes, if it works, 
why should we be trying to fix it?
  If there is any nonemergency money in an emergency bill, we have got 
the right, any Member on either side of the aisle, any Member of this 
House, has the right to stand up and ask that it be stricken. That is 
all we have got to do. Get a vote on it. How can be beat that?
  On the minority side, Members also have the right to make the motion 
to instruct the conferees, so they are protected in every way right 
now.
  Why do we want to adopt these amendments that are going to change the 
allocations for this year and that are also going to affect the next 
year?
  What these amendments are going to do is knock out projects out in my 
bill. For example, they would knock out many of the flood control 
projects in this country and these projects are actually an investment 
and time has proven that the benefits of the projects are six times 
what the cost of the investment is. We are not even talking about the 
lives it saves. We are talking about property damage. History has 
proven that. I am just using that as an example.
  You want to make it complicated. You want to change the allocation 
for this year, and it does not make any sense. I say that we do not 
need to fix something that is working, we have got all the remedies we 
need. Just with my bill, you can see the impact that it would have.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that is not what the intentions are, but for 
many projects throughout the country that are necessary, that are 
already underfunded, this is going to be a means of cutting them even 
more. We have got a 5-year plan on the books that is working, and it is 
actually reducing the deficit. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve Board, says that our economy is in the best condition 
it has been in in decades, and I am quoting exactly what he said.
  So why are we trying to do this, because all we are really going to 
do is knock out some projects that are very important to this Nation 
and important to the people. I urge everyone to support the base bill, 
H.R. 4906, and oppose these amendments and support the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 4906 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4906

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Spending Control 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to restrict the inclusion of 
     nonemergency spending proposals in emergency spending bills.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Motion To Strike.--Title VI of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended by redesignating section 607 as 
     section 608 and by adding after section 606 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 607. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       ``Whenever the House of Representatives considers a bill or 
     joint resolution containing an emergency designation for 
     purposes of section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) or section 252(e) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     any Member of the House may move to strike any appropriation 
     in that bill or joint resolution or any provision providing 
     direct spending in that bill or joint resolution that is not 
     so designated as an emergency, and a recorded vote shall be 
     considered as ordered if demanded by any Member and supported 
     by 9 other Members of the House.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Improvement 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking the item relating 
     to section 607 and by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 606 the following new items:

``Sec. 607. Treatment of emergency spending.
``Sec. 608. Effective date.''.

       (c) Limitation on Non-Emergency Spending in Emergency 
     Legislation.--If any bill or joint resolution contains an 
     emergency designation for purposes of section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     or section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 and it also contains an 
     appropriation or any provision providing direct spending for 
     any matter, event, or occurrence that is not so designated as 
     an emergency, then that non-emergency appropriation or other 
     provision providing direct spending must fall within the most 
     recently applicable allocations under sections 602 (a) and 
     (b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment shall be in order except the 
amendments printed in House Report 103-690 which may be offered only by 
the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and 
shall not be subject to amendment.
  Debate on each amendment will be equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  If more than one of the amendments printed in the report is adopted, 
only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and 
reported to the House.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 103-690.


 amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of 
                                 Texas

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. Sam 
     Johnson of Texas: Strike all after the enacting clause and 
     insert the following:

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Repeal of Emergency Rule.--Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 
     repealed.
       (b) Special Look-Back Treatment for Emergency 
     Appropriations.--Section 251(a)(5) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting 
     ``(A)'' before ``If'' and by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(B) If--
       ``(i) an appropriation that the President designates as 
     emergency requirements and the Congress so designates in 
     statute is enacted for the fiscal year in progress and that 
     causes a breach within a category for that year (after taking 
     into account any sequestration of amounts within that 
     category); and
       ``(ii) that bill is approved upon final passage by each 
     House of Congress by at least three-fifths of those voting; 
     then the discretionary spending limits for the next fiscal 
     year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that 
     breach.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].


Modification to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. 
                          Sam Johnson of Texas

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an agreement with 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] and the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
in the nature of a substitute number 1 made in order under the rule be 
modified to state that which is at the desk now and be considered in 
lieu of the amendment printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Sam 
     Johnson of Texas, as modified: Strike all after the enacting 
     clause and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Elimination of Cap Adjustment for Emergency 
     Appropriations.--Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.
       (b) Special Look-Back Treatment for Emergency 
     Appropriations.--Section 251(a)(5) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting 
     ``(A)'' before ``If'' and by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(B) If an appropriation that the President designates as 
     emergency requirements and the Congress so designates in 
     statute is enacted for the fiscal year in progress and that 
     causes a breach within a category for that year (after taking 
     into account any sequestration of amounts within that 
     category), the discretionary spending limits for the next 
     fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that 
     breach.''.

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, would the 
gentleman explain it?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
certainly.
  Mr. Chairman, in filing the amendment, the wrong copy was 
inadvertently given to the Committee on Rules and the modification 
would simply delete subsection ii. It is the provision that requires a 
three-fifths vote.
  Mr. OBEY. That is the only change? The gentleman is eliminating the 
three-fifths voting?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. That is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas that his amendment be modified?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have to leave the floor to go to a 
meeting, but I just wanted to state my very, very strong support for 
the gentleman's amendment, and I urge every Member to vote for it.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask Members to cast a tough vote. A 
vote that will put accountability, respectability, and responsibility 
back into Congress. For too long we have routinely voted to add 
billions of dollars to the $4.5 trillion public debt. We must stop the 
upward debt spiral.
  That is why I am asking Members to vote to put emergency spending on 
budget. For some Members this will be a tough vote. Although tough, it 
is necessary because this vote is directly tied to the future of this 
country.
  Members should realize that this is the only chance to vote for real 
reform because we all know that after November the momentum to 
drastically change how we address emergency supplementals will 
disappear.
  While I agree with Mr. Kasich and Mr. Spratt that Congress should 
have the authority to strike nonemergency spending from emergency 
bills, I believe they only solve half the problem.
  Mr. Kasich has stated that approximately $150 million of nonemergency 
spending was in the California earthquake bill and under his bill this 
would have been struck. I applaud and support this effort. But what 
about the $10 billion that is left?
  It is great to go home and tell our constituents that we saved them 
$150 million this year or that we eliminated the pork, but we must also 
tell them that we are still going to add $10 billion onto the national 
debt.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] also has an 
amendment to reform emergency funding. The Castle plan, if I understand 
it, states that if there is an emergency and it exceeds the trust fund 
the money would then be added to the debt. So we still have not paid 
for it.
  The Johnson amendment solves these problems while reaching the very 
worthwhile goal sought by my colleagues.
  My bill amends section 251(c)(2) of OBRA 1993 to allow the lookback 
provision to be applied to emergency supplementals. This provision 
states that any breach in the discretionary caps during the current 
fiscal year would be paid for by reducing the caps in the next fiscal 
year. Simple enough. If we pass a $2 billion emergency this year, we 
reduce the discretionary caps in the next fiscal year by the amount of 
the breach.
  What else will this accomplish?
  Having listened to past debates I know that Members want to pay for 
emergencies but not at the expense of disrupting and jeopardizing 
programs that have been appropriated in the current fiscal year. This 
bill would allow projects to continue in that year with no disruption.
  Members also argue that past attempts to pay for emergencies was 
hastily put together and the impacts were not known. This amendment 
gives Members the time, while they are drafting next year's budget, to 
thoroughly discuss, propose, and draft rescissions that will pay for 
the emergency.
  It also ends the argument by some that debating how emergency 
supplementals will be paid for delays aid from reaching those 
devastated in the disaster. Congress, under this amendment can now 
quickly pass the bill and send money and aid to those in need.
  And by requiring Members to find cuts in next year's budget is quite 
a deterrent from adding nonemergency items or pork to the bill, and the 
most important point for voting for the Johnson amendment is that it 
keeps money from being added to the debt. I know that all Members would 
agree that we must stop any increases to our debt.
  Mr. Chairman, we all recognize the necessity of providing funds to 
those whose lives have been affected by a natural disaster but is it 
fair for Congress to then endanger the future of these same people and 
their children by increasing their share of the debt? I think the 
answer is no.
  I believe if the Congress and the President declare an emergency, it 
is our responsibility to pay for these bills. It is not the 
responsibility of future generations. Help Congress help itself, vote 
for the Johnson substitute.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). Does the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SPRATT. I rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] is recognized for 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I would ask the gentleman from Texas this question: In the unanimous 
consent request he just made, he removed the first two lines of (ii) 
but left remaining the requirement that discretionary spending limits 
for the next fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of 
that breach. The gentleman left the language in, did he not?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where the 
gentleman is looking.
  Mr. OBEY. The item just knocked out, if the gentleman will take a 
look at the report of the bill.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I am looking at it.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman struck the last two sentences on the first 
page, as I understand it?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. And retained the first two sentences on page 2?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. That is what I was afraid of.
  The problem with it, Mr. Chairman, is that that means that the 
amendment does not do what the gentleman just described. The gentleman 
indicates that the intent of this amendment is to take whatever is 
spent on an emergency in a current fiscal year, that happens to be $11 
billion this year, and to then deduct it from the next fiscal year's 
appropriations in the same amount, $11 billion. However, because on 
page 1 in section (a) the gentleman also repeals the emergency rule 
under which emergency funding is provided, the effect of the 
gentleman's amendment is to take $11 billion out of the budget for this 
fiscal year, and to take it out again for the next fiscal year. So in 
other words, the gentleman has a double hit. I do not know if the 
gentleman intends it or not, but we cannot legislate on the basis of 
intent around here. We have to legislate on the basis of what is called 
for in black and white.
  In fact, the gentleman is requiring us to cut out $2, one dollar in 
the current fiscal year and another dollar in the next fiscal year for 
every dollar that is requested to be expended because of an emergency 
from something like a natural disaster. I submit there is absolutely no 
rational reason to do that. I submit that in addition to the budget 
effect which this amendment would have, it would have a disastrous 
economic effect on the country because if we have an earthquake or a 
major flood which is going to depress the economy of the country and to 
cost jobs and cost economic growth, what we are going to do is in fact 
double the hit on the economy by the amendment offered by the 
gentleman.
  I think the gentleman tried to correct one defect in his language 
when he removed that language that he asked to be removed, but he did 
not correct the problem. I cannot believe that this House is going to 
in effect say that if the country is unlucky enough to experience a 
major economic disaster in the form of a flood or an earthquake that 
the Congress has a compulsion to double the negative economic effect by 
passing the Johnson amendment.
  So I would urge Members to vote against it and to look for a more 
rational way to deal with national emergencies.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from the great State of Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
amendment being offered by my friend and colleague, Representative Sam 
Johnson.
  As we all know, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 established a 
safety valve to allow Congress and the President to meet unexpected 
needs. By declaring something an emergency Congress and the President 
can provide for spending to be placed automatically outside of the 
budgetary caps. In real terms, this means adding debt directly to our 
enormous shortfall which already exists.
  When we passed the Budget Enforcement Act in 1990, few of us 
anticipated that we would utilize the emergency provision 16 times to 
spend $90 billion within 4 years. Excluding the funds for Desert Storm 
that were ultimately offset by foreign contributions, we have added 
over $30 billion to the national debt through emergency spending 
legislation. In addition, as the Washington Post noted in an editorial 
earlier this week, ``emergency bills have been vehicles to which 
(appropriators) have often been able to add other projects that might 
have failed to withstand scrutiny on their own.''
  The amendment which Representative Johnson offers is the most direct 
way I know to state clearly and indisputably that our deficit can no 
longer withstand that sort of attack. The Johnson procedures would 
allow Members to carefully discuss a sensible plan to pay for our 
natural emergencies, placing the spending in the context of the entire 
next fiscal year's budget. There is a legitimate criticism about a 
hasty process of paying for emergencies. This amendment avoids that 
pitfall.
  I do not believe that we should add more than $6 billion to the 
deficit each year for unexpected emergency spending. It seems to me 
that if we are going to pass several bills spending billions of dollars 
in disaster relief each year, we should set up a procedure to provide 
funding for disaster assistance through the regular budget process 
instead of relying on an unrestricted, ad hoc process.
  The bill which Representative Sam Johnson and I have introduced would 
effectively require Congress and the President to offset increased 
spending for emergency spending through spending cuts in the next year. 
This will give Congress and the President time to come up with 
offsetting spending cuts through the regular process instead of being 
forced to find offsets in the relatively short window in which 
emergency spending bills are considered.
  I commend my colleague from bringing this amendment to the floor and 
I encourage support of the amendment.
  I did not read into the legislation that we were taking two for one. 
I am of the assumption that the unanimous-consent request that my 
colleague made in which he stated his intention in fact will do that 
which it did, and if not I would anticipate we would have an additional 
unanimous-consent request to make certain that it does that. If that is 
too complicated, then I do not understand the rationale.
  But clearly, my support of this amendment goes back to some of the 
votes that we have taken in the past of suggesting that when we do have 
disasters that we should pay for them, that the deficit should not go 
up as a result of declared emergencies, unless the Congress on a 
specific vote makes such determination as we talked about before in 
regard to various ideas on how this should proceed.
  I do not believe that we should add more than $6 billion to the 
deficit each year for unexpected emergency spending. It seems to me 
that if we are going to pass several bills, spending billions of 
dollars on disaster relief each year, we should set up a procedure to 
provide funding for disaster assistance through the regular budget 
process instead of relying on unrestricted ad hoc processes.
  The bill which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] and I have 
introduced would effectively require Congress to offset increased 
spending for emergency spending through spending cuts in the next year. 
I do not understand why that is not very clear. I do not understand why 
under a unanimous-consent request if there is some language that needs 
to be clarified so we are debating the intent of the amendment that it 
could not be done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an incredible way to 
legislate. We have already seen the author of the amendment ask to make 
one change in the amendment because it is imperfect. Now it is being 
suggested we should consider another. It seems to me it is mighty 
dangerous to be passing a moving target. I would kind of like to know 
when I come to the floor what it is we are going to be voting on.
  It seems to me if no more thought has gone into this amendment than 
the though that has produced two mistakes in the base amendment, we 
ought not to pass it, and move on to something that is more rational.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the response of my colleague is a 
commonsense response. Again, I am here speaking on behalf of an 
amendment that I believe does that which we are all saying that it 
does.

                              {time}  1240

  If it does not, then the gentleman has every reason to oppose the 
amendment, to vote it down, this amendment should not pass because of 
the legitimate opinions of the gentleman from Wisconsin that he is 
expressing.
  I have read the same language. I understand the intent. I do not read 
it as you read it. I could be wrong.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I read the language that does what I claim it does?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Certainly.
  Mr. OBEY. ``Section 1, repeal of emergency rule, section 251(b)(2)(D) 
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 
repealed.'' That means that you have got to have sequestration in the 
current year, if you have any emergency.
  Then if you take a look at the language in the last two sentences of 
the bill, which says, ``The discretionary spending limit for the next 
fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that breach,'' 
that says that you have to also make the same reduction in the next 
fiscal year. It seems to me it is written in plain English, and it is 
very clear.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say at the outset I have 
the highest regard for my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam 
Johnson]. Although I disagree with his amendment, he is a very valuable 
Member of the House.
  I am afraid this amendment today should be defeated for the reasons 
that have been stated and others that I will enumerate at this moment.
  First, put this in context: As chairman of the Disaster Task Force, 
you cannot view any of these amendments in the context of previous 
disasters. We have on average spent about $3 billion a year on 
disasters: the flood in my part of the country, a hurricane in Florida, 
an earthquake in California.
  But on the Disaster Task Force, we have been told that the so-called 
big one could occur at any moment in California, and certainly a 
Hurricane Andrew, had it gone a few miles north and hit Miami, would 
have cost $50 billion in 1 year, so whatever we are about to do should 
be put in the context of a reality that the cost of disasters could go 
up dramatically in any given year. There is no flexibility in Mr. 
Johnson's amendment.
  Let me tell you four reasons why we should vote against the Johnson 
amendment: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] quite wisely says 
we should pay for our disasters, but as has been stated on the floor, 
he wants to pay for them twice, once in the year when the disaster 
occurs by cutting spending, then in the following year pay for it 
again. Well, that frankly is unnecessary and could be 
counterproductive.
  Second, the gentleman from Texas fails to take into account that the 
good Lord does not pay any attention to our fiscal year deadlines. If a 
disaster occurs in the United States in August or September and our 
fiscal year ends on September 30, we somehow have to come up with the 
disaster funds in the remaining 2 months of that fiscal year to pay for 
it. That is unrealistic. We found that in last year's Midwest flood.
  So the gentleman, by sticking to the strict definition spending cuts 
only in the year disaster occurs, really looks beyond the fact that the 
disaster may be so late in the fiscal year that we cannot cut enough 
spending to pay for it.
  The third point I raised in my earlier comments, the gentleman fails 
to take into account that in fiscal year 1991 President Bush declared 
an emergency to pay for Desert Storm and Desert Shield. President Bush 
was right when he said we are going to take care of the men and women 
in our Armed Forces serving in the Persian Gulf, and we are going to 
pay for it on an emergency basis; we are not going to scrimp and cut 
when it comes to the safety of our kids. He was right. Forty-two 
billion dollars was spent on the Desert Storm emergency.

  Under the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam 
Johnson] we then would have had to cut the next year's appropriation 
bills by $42 billion to pay for it, except for one fact he left out in 
his thinking. Our allies came back and paid that $42 billion. Under the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] we 
would have still had to cut the next year's spending, and that cut 
would have taken place despite the contribution of our allies.
  Finally, if you take the amount of disaster in 1 year and then spread 
that amount in cuts and spending the next year, almost half of those 
cuts come from the Department of Defense. I say to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], you are going to hear from the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] in a few moments the disastrous consequences 
on America's military strength if you make that sort of a cut in this 
day and age, and I would also add it would call for cuts, for example, 
next year of $1.6 billion in veterans' hospitals and another $314 
million in agriculture programs.
  I urge my colleagues, look at the Johnson amendment, consider the 
flaws in it, defeat it.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am from California. I support this 
legislation very strongly, and I do so because my constituents are 
terribly concerned about the future of this country economically, as am 
I.
  Our national debt, not the deficit, but the debt, which is what 
really counts, is $4.5 trillion. That is $18,000 for every man, woman, 
and child in the United States. It is $72,000 for your average family 
of four. This is a problem.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] is advocating a policy 
which will impose more fiscal restraint than we have. All we hear 
about, ``That is a lot of talk.'' The fact of the matter is we have 
been vastly increasing our spending over whatever the increase in 
revenues is. That continues to go on today. It has gone on for years.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to strongly support the Johnson amendment, 
and let me just say disasters are somewhat foreseeable. We now know 
that we are going to have every year ``X'' amount of dollars we can 
count on. For that reason, I say put it on budget, build it onto the 
budget, and bring down the spending.
  I urge support of the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put this in 
perspective to what this really does.
  I chair the Military Construction Subcommittee, which has been in 
decline for the past several years. We have not been able to do the 
things that we want to do for quality of life, which has been one of 
the strong things that I have tried to do in my years as chairman of 
the Military Construction.
  This year we were unable to do what we needed to do in family housing 
for our troops. We had some $54 million that we could not even touch in 
family housing that was direly needed for our troops.
  Now, let me tell you what would happen if the Johnson substitute had 
been in effect this year: The 1995 discretionary cap would have to be 
reduced by $12 billion. Now, that means the military construction 602 
allocation for 1995 would have been reduced by some $208 million, and a 
lot of people that deal in billions might not say that is a lot of 
money, but let me tell you this type of reduction that we would have 
had to have taken would have resulted in cuts in the Guard and Reserve 
projects of some $50 million, and these are very important and 
strategic family housing projects that I mentioned.
  We would have had a further cut of some $70 million in family housing 
and child care centers, which goes to the very heart of quality of life 
for our people in the military. We would have had to cut $20 million, 
and that is just a few of the things we would have to cut.
  There are some 70 Members of this body on both sides of the aisle who 
came to me during this last budget series and asked for projects in my 
military construction budget. I am assuming that they were very vital 
projects. They would have had to have been drastically cut at a time 
when we are building down in the military, and I serve on the Defense 
Subcommittee, and I feel sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] will speak in depth about this.
  This is no time, in my view, for us to be considering what I consider 
to be an irresponsible amendment.
  I urge strongly that you vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by our colleague, Sam Johnson, to the Emergency 
Spending Control Act.
  What a novel idea, to actually require Congress to pay for any 
emergency supplemental bill we pass.
  This amendment is a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, it will 
make Congress be more selective when drafting emergency spending bills. 
I suspect Congress would be less likely to include completely 
unrelated, nonemergency pork spending in emergency bills when next 
year's appropriations would be lower by that amount.
  Also, it is simply good public policy to begin paying for the bills 
we pass. With the budget deficit over $200 billion and national debt 
over $4\1/2\ trillion, we simply cannot afford to continue putting off 
our bills onto our children and grandchildren.
  It is time we realize that the fiscal crisis is the biggest emergency 
facing this country.
  Unless we get our financial house in order, we literally won't be 
able to afford the next hurricane, the next flood, or the next 
earthquake.
  The Johnson amendment is the best way to ensure that Congress will 
pay for these emergencies now, and will be able to continue paying for 
them in the future. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
important amendment.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr].
  (Mr. CARR of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment. I am sure this was not the gentleman's 
intention, but I am afraid his amendment is mean spirited. It has the 
ironic effect of punishing the American people for their humanity and 
generous nature. The willingness of Americans and by extension, the 
Congress, to provide for others in their time of need is one of the 
most admirable traits of this Nation. But, providing emergency relief 
to citizens whose lives in many instances have been devasted by natural 
disasters should not mean, Mr. Chairman, that in the process we gut 
important road, transit, and aviation improvement programs that are 
also important to the American people in their everyday lives.
  Mr. Chairman, in the supplemental enacted earlier this year in 
response to the earthquake in southern California, the Congress 
provided swift and decisive relief to repair the crushed interstate 
highways, collapsed bridges, and other devastated arterials caused by 
the earthquake. Under the terms of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], the Transportation Subcommittee 
would be required to produce savings in ongoing programs in the fiscal 
year 1995 transportation appropriations bill to offset the 
approximately $325 million cost of providing that much needed emergency 
transportation relief. In other words, we would have to rob Peter to 
pay Paul. And I might add that the savings would have to be made in 
both budget authority and outlays.
  Mr. Chairman, the negative impact of the Johnson amendment is very 
real. Let my give just one example of what we would have to do to 
achieve savings of this magnitude. If the reduction were applied 
entirely to the Federal program that finances the construction of our 
Nation's highways, we would have to reduce the program by nearly $2 
billion below the $17.2 billion provided in the 1995 transportation 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to stay within our restrictive budget 
allocation, the 1995 transportation appropriations bill already funds 
the primary Federal highway construction program at less than last 
year's level. Let me repeat that: We have already cut spending on the 
Nation's premier transportation funding program below the 1994 level 
and we have been criticized by some Members of Congress and the 
administration for doing so. And that is without the Johnson amendment. 
With the Johnson amendment, we would have to slash Federal aid for 
highways by nearly 14 percent below the current level. Every State with 
critical needs for highway construction and repairs would have to pay a 
severe price under the gentleman's amendment.
  I am sure some are thinking, ``All they would have to do is stop 
earmarking funds for highway demonstration projects and everything 
would be fine.'' But, Mr. Chairman, a careful examination of the facts 
proves this statement to be false. Even if the 1995 transportation 
appropriations bill as passed by the House contained not $1 for 
specially earmarked highway projects, the Johnson amendment would force 
deep cuts in other transportation programs. Once again, if the 
remaining outlay savings needed were taken from the formula highway 
program, Federal spending on roads and highways would still have to be 
reduced by more than $1.5 billion. The other alternatives are even less 
attractive. It is unlikely that we could achieve savings of this 
magnitude in other programs within affecting important safety functions 
in the Federal Aviation Administration or the Coast Guard.
  I am sure the gentleman's amendment is well intended, but I think you 
can see the disastrous effects it would have on transportation funding 
in this country. I strongly urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of legislation to reform and control 
emergency spending. I also strongly support the Johnson and Castle 
amendments.
  I believe that this measure is a critical component in the range of 
budget process reforms which the House has considered this month. Every 
year, we go through an elaborate procedure to pass a budget resolution 
setting discretionary spending limits, allocating those limits among 
the 13 appropriations subcommittees, and living within these limits.
  We then go out and bust the budget almost every year, through the 
process of supplemental emergency spending bills. There is widespread 
support for passage of these emergency spending bills. After all, who 
could oppose humanitarian assistance for Americans whose lives have 
been devastated by unforeseen natural disasters like earthquakes, 
hurricanes, and floods.
  The problem is while each such disaster is unforeseen, the fact that 
disasters occur each year is not only foreseeable, it is almost a 
certainty. Therefore, prudent budgeting would take the likelihood of 
natural disasters into account and provide a mechanism to pay for 
them--within our budget.
  I believe the Castle and Johnson amendments both accomplish this, and 
I will support both of them. In fact, I believe we should combine the 
two into one bill The Castle amendment would eliminate the waiver of 
emergency spending from the discretionary spending caps. In order to 
accommodate this change, the Castle amendment also establishes an 
emergency budget reserve funds. It would be expected that each year we 
would appropriate funds into this reserve account, in order to meet 
emergency spending. The concept of a contingency or emergency reserve 
fund is a basic budgeting concept that virtually every State and local 
government in this country uses.
  However, a legitimate issue is raised under the Castle amendment. 
What happens if actual emergencies exceed the amounts funded into the 
reserve fund? Under Castle, we could either offset this excess with 
rescissions of other spending, or could vote to raise the caps.
  The Johnson amendment would resolve this issue by allowing a third 
option of paying for this excess spending by reducing the discretionary 
spending cap in the subsequent year. This mechanism provides a safety 
valve to fund emergency spending levels that exceed the spending cap in 
the current year. That is why I believe that the Castle and Johnson 
provisions would work so well combined as one amendment.
  Finally, I would like to address the Kasich-Stenholm-Penny amendment. 
This amendment, as well as the Spratt bill, focuses the issue more 
narrowly than the Castle or Johnson amendments--dealing only with the 
scope of individual items within each spending bill.
  I believe that both the Castle and the Johnson amendments deal with 
the problem of emergency spending in a more comprehensive manner than 
either Kasich or Spratt. However, if the issue is simply limiting the 
consideration of emergency spending bills to true emergencies, I 
believe that the Kasich-Stenholm-Penny amendment is preferable to the 
Spratt bill.
  Finally, in any event, I believe all four of these proposals are 
preferable to doing nothing. Therefore, I urge my colleagues do pass 
this legislation, to take at least some action on the problem of 
emergency spending.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the practical impact of 
what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] is trying to do.
  I remember when Secretary Weinberger used to come before the 
Committee on Appropriations and tell us about supply-side economics. He 
said despite increased spending in defense and decreasing taxes, we 
would decrease the deficit. I said to him that it would not work.
  Mr. Chairman, during that period of time, during that 12 years of 
Reagan and Bush, we increased the deficit by $3 trillion, from $900 
billion to almost $4 trillion. So these easy quick fixes don't always 
work and can have really negative consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, we have done our share when it comes to cutting 
discretionary spending, particularly defense discretionary spending. 
Defense money used to be 27 percent of the budget in fiscal year 1984, 
and it is now down to 19 percent of the budget 10 years later. Further 
cuts in discretionary spending will not solve the deficit problem, but 
will greatly exacerbate the problem for defense because defense will 
take one-half of the total discretionary cut.
  For instance, if you were to reduce the defense budget by $5.7 
billion, which is half of the 1994 emergency disaster appropriation, 
there would be a 2.4-percent across-the-board reduction for defense 
assuming you applied it uniformly. This would eliminate the entire pay 
raise for the troops.
  Now, why did I pick the pay raise? Because the Pentagon did not allow 
for that in their budget because they said that was not something that 
needed to be done. Well, I disagree with that. I think a pay raise is 
absolutely imperative for the welfare and morale of our troops and we 
included it in our recent bill.
  Our troops right now are deployed more often than they have been in 
years. They are worn out, frustrated. I just visited Guantanamo, and a 
number of them are going to get out because they spend too much time 
away from home.
  So the first thing that would go is the pay raise for the troops.
  Next, the readiness enhancement voted by the House would be totally 
eliminated.
  What I did in the budget that we sent over to the other body was 
decrease some of the long-term programs and increase the amount of 
readiness. For instance, there is a $12 billion backlog in defense for 
real property maintenance. There is a $2 billion backlog for depot 
maintenance. Both of these are absolutely essential to the readiness 
and quality of life of our troops.
  Under this Johnson amendment we would also have to cut the medical 
care for 205,000 personnel if the reduction was applied across the 
board.
  Now, why do I mention the medical program? I will tell you why. For 7 
years I personally have taken an interest in trying to improve the 
medical quality of life, the medical care for the military. In the 
military, one of the first things they cut when they start to cut the 
budget is the medical personnel available to active-duty dependents. 
That is a mistake because it reduces the quality of life.
  Recently I went to Camp Lejeune, where they were waiting 5 hours to 
see a doctor. That is a practical impact of what we are doing in making 
these kinds of cuts.
  So there is no way that I can support this kind of a cut, because it 
has such a dramatic impact on our national security.
  Now, I could not agree more that they should come to the Congress to 
ask for supplemental money for operations such as Rwanda. But I doubt 
very much that this Congress would turn down the President on money for 
Rwanda. I certainly know we would not turn down money for hurricane 
Hugo, the flood disaster that happened down there. I know he would not 
turn down the money, Congress would not turn down the money for Los 
Angeles where the earthquake occurred. Nor should he.
  The premise of the Johnson amendment is that the emergency money has 
to come out of the overall spending. That would be disastrous to 
defense, and I strongly urge the Members to defeat the Johnson 
amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, do I have 1 minute remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has the 
right to close debate.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I would hope that we could cut 
spending in other areas as much as we have already cut defense.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] 
suspend?
  The Chair is in error. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] has 
the right to close debate, and the Chair would now recognize the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. I was not going to look that gift horse in the mouth. I 
thought I was the next up.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just basically summarize the problem, the flaw, in this bill 
and the reason we urge its defeat.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, this bill repeals those provisions of the 
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which exempted emergency spending from 
the discretionary spending cap. Second, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] would create something he calls 
a look back requiring that in the later fiscal year all emergency 
spending above the discretionary spending cap in the prior fiscal year 
be offset by an equal reduction in discretionary spending in that 
second fiscal year. A look back.
  However, Mr. Chairman, because emergency spending would no longer be 
exempt, due to this bill, from the emergency spending cap, emergency 
spending in excess of the cap in the first fiscal year would trigger 
sequestration, so we would have a cut in that year by virtue of 
sequestration.
  Second, in the following fiscal year the Johnson look back provisions 
would mandate, dictate, that this same breach, this same excess, be cut 
again, reduced again, from discretionary spending, so what we have 
here, unintentionally, I am sure, but nevertheless it is the plain 
consequence of this bill, flawed in the drafting, is a double cut, a 
double dip, which certainly we do not wish to decree by passing this 
amendment.
  So, I urge defeat of this amendment and the creation of a serious 
mistake.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, I believe that we have already taken 
too much money out of the defense budget, and it is terrible to me that 
we even talk about thinking about it. However it is important that we 
consider paying for our finances as we go along. We go to realize there 
are two emergencies facing this country, those that are caused by 
circumstances out of control and one the body has created itself, and 
that is the $4.5 trillion national debt. We do not have the power to 
stop unforeseen emergencies, and so we can only offer help to those in 
need. But we in Congress have the power to reduce our national debt, 
and so far we have ignored the task. Members have said the deficit is 
going down, but that is short term. We need to focus our sights on the 
long term, and by the President's own predictions the deficit and debt 
will rise in the outyears.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past 4 years $90 billion has been added to the 
debt through emergency supplementals. The President's proposed 
spending, $320 billion for new programs and figures, show that by 1998 
$1.5 trillion will be added to the debt. This is not how a responsible 
Congress acts. We have got to reduce our expenditures, and change our 
spending habits, and show the American people that we are accountable 
for our actions and care about the future of this country. That is why 
Members ought to vote yes on this amendment and start us down the road 
toward fiscal responsibility.
  In answer to some of the questions today, today's rules already 
preclude any point of order on spending over 602(b) limits, so, when we 
waive all points of order, which Rules does on every supplemental and 
report, conference report, then there is not any way for spending to be 
addressed except by the Johnson amendment.
  Vote for the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam 
Johnson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 258, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 400]

                               AYES--160

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--258

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Becerra
     Dicks
     Flake
     Grams
     Hunter
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     Mfume
     Michel
     Moran
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Spence
     Sundquist
     Thomas (WY)
     Washington

                              {time}  1324

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Becerra against.

  Mr. VALENTINE and Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. KLUG and Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 103-690.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Castle: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUDGET RESERVE ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment.--A budget reserve account (hereinafter 
     in this section referred to as the ``account'') shall be 
     established for the purpose of setting aside adequate funding 
     for natural disasters and national security emergencies.
       (b) Prior Appropriation Required.--The account shall 
     consist of such sums as may be provided in advance in 
     appropriation Acts for a particular fiscal year.
       (c) Restriction on Use of Funds.--(1) Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the amounts in the account shall not 
     be available for other than emergency funding requirements 
     for particular natural disasters or national security 
     emergencies so designated by Acts of Congress.
       (2) Funds in the account that are not obligated during the 
     fiscal year for which they are appropriated may only be used 
     for deficit reduction purposes.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS CHANGES.

       (a) Contents of Concurrent Resolutions on the Budget.--
     Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) total new budget authority and total budget outlays 
     for emergency funding requirements for natural disasters and 
     national security emergencies to be included in a budget 
     reserve account;''.
       (b) Section 602 Allocations.--(1) Section 602 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Committee Spending Allocations and Suballocations for 
     Budget Reserve Account.--
       ``(1) Allocations.--The joint explanatory statement 
     accompanying a conference report on a budget resolution shall 
     include allocations, consistent with the resolution 
     recommended in the conference report, of the appropriate 
     levels (for each fiscal year covered by that resolution) of 
     total new budget authority and outlays to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House for emergency funding 
     requirements for natural disasters and national 
     security emergencies to be included in a budget reserve 
     account.
       ``(2) Suballocations.--As soon as practicable after a 
     budget resolution is agreed to, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House (after consulting with the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the other House) shall 
     suballocate each amount allocated to it for the budget year 
     under paragraph (1) among its subcommittees. Each Committee 
     on Appropriations shall promptly report to its House 
     suballocations made or revised under this paragraph.''.
       (2) Section 602(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended by inserting ``or subsection (f)(1)'' after 
     ``subsection (a)'' and by inserting ``or subsection (f)(2)'' 
     after ``subsection (b)''.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF ADJUSTMENT FOR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING.

       Not later than November 30, 1996, and at annual intervals 
     thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall submit a report to each House of Congress 
     listing the amounts of money expended from the budget reserve 
     account established under section 1 for the fiscal year 
     ending during that calendar year for each natural disaster 
     and national security emergency.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by it shall apply to 
     fiscal year 1996 and subsequent fiscal years.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last July floods in the Midwest drove thousands of 
people from their homes and wreaked millions of dollars worth of damage 
to property in many States. This disaster caused a controversial debate 
in the House.
  The debate was not over whether our Government should provide aid to 
the victims of the flood. Virtually every Member of this body agreed 
that we had to respond immediately to that disaster. The debate was 
over whether we should try to pay for the cost of flood assistance or 
just add another $5 billion to the deficit.
  As my colleague will recall, the House initially defeated the rule 
for the emergency appropriations bill because a majority of the Members 
of the House believed that we should offset the cost of the aid with 
cuts in other programs. There were accusations that Members did not 
care about the suffering of the flood victims because they wanted to do 
the responsible thing and pay for the aid within our budget limits.
  The frustration of Members on both sides was understandable, but the 
real fault lies with the flood emergency spending process. The current 
process does not allow us to plan for the natural disasters which are 
almost sure to occur.
  When a flood, earthquake, or hurricane does occur, we simply add the 
cost to the deficit and justify it by saying that we have to get the 
relief to the victims as soon as possible.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, the simple solution is that we must plan for 
emergencies. If we held some funds in reserve, we could respond to 
disasters promptly within our budget limits.
  My amendment would require Congress to annually set aside funds in a 
budget reserve account to pay for emergencies. The funds in the reserve 
account would be within the annual discretionary spending limits. Many 
of us who have a background in State government know this as a rainy 
day fund.
  The annual budget resolution would set a total amount to be set aside 
in the account. Congress and the administration could consult on what 
funds were needed in previous years and determine a realistic amount 
for the fund.
  The average cost of domestic emergency spending bills since 1989 has 
been $5.2 billion. If that amount were set aside in fiscal year 1996, 
we would have a significant amount of money to deal with most 
emergencies within our annual spending limits. My amendment would give 
Congress the incentive to set an adequate amount of money aside, 
because it would eliminate Congress' authority to appropriate 
emergency funds in excess of the annual spending caps.

  Mr. Chairman, what happens if a disaster exhausts the reserve 
account? There is always the chance that a disaster or a series of 
disasters could require more emergency funds than are available in the 
reserve account.
  If such a serious situation occurred, there are a couple of steps 
Congress could take. First, we could make cuts in other programs to 
free up funds for additional disaster relief within the spending caps. 
This is often what we try to do under the current budget rules.
  Mr. Chairman, the second remedy we could follow if a disaster 
exhausted the reserve account is that if a natural disaster was so 
severe or there was a national security emergency, like Operation 
Desert Storm, there would surely be agreement in Congress to pass 
legislation waiving the budget reserve account law to respond to a 
special situation.
  However, the reserve account would allow us to respond to the vast 
majority of emergencies within our spending limits. We do not even 
attempt to do this under the current process.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, the funds in the reserve account could 
only be used for specific natural disasters and national security 
emergencies designated by acts of Congress. This will prevent funds for 
nonemergency projects from being paid for with funds from the reserve 
account. In addition, because emergency funds would be within the 
annual budget limits, Congress would be more careful in spending these 
funds.
  Mr. Chairman, it should be stressed that the funds would be held in 
the reserve account until an emergency occurred, and then the Committee 
on Appropriations would allocate the funds to the appropriate Federal 
agencies to respond to the disaster. No executive agency would be given 
any additional discretionary funds.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will also improve the monitoring of how 
emergency funds were spent. The Office of Management and Budget [OMB], 
would be required to report annually to Congress on how the funds from 
the account are allocated for each emergency.
  If we are fortunate enough to escape some marginal disasters in a 
particular year, and there are funds left in the reserve account, they 
would be returned to the Treasury to reduce the deficit. I know Members 
will argue that the discretionary spending caps are already very tight, 
and we cannot afford to return $5 billion to $6 billion to the 
Treasury. I would argue that the deficit is still in excess of $200 
billion and that any savings should go to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of reforming the emergency spending process 
should be to save money that is not needed to respond to disasters. My 
amendment will accomplish that.
  There is no perfect solution to the problem of emergency spending, 
Mr. Chairman. There is always the potential for a disaster or a war 
which would require special spending. However, we can make real 
progress if we set aside money for the most likely disasters. The 
budget reserve account would bring emergency spending within the annual 
budget process and enable us to plan for them in a fiscally responsible 
manner. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Castle 
amendment to H.R. 4906.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and if I have time 
at the end of my remarks, I would like to ask a question of him.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot create a rainy day fund by looking in a 
rearview mirror and saying that over 10 or 20 years we have needed an 
average of $3 billion to $5 billion, because the gentleman from 
Delaware, in his amendment, not only creates this fund, but ties our 
hands as to what we will do to deal with disasters of much greater 
magnitude.
  We can speculate forever what might occur if there would be a 
hurricane that hits Miami, an earthquake, or some type of natural 
disaster, in California or in Hawaii, and we know that the cost of 
these could go far beyond $3 billion or $5 billion. The gentleman's 
approach, is really silent to that possibility.
  That could raise a serious problems for us. What will we do when we 
have expended all the money in his reserve account? The gentleman, in 
his ``Dear Colleague'' letter, merely speculates that Congress will 
rise to the occasion, but the gentleman, with his amendment, ties our 
hands.
  If the gentleman wants to go beyond it, we are talking not just about 
natural disasters, but about items of national security. When we went 
in Desert Storm and Desert Shield, we needed quickly, under President 
Bush, $42 billion to protect the men and women in uniform. We did not 
have time to come and debate some sort of budget reform experiment. We 
had to move quickly, to protect the men and women in our armed 
services.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman supported President Bush's 
decision to fund our military effort at the time, and I did, too. We 
did not want to shortchange them. Had we been living under the 
gentleman's approach, Mr. Chairman, restricted to a rainy day fund of 
$3 to $5 billion, we would have spent all that in a moment, and still 
had a responsibility to find some $35 billion to $40 billion very 
quickly. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman does not suggest how we would do 
that.
  I would tell the Members that I think the gentleman from Delaware is 
on the right track. Our disaster task force would like to work with him 
and others to come up with this fund, but we have to create the 
flexibility to respond to real human needs, such as protecting our men 
and women in uniform. We cannot entangle our national security in a 
budget reform experiment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Castle amendment, to work 
with the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and everyone on our task 
force to find an approach that is sensible, flexible, and really serves 
the needs of this country.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to what my good friend, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] said. He makes a valid point. I appreciate 
the work he does on the disasters task force, if that is the correct 
name. I think we have to address this issue. I appreciate this debate 
in general because I think it is so important.
  The gentleman does raise the issue of emergency spending. There is no 
way we can state, obviously, exactly what the emergencies are going to 
be. The States cannot do it, the local municipalities cannot do it, 
none of us can do it at this time.
  I believe that the proposal which I have put before this Congress 
today comes as close to that as we possibly can; that is, a look back 
to determine what it has been over the last 5 years, averaging it out 
and trying to work it into next year's budget, for example.
  The gentleman does raise a valid point. There could be situations 
which are going to go above whatever that emergency appropriation is 
going to be in any particular year. If so, there are a couple of things 
we can do.
  One is, if it is within reason, if it is an extra half of a billion 
dollars or $100 million, or whatever reason may be, we could go back 
into the budget under the caps and try to fit it in, with reductions of 
other expenditures, depending on the circumstances, the year or 
whatever it may be.
  Second, we could pass special legislation overriding the budget 
reserve account. In other words, it sets a higher standard, if you 
will, for this than we have presently, in which we simply appropriate 
emergency expenditures and automatically raise the caps by doing that. 
So I believe it does set a higher standard to do it in this way. I 
think we will find in most years, Mr. Chairman, we will not have that 
problem.
  One other thing I would address. I think by putting this money in the 
budget itself that we do, indeed, address the issue that I do not think 
we have focused on very much here, and that is how we regulate the 
amount of money which is spent and how much money we should be 
spending, and doing more to help with flood insurance, earthquake 
insurance, and some of the other areas that would have private offsets 
to some of these disasters. I hope your committee would look at that as 
well.

                              {time}  1340

  I would hope your committee would look at that as well. I appreciate 
your comments, but I do think it is addressed.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman completely in 
his conclusion. But would we not face a practical problem if we had a 
national emergency, a security emergency, some problem in Korea or a 
Desert Storm situation where Congress would be forced to come in here 
and engage in a debate over whether we ought to cut the Veterans 
Administration, whether we ought to cut the FBI, where is the money 
coming from? Is it not more sensible to respond more quickly to a 
national security need and a national disaster?
  I am afraid the gentleman's amendment will tie our hands and have 
Congress engaged in a debate when the American people want us to act 
quickly to protect men and women in uniform and to respond to an 
emergency.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. It is just a 
question of what the language actually does, because he is absolutely 
correct. I want us to be able to respond quickly as well. As I 
indicated, if it is a small amount of money, we could go back into the 
budget caps. If it is a large sum of money, a war in the Middle East, 
for example, which clearly does not fit into this rainy-day fund/budget 
reserve, if you will, we could in that situation pass special 
legislation overriding the budget reserve account legislation and we 
would actually add it to the budget in that particular way. But it 
would happen automatically. We would have to pass the legislation to do 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it makes us focus more crisply on what we are 
doing. I think it is the best way we can handle it. It is not perfect. 
I am not sitting here saying that we have perfection. I have not been 
able to find that yet. If I had, we probably would all be in agreement 
and we would not have to worry about this. But I think it is the best 
thing we can do. It makes us focus on the emergencies we know we can 
handle and bring them within the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a specific example of why this is not a good 
amendment. Before 1990, we had a reserve fund for the small business 
disaster loan fund. In those years when there were less than a normal 
number of disasters, the reserve was built up, and the reserve was 
there then when we had more than a normal number of disasters. It was 
abolished in 1990 out at Andrews Air Force Base at that big deal out 
there.
  Since that time, they have been trying to ask for an average of the 
amount that would be needed in the fund. They take the last 5 years, or 
I believe in this case it was 10 years, they dropped the high year and 
the low year and request an average. If the disasters for that year are 
less than the average, they are all funded. If they are above average 
in total, they are not going to be funded, if we have got an emergency. 
It is the ones that are above average, it is in those years we need the 
money faster, not slower.
  Mr. Chairman, this does not solve anything. We have already tried it 
now in the last 4 years with the SBA disaster loan fund and it just 
does not work. This ought to be turned down.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising in support of the Castle amendment. I want 
to speak first of all to the question about speed and being able to get 
to these things quickly. If we think about the events that went on last 
summer when we did not have this kind of a fund and we were trying to 
deal with the problems that we had in Iowa, we spent several weeks 
trying to come up with some sort of a rule, first of all, that would 
even allow us to get to the floor on the question of disaster relief. 
So I think that speed becomes something of a bogey in this when what we 
are to do is to get to something quickly. I do not think that that is 
really the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we ought to talk about is what is the 
purpose or what is the purpose of the gentleman from Delaware in 
creating this bill in the first place? That is essentially fiscal 
responsibility, so that we instead of having to go the Federal budget 
without funding that has already been appropriated in advance, we are 
doing it on a happenstance, after-the-fact basis. It is just not good 
business. It is not the way that business prepares for itself. It is 
not the way that we ought to be preparing for ourselves in the United 
States Government.
  It is common sense to plan ahead. It is common sense to create a 
contingency fund. Most importantly what will not happen is we will not 
have the kind of abuse, the kind of exploitation of the emergency 
supplemental that we have seen repeatedly over time after time after 
time where we used that as an excuse to generate some extra spending 
for particular districts.
  I think that that is particularly why the Citizens Against Government 
Waste has written to endorse this bill. We say, ``Why are they 
endorsing it?''
  Because the base bill, according to them, is ``meaningless, it lacks 
even the cosmetic changes to solve the problem of uncontrolled pork-
barrel spending on emergency appropriations. It deserves strong 
bipartisan support.''
  It goes on, ``Not only is its planning fiscally prudent but it also 
removes the incentive for Congress to use the events of human suffering 
and tragedy to add pork to congressional portfolios.''
  Finally, with respect to the concern that the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin] has about Desert Storm funding, it would be part of the 
same debate, it would all take place at the same time, so that it could 
be dispatched at that time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Castle 
amendment. I do not want to cast aspersions on it, but it is actually 
worse than the Johnson amendment, because we are talking about specific 
numbers. We are not talking about a formula. This would directly affect 
the allocation for military construction as it would for defense 
spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Construction and serve on the Defense Subcommittee. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] spoke very eloquently about what the Johnson 
amendment would do to defense.
  We saw military construction last year, they asked for $1.6 billion 
that was asked to be cut from military construction. We talk about 
quality of life and we talk about things that we can do. But under this 
amendment, we would have to take drastic cuts in military construction. 
We had some 70 Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, 
that requested what I assumed to be legitimate projects in the military 
construction budget. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] requested 
a project in his district. But under this amendment, we would not have 
been able to do these projects for Members. I am assuming that they 
were legitimate, needed projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this is very ill-advised and I would urge 
Members to take a very close look at it and how it affects especially 
what I am focusing on, our military establishment, our quality of life 
for our men and women who served in the Gulf, who serve us in these 
peacekeeping efforts, look very closely, because military spending is 
discretionary spending, and we are going to have to take the hit on 
half of whatever it is that goes into these amendments.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his 
statement. We serve together on the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
Committee on Appropriations. This would have a dramatic impact at this 
point, especially when we have reduced defense spending by over $100 
billion in the last 10 years. I commend the gentleman for his 
statement. He is absolutely correct.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind Members that would 
have a tendency to vote for this amendment, there are some 70 Members 
on both sides of the aisle that requested projects. Some 70 of them got 
projects. I assume they were legitimate. But we cannot have it both 
ways, fellows. We cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge people to take a very close look and vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made some very astute comments, and I 
think they deserve discussion and I think it is part of the discussion 
we have to have in general to come up with a solution to this
  First, we are talking about on average now, without dictating 
obviously what the budget committees might do in the future, around $5 
billion total that would have to go into a rainy day fund or budget 
reserve account that we are dealing with here. This would come out of 
funds that already exist.
  In a budget of $1.5 trillion, we are dealing with about $500 billion 
or so that may relate to some of the discretionary spending. Clearly 
not all of this is military spending, although some of it is military 
spending. Each year we have a number of appropriations. Just last week 
we were debating the crime bill on which we are dealing with some $33 
billion, for example, over a 6-year period, I believe, that would be 
spent to try to reduce crime.
  We make decisions on a regular basis. Once we have made the decision 
to include this amount of money in our budget appropriations each year, 
I do not think we will have any trouble fitting it in, and I do not 
think for a minute it is all going to come out of the military. I for 
one am not wanting to reduce that any more than we have to as it is. 
And it has been reduced dramatically in recent years.
  Curiously enough, if this proposal has been before us 4 or 5 years 
ago when we started to reduce the military budget, we could have 
resolved the problem by putting it in at that time based on some of 
those reductions. I think that has probably gone far enough at this 
point.
  Mr. Chairman, I do believe we can go through that budget and find 
other areas where reductions could be made, where expenditures could be 
saved, in which we could fit in a budget reserve account, and then we 
would not have the problem of adding to the deficit each year and to 
the debt of the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, that is all I am driving at, for this amendment and 
some of the other things I have talked about here, simply trying to 
make the budget process of this Congress work in such a way that we are 
attacking the problem with the deficit and we are attacking the problem 
of the debt of the United States of America.

                              {time}  1350

  I believe this is one step we are going to have to take.
  So far I have not heard a better solution or suggestion. If there is 
one, then by God I am going to back that one as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
There are a lot of concerns expressed here, but my concern is the 
speculative nature of this amendment. If Members like to gamble, then I 
think they would love the uncertainties associated with this amendment. 
First we have to guess at what number will turn up, what number to put 
in this jackpot, if you will, and guess what natural disasters and 
national security emergencies are going to occur during the next year. 
Then everybody after that loses, just like in most gambling.
  Money for this emergency jackpot, if you will, is taken from the 
602(a) allocations, and that is reducing the total amount now available 
under previously negotiated, tight caps, tightly negotiated by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the Committee on the Budget. 
That takes money away from defense, make no mistake about it, and it 
takes it away from all discretionary spending.
  For example, let us assume that this emergency jackpot amounts to 
$11,900,000,000 already spent for declared disasters this year. Just 
taking one category of funding, crime fighting, Mr. Chairman, the crime 
fighting fund category would lose a total of at least $347 million. 
That is significant. We are going through a process right now, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and our fine subcommittee and this 
whole Chamber of trying to apply resources to this national emergency.
  This reduction, under the Castle amendment, would undo the law 
enforcement enhancements appropriated in fiscal year 1995. The FBI, for 
example, is provided an increase over fiscal 1994 levels to restore 
agent strength back to the 1992 levels. This amendment would cut an 
estimated $60 million from the FBI and prevent the hiring of 
approximately 400 badly needed agents.
  The Drug Enforcement Administration is provided an increase over 
fiscal 1994 levels to restore agent strength back to 1992 levels, and 
this amendment would cut an estimated $20 million from DEA and prevent 
the hiring of an anticipated 300 badly needed agents.
  With regard to Border Patrol agents that we worked so hard to 
enhance, in order to beef up the southern border of the United States 
to keep out illegal aliens, this amendment would cut $40 million and 
drastically reduce the thousand agents that we are adding in this bill.
  That is not all, Mr. Chairman. Under this proposal, any additional 
emergency money needed in excess of the jackpot fund, a fund we are 
going to guess at how much we are going to need, would have to be 
offset, another uncertainty, another gamble, further reducing crime 
fighting monies.
  Finally, if there happens to be any jackpot money left over, it 
cannot be applied to crime fighting. It goes back to the treasury, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I consider this to be budgetary extremism, not 
intended to be--but still budgetary extremism. It is a kind of 
budgetary one-upsmanship, and we cannot just be stampeded into voting 
for budget proposals which are essentially gambles. The only real 
unknown here is how much are we all going to be losers, how much are we 
going to reduce crime fighting, national defense, and make no mistake 
about it, to significantly reduce all discretionary spending.
  I hope this amendment is defeated.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining 
and I have no other requests for time. I would like to reserve the 
right to close; I think I have that right.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, he has the right to close 
debate and reserves the balance of his time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this 
amendment, because while it claims to be a rainy day amendment, it 
provides no exception if you have a flood or a hurricane or a truly 
draconian disaster.
  It is a good idea to have a rainy day fund. I do not have any 
objection to that. I am willing to work with Members in trying to 
strengthen that idea. But to say that there will be no exceptions, to 
say that regardless of the disaster incurred by this country, 
regardless of whether we are hit by a nuclear attack, regardless of 
whether or not we wind up having a war in Korea, or a Desert Storm, to 
say that regardless of any national security consideration we will not 
have an exception to this rule is, in my view, muddleheaded.
  I would also suggest when the gentleman says do not worry, if it is a 
real emergency Congress can always pass more legislation to fix it up, 
I would suggest that demonstrates the fallacy of this amendment. We 
cannot put this country at risk. We cannot put ourselves in a position 
where we will have to count on being able to get through a Senate 
filibuster, for instance, and say well, do not worry about that, we 
will take care of it at the time. We ought to see ahead, we ought to 
recognize that there are some emergencies which are unknowable. We 
cannot expect that God himself must ask for a budget waiver. We have to 
be reasonable.
  Members can be reasonable by rejecting this amendment, sitting down 
and working with the committee to try to work out what is truly a rainy 
day fund. But to suggest that somehow we ought to put an average number 
in this account does not take into account the fact that one year we 
have an $11 billion problem and the next year we have a zero billion 
dollar problem. It makes no sense. This country does not live on 
averages.
  I urge Members to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about what the Castle amendment 
would do to defense. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] mentioned 
the fact he did not want to cut defense. I know he and I feel exactly 
the same way about that. However the reality is that his amendment 
would have a dramatic adverse impact on the national security of this 
country.
  All of us would like to see a fund set aside for emergencies. But if 
we take an across-the-board cut for such a fund, it would amount to 
perhaps $5 to $6 billion out of defense. What are the things that would 
be cut? The first thing would be pay. Why do I pick out pay? The 
Pentagon this year did not send a pay raise down to us. The Congress 
had to insist on it and rightly so. It is something that the troops 
deserved. They are deployed away from home more often. They are away 
from their families, and it is something that certainly they deserve. 
The raise we included was not adequate, but at least it was a little 
bit to help out.
  The second thing to be cut by this proposal would be medical care for 
the families and for the people in the service. I have taken a personal 
interest in trying to increase the quality of medical care for the 
people in the military.
  The other thing that would be depleted, reduced, is the readiness of 
our American Forces. We right now have a backlog of real property 
maintenance, a backlog of $12 billion. We have a backlog of $2 billion 
in depot maintenance. These are the accounts for maintaining war-
fighting facilities and equipment used by our military. They are the 
heart of readiness for the military. If we take another $5 to $6 
billion across the board from the military, those are the programs that 
would have to be reduced in order to get the money to make the 
expenditures for day-to-day operations to keep the military going.
  An extremely high percentage of our military budget is for personnel 
costs. So they have fewer places to get funds for reductions. Our 
readiness would be affected by this amendment. With this amendment the 
way it works we can say we are going to look someplace other than 
defense, but 50 percent of the discretionary money in the budget is for 
the military. So there is no place else to look.
  We have to be realistic and practical about this. If we are going to 
offer an amendment like this, it is going to affect the military. We 
cannot afford any cuts in the military. We cannot afford any cuts in 
the military because it will affect readiness dramatically.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just going to speak as plainly as I can to what we 
have heard today.
  First of all, there are some very knowledgeable and erstwhile Members 
of this Congress who have taken the floor to oppose this amendment, 
something I do not particularly like, but something which I appreciate.
  They have articulated their message, I think, extraordinarily well. 
Their argument basically is it would be very difficult to do this even 
though it might be a good idea simply because we would have to make 
reductions in areas that we do not want to make reductions in.
  I think the problem is a little bit broader than this. The people at 
home are saying, ``What is wrong with the Federal Government? Why 
cannot the Federal Government actually get its expenditures to the 
level that they are balancing the budget, that they are dealing with 
the problems which they have?''
  In my view, there are many mechanisms by which we can do this. One 
which I serve on is the entitlement commission. It is meeting, and 
while that is not the money we are necessarily talking about here, if 
we reduce those entitlements, we may eventually free up other money to 
go into discretionary accounts.
  Secondly is dealing with all discretionary accounts, not just the 
military budget, which is a substantial part of it, but all other 
accounts which are there. There is a substantial amount of money there. 
I am sure we can go in and do something about that, perhaps dealing 
with some of the areas of cost of living, some of the other things 
which are done in that particular circumstance.
  Most States recognize their problems. They, too, had problems 
balancing their budgets. Most States have adopted rainy-day funds so 
they are able to take care of these problems.
  I think when we talk about putting the country at risk, are we 
putting the country any less at risk every time we have some sort of 
emergency just adding onto the deficit for that year and ultimately 
adding onto our debt so our children and their children are going to be 
paying higher and higher debt, and as of yesterday, a higher interest 
perhaps on that debt?
  That is huge problem in the United States of America today, one the 
average family or the average municipal government simply cannot carry.
  We have to address this problem, and we have to address the amount of 
spending that comes into these emergency appropriations.
  I believe this legislation addresses that. We are saying set aside a 
sum of money, be very careful about your spending on emergencies, if 
you have a small amount you have to go back in for, you can go back in 
and make adjustments and do something about that and, indeed, if you 
have a substantial problem, then we could pass legislation which would 
go beyond the budget restraints which are there. So we could address 
the problems of emergencies in the United States of America.
  This is not calculus. It is relatively simplistic, a relatively 
simplistic solution, one which is extraordinarily workable.
  Mr. Chairman for that reason, I would ask each and every one of us to 
think about what we campaigned on back home, think about how we are 
trying to balance the budget, be conservative in our spending, vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. DERRICK, Mr. Chairman, the fundamental problem with the Castle 
amendment is that it requires us to foresee and budget for the 
unforeseeable. If we could foresee emergencies, we could budget for 
them. If we knew a hurricane was going to strike Delaware and other 
States on the east coast next month an cause several billion dollars in 
damage, then we could indeed set aside the money to help the victims. 
But we do not know that. It may be a decade before we have such an 
event. It may be next week. Whenever it happens, we have no idea what 
it will cost. Under these circumstances it is difficult to budget 
accurately--the reason the emergency exception was included in the 
first place.
  In the meantime, the money which the Castle amendment would require 
be set aside for catastrophes could address the ongoing needs of our 
citizens for education, national defense, environmental cleanup, and so 
forth. We have countless very real needs in this country which we can 
identify. We have roads that need repair. We have hungry children who 
need food. We have diseases afoot that cry out for more research 
dollars. We have many more children who need head Start than we have 
places for. There is no shortage of needs for scarce Federal resources.
  We can take money away from these real, identifiable needs and set it 
aside on speculation that we will have a disaster somewhere worthy of 
Federal help. If we want to neglect the needs we know we have in an 
attempt to advance-fund needs we may never have, we can do that. But I 
do not think it makes sense.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, setting aside annually a pot of money to 
fund emergencies may actually lead to even more requests for Federal 
disaster money. We all understand that pots of money are very enticing. 
People want to get their hands on it. Since the amendment says the 
funds in the reserve account may be used only for emergencies, all one 
has to do to get into the pot of money is declare an emergency.
  We all know what emergencies are as we use the term today. There are 
things like natural disasters, which strike without warning on a 
nonrecurring basis. But with a pot of money around, we will undoubtedly 
start to have emergencies. Will we be able to resist political 
pressures to enlarge the scope of what we call emergencies and spend 
the money? In other words, Mr. Chairman, is it not likely that by 
budgeting for emergencies we will ultimately have as many emergencies 
as we budget for until the money is gone, every year? It seems to me 
that is what we risk by making emergencies a line item in the budget, 
as the amendment proposes. At least now they are unusual occurrences 
and treated as such.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose the Castle amendment. In the 
long run it could end up costing more money. It would definitely 
shortchange the needs we know we have to fund needs we do not know we 
have. That is not the best way to serve the citizens of this country. 
The base bill addresses the problem of nonemergency items in emergency 
bills. Support the base bill.
  Mr. QUINN, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the former Governor of 
the State of Delaware, Mr. Castle.
  I am a cosponsor of Representative Castle's amendment, H.R. 4189, 
because I believe it is a sound approach to improve the way this body 
deals with national disasters.
  For too long, several Members of this body have attached unnecessary, 
nonemergency spending to emergency funding bills, which provide crucial 
assistance to thousands of Americans in need every year.
  Congress can not protect Americans from natural disasters such as 
earthquake and floods. However the Castle Amendment will supply the 
tools necessary to aid those affected by such devastating events.
  The Castle amendment will require the Federal Government to prepare 
for emergencies the same way that State and local governments do.
  Congress would set aside funds in a budget reserve account every year 
so that it would be prepared for inevitable emergencies. This account 
would be on-budget and part of the annual appropriations process.
  If these funds were not used during a particular year, they would be 
returned to the U.S. Treasury.
  Simply put, the Castle amendment will force us to plan ahead.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to restore accountability to budgeting 
for natural disasters.
  Vote for the Castle amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore Mr. Rahall). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 235, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 401]

                               AYES--184

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Becerra
     Chapman
     Derrick
     Flake
     Grams
     Hunter
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     Michel
     Moran
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Slattery
     Spence
     Sundquist
     Thomas (WY)
     Washington

                              {time}  1423

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Derrick against.
       Mr. Spence for, with Mr. Becerra against.

  Mr. YATES and Mr. MFUME changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LEWIS of Kentucky, PALLONE, DEUTSCH, and GILMAN changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________