[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3227-H3272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER 
            ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but 
opposed to the choices.
  Greek history gives us the term pyrrhic victory, meaning that one 
army found against another and won but was so weakened by the time that 
it won that it could not go on to fight other battles.
  This choice pitting veterans programs which we need to fund, and I 
will support, and I hope we accept this amendment, pitted against 
AmeriCorps, which does not have pork, which is at the grassroots, which 
Speaker Gingrich signed a letter supporting AmeriCorps, a program run 
out of the University of Notre Dame last year.
  We should not be pitting these programs against each other. Why not 
cut the CIA's $28 billion budget $206 million? Why not section 936 of 
the Tax Code? Better choices should be in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to substitute for the amendment 
the restoring of the full $206 million for the Veterans budget without 
any offsetting cut.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no amendment in writing.
  Mr. FILNER. Do you want to force us to choose between----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Let's get some order around 
here.
  Mr. FILNER. I have the time.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] wants to force us to 
choose through his objection between the veterans and service 
opportunities for our young people.

                              {time}  1630

  I think this is hypocrisy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's unanimous-consent request was out of 
order. The gentleman is recognized for debate only.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, there is obviously a new game being played 
in Washington. It is called bait and switch. The rules are simple. 
Propose massive and irresponsible budget cuts and then 2 weeks later 
stand up in front of the TV cameras and claim you are fighting to 
restore the very cuts you have initiated.
  I am tired of this hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. We should not be having 
choices between our veterans and our opportunities for our young 
people.
  Regular order in this Nation is not being followed by this budget.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if Members are going to be yielded 45 
seconds at a time, are they not supposed to stick to the 45 seconds and 
not carry it to a minute and one-half?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Then let us abide by the rules of the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield three-quarters of a minute to the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to restore the rescission of 
$206 million for veterans affairs, but I question the wisdom of trying 
to take the money away from a program that is a yearly program, an 
expenditure program. When we take $206 million out of Americorps we are 
actually taking $1 billion away in 5 years.
  I think the reasonable proposal was made here by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut who proposed that capital expenditure programs be 
substituted by another capital expenditure program in NASA for projects 
that have not even been authorized.
  I ask the leadership of the other side of the aisle to reconsider on 
their conditions. It is unfair to take a capital expenditures program 
and offset it with expenditures in the regular program because it is 5 
times in 5 years the savings that you take.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues whether they like it or not this 
is a raid on veterans programs. And what concerns me is later on the 
budget will be coming out; how much are they going to cut the veterans 
programs? How much is the appropriations going to come back and cut 
veterans programs gain?
  I reluctantly will support the amendment, but I do not think this is 
the right way to do it. I asked for a clear amendment earlier and I did 
not get it, so I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 1 minute 
remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time, and I would 
simply say this in closing: I urge Members to vote for this amendment. 
But I would also urge Members to recognize the cynical situation that 
is presented to us by the majority party. The fact is that it is their 
party who proposed the $200 million cut in veterans funding in the 
first place. They have now chosen to prevent us from restoring that 
money by going to a more benign source such as the bloated NASA budget. 
Instead they want to go after the domestic volunteer program.
  It is a lousy choice but I think the record is clear that the 
Democratic Party intends to keep its commitment to veterans no matter 
what the political machinations on the other side of the aisle.
  I urge support for the amendment, misguided though half of it is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 45 seconds 
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the last comment of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] was probably the most correct one. This is an 
issue of policy. Do not allow politics to overtake policy and try to 
think of other reasons. I am one who gave the suggestion that this 
should be taken out of Americorps.
  Listen to some of the testimony before the Readiness and Personnel 
Subcommittees of the House National Security Committee.
  The Marine Corp Sargeant Major testified that for the first time 
since 1980 the Marine Corp missed its fiscal year 1994 recruiting 
goals.
  If we look at DOD's fall 1994 Youth Attitudes and Awareness Survey, 
after hearing about Americorps, 47 percent 
 [[Page H3228]] of the prospects would rather consider Americorps over 
service in the United States military.
  Just yesterday Lieutenant General Shoup testified the propensity to 
enlist now is the lowest it has been in 10 years and it has fallen 39 
percent amont 16- to 21-year-olds.
  The facts speak for themselves.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 15 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, in a year when our nation is recognizing 
the great contribution of our World War II veterans, we must redouble 
our commitment to those who have served our country--not renege on the 
promises we made to them.
  America owes a tremendous debt to all of our veterans and their 
families. At a time when many of our veterans need more health care 
services, the House is considering a rescission package that originally 
would have cut $206 million for medical equipment and medical 
facilities for veterans. Specifically, there were proposed cuts of $50 
million from medical equipment for our ill-equipped Veterans Hospitals, 
and $156 million from construction projects for veterans facilities. 
Those cuts say to our veterans: ``You were there when we needed you, 
but now that you need us we've forgotten you.''
  In order to restore the $206 million, the Republicans are forcing 
cuts to be made in other programs. This Nation's veterans should not be 
arbitrarily placed in competition with other federal programs in order 
to fund new spending initiatives. Veterans are entitled to advanced 
medical care, compensation for disabilities, benefits for families and 
freedom from government redtape--they must not be forced to compete for 
scarce federal resources.
  We must never forget the promises remade to our veterans and their 
families. We must maintain and improve the quality of care they 
receive. Our nation is proud of our veterans, and they have earned our 
gratitude and respect. We must keep the commitment our country has made 
to them.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stump amendment 
to H.R. 1158.
  This amendment provides us with a chance to maintain the commitment 
to our veterans that we entered into when they chose to give of 
themselves for us.
  The $206 million this amendment would restore to the Veterans' 
Affairs budget is vital to providing our veterans with more modern 
outpatient care and catching up with the current backlog of essential 
medical equipment purchases. Without this money, the VA would not be 
able to provide improved, more cost-effective outpatient-based medical 
services to areas servicing over 1.2 million veterans. Furthermore, the 
VA would not be able to meet existing healthcare system equipment 
needs.
  Our Nation's veterans deserve our highest priority. It is hardly 
fiscally irresponsible to oppose this rescission. In fact, the funds in 
the Stump amendment promote fiscal responsibility.
  Last year, VA hospitals provided care for 26.3 million outpatients. 
This amendment would allow for the construction of six desperately 
needed outpatient clinics. Without them, the VA would have to continue 
to rely on expensive inpatient care, when outpatient visits can provide 
our veterans more modern and cost-effective assistance. These clinics 
are fundamental to our commitment of providing our veterans with the 
best care available. Outpatient clinics provide better care to a larger 
number of veterans for maximum return on the dollar.
  This $206 million recession is not in the best interest of America's 
veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Stump Amendment and show 
America's veterans that we are committed to providing them with the 
care they deserve.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The choice presented to us in this amendment is unnecessary, unwise 
and, in my opinion, represents a distortion of the debate over our 
Federal budget priorities. Beyond the requirements of the current rule 
of debate, there is no reason for this House to pit health services for 
our Nation's veterans against a program to encourage our young people 
to devote themselves to community service.
  It is a false choice, dictated by the unjust rule under which we are 
considering this bill, and I will vote ``present'' on the amendment.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Stump 
amendment to restore funding to the veterans programs that have been 
cut in this bill. As a nation, we have asked veterans to put their 
lives in harms way to preserve our freedom. Many have given the 
ultimate sacrifice, and many more have suffered severe and debilitating 
injuries that they carry with them each and every day. As a nation, we 
have also asked these veterans to take cut, after cut, after cut to 
fund the modest programs to provide adequate health care. They have 
always responded ``we'll do our fair share.'' Mr. Chairman, there is 
enough fat existing in the Federal Government that other programs 
should be cut before we ask the veterans of America to make yet another 
sacrifice.
  The amendment before us restores $206 million needed for VA 
outpatient clinics and essential medical equipment purchases. These 
clinics will provide outpatient services at a much lower cost than if 
these services were delivered from a large hospital. The medical 
equipment cut of $50 million would only add to the $800 million backlog 
in needed medical equipment that already exists.
  In order to restore these funds to the VA, the amendment reduces 
funding from Americorp. In my opinion, Americorp shouldn't be in 
existence at all. It's another example of a big, unnecessary Federal 
program that is a nice idea, but unwarranted in the wake of our budget 
problems. Furthermore, Americorp, which was created by the National 
Service Act, undermines and trivializes military service as a form of 
duty to country. Not only does Americorp provide these paid-volunteers 
the same educational benefits as military personnel under the GI bill, 
but the military member must pay $1,200 into this fund. The paid 
volunteer pays nothing into the Americorp fund.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores necessary and important funding 
to the VA and offsets these costs with prudent cuts from an unnecessary 
Federal program. Let's do the right thing and support the veterans of 
America; vote yes on the Stump amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Stump amendment to this rescission package.
  Let me explain why. First of all, the Stump amendment does not lessen 
this package of much-needed reductions. We'll pay for it by reducing 
what American taxpayers are forced to shell out for a Federal volunteer 
program, AmeriCorps.
  The rescissions bill is still a $17 billion blow to big government--
and a $17 billion victory for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, a conservative view of the Federal Government's role 
holds that there aren't really that many things the Federal Government 
needs to be involved in.
  Most Americans don't believe that everything good has to come from a 
Washington politician or bureaucrat.
  We should all realize that a monstrous, expensive Federal Government 
is threatening our way of life.
  But among the chief missions only the Federal Government can fulfill 
is that of national security. And Mr. Chairman, an effective military 
demands that we take proper care of the men and women who have put 
their lives on the line for our country.
  It also happens to be the honorable thing to do. But we have not 
always done so in the past.
  The military is not an easy way of life--even in peacetime.
  Service men and women usually have little choice over their duty 
station. They spend months at sea, or in a tent--away from their loved 
ones.
  And if we go to war, they can be ordered to the front lines to 
possibly lay down their lives for our country.
  Of course, even in peacetime, the military can be a dangerous 
profession.
  Mr. Chairman, the 104th Congress must do a better job of taking care 
of our active duty and retired military personnel.
  We began to address the needs of our active duty service men and 
women with the National Security Restoration Act.
  The Stump amendment will save $156 million for veterans and help us 
address their needs.
  The sad fact is that America has often betrayed its veterans in the 
past. How many of the brave men and women of Operation Desert Storm are 
sick and don't know why?
  Thousands of young men and women in the prime of their lives--many of 
them reservists--don't have the energy to return to work.
  We owe it to them to see that they're taken care of.
  We are cutting dozens of big government programs today, Mr. 
Chairman--many of which are duplicated elsewhere, or filled with waste, 
fraud and abuse.
  But I suggest now is not the time to turn away from the needs of our 
men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote ``yes'' for the Stump amendment today. And 
I urge my colleagues to devote some of their energy in the future to 
taking better care for those who have taken care of us.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It came 
as no surprise to anyone that one of the few programs President Clinton 
proposes to increase in his recently released budget is his pet 
project, AmeriCorps. But does this program really warrant the kind of 
unwavering support the President would have us give it?
   [[Page H3229]] We keep hearing that this is one program that works 
because the volunteers themselves and the communities they assist seem 
happy with it. But why shouldn't they? The communities receive services 
that are paid for by the Federal Government rather than local 
taxpayers. As for the AmeriCorps participants, they receive a stipend 
of $7,500 and $4,700 in educational credits for 1,700 hours of work 
which is a little more than 10 months at 40 hours a week for--quote--
volunteering. In 1995 the program is expected to spend over $24,000 per 
volunteer. Supporters will cry foul at the use of that number since it 
includes administrative costs and the average participant doesn't 
receive that amount. But the President claimed in his State of the 
Union Address that the program is ``changing the way government works 
because there's no bureaucracy at all.'' We are spending $24,000 per 
volunteer. If there is no bureaucracy and the volunteers don't get it 
all where is the money going?
  Clearly the fact that those who benefit from a Federal program are 
happy with it does not prove its worth to the taxpayers. So what other 
ways do we have to evaluate the program? The President says that the 
program will rekindle the spirit of community and mutual cooperation. 
This is a example of the belief that if the Government doesn't do it, 
it doesn't happen. The President ignores the 80 million Americans--
about a third of the population--who currently volunteer their time for 
no compensation. I assert that they represent a spirit of community or 
sacrifice more than do the 47,000 AmeriCorps volunteers who are 
compensated. The volunteers across this Nation didn't & don't need a 
Government program to encourage them to give of their time to make 
their community a better place.
  Another problem with taxpayer financed volunteerism is that many 
activities which are just fine for someone truly volunteering his or 
her time, are inappropriate when Government funding is involved. That's 
surely true of political protest and advocacy--activities which are 
supposedly prohibited for AmeriCorps by law. We have probably all heard 
by now about the protests sponsored by the Association of Community 
Organizations for Reform Now--ACORN--which prevented our Speaker from 
addressing a lunch sponsored by the National Association of Counties. 
The National Service program has hired 42 volunteers for ACORN at a 
cost of over $1 million. National Service supporters point out that the 
volunteers were not involved in the protest, but we must ask why a 
service program is giving money to an organization the main function of 
which is political advocacy in the first place. Furthermore,
 according to the Los Angeles Times, Americorps volunteers in San 
Francisco's Summer of Safety program were used to organize a protest 
against last year's crime bill's ``three strikes and you're out'' 
provision. Americorps denies that this happened but the journalist who 
wrote the article stands behind her story. Is this a proper use of 
federally funded volunteers?

  Proponents also like to paint the program as a way to help young 
people pay for college. But the cost of one Americorps participant 
would pay for seven Pell grants. Moreover, you don't have to be in 
economic need to participate in Americorps. Why are we paying for the 
education of students whose parents may be wealthy or who themselves 
may have high after-school incomes while many low-income people cannot 
afford to send their kids to college? If our current student aid 
programs are not meeting the need, we should change those programs, not 
try to do it through the back door of Government jobs program.
  The President is ignoring the obvious; Government cannot program true 
volunteerism and cannot mandate acts of charity. This program 
undermines the volunteer spirit it was intended to foster.
  We have heard a great deal about the importance of the veterans 
programs this rescissions bill seeks to cut. Well, we would all like to 
increase funding for any justifiable program. I don't want to cut 
veterans either. But it is time to be responsible. If veterans programs 
are to be restored we should make the cuts elsewhere and the national 
service program, which duplicates other Government programs and private 
efforts, compromises true volunteerism, and puts Federal tax dollars to 
questionable uses, is a good place to start.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill cuts 
approximately $206 million from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The 
money will be taken from the Veterans Health Administration, which 
provides important services to our Nation's veterans. American 
veteran's have earned their health care through blood and sacrifice and 
deserve better. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's veterans should be honored 
for their heroic deeds, not punished. How can we expect the military to 
protect us when we don't honor the contract we made with our veterans? 
I support the Stump amendment which would restore the $206 million to 
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask the 
Members to support what is now the Stump-Lewis-Young-Solomon--and even 
Obey--amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 382, 
noes 23, answered ``present'' 27, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                               AYES--382

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     [[Page H3230]] Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--23

     Abercrombie
     Bentsen
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Johnston
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Moran
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Sabo
     Serrano
     Shays
     Stark
     Torres
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--27

     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Hilliard
     Kaptur
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mineta
     Reynolds
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Schroeder
     Studds
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--2

       
     Collins (MI)
     Cubin

                              {time}  1657

  Mr. STARK and Mr. HALL of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. UPTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mrs. SCHROEDER, Messrs. MARTINEZ, REYNOLDS, and RUSH, Mrs. COLLINS of 
Illinois, and Messrs. CLAY, HILLIARD, VENTO, and YATES changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO and Mr. WARD changed their vote from ``present'' to 
``aye.''
  Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yates

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 13, 
which is made in order by the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Strike section 307 (page 
     14, line 17 and all that follows through line 24 on page 27).

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and ask for time 
on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
                              {time}  1700

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to strike the so-called 
Taylor amendment. The Taylor amendment is a timber lobbyist's dream. It 
deals with salvage sales, and under its definition the salvage 
amendment will salvage our forests. Among the phrases in the 
amendment's definition of salvage are the following: the removal of 
associated trees imminently susceptible to fire, insect attack.
  The Bureau of Land Management noted in a recent memo, quote, the 
definition of salvage timber sale is too broad; speaking of the Taylor 
amendment it is too broad, and is more or less a license for 
unregulated timber harvest.
  What does this amendment do? It almost doubles the cutting of timber 
from our national forests over the amount cut last year. At the same 
time it suspends all environmental laws protecting the preservation of 
our forests.
  On the question of how much will this cost the government, Mr. 
Chairman, the sky is the limit. As stated in the amendment, the 
language of the amendment itself, quote, salvage timber sales 
undertaken pursuant to this section shall not be precluded because the 
costs of such activities are likely to exceed the revenues derived from 
such activities. This could mean the government is required to unload 
much of the new timber even if it has to give it away. These sales are 
called deficit timber sales, money losers which are most frequently 
salvaged timber sales.
  I say to my colleagues, once you peal away the misrepresentation of 
rhetoric, you realize that this amendment literally suspends every law 
governing management of the public forests, including those that 
protect fish, wildlife, water quality, and recreation and the jobs that 
depend on such critically important forest resources.
  But this amendment does not stop there. It turns off judicial due 
process in standing court cases by overturning every past court 
decision in the country that protects timber sales. It bars public 
comment on these timber sales and eliminates administrative appeals.
  Legislative committees in both the house and the Senate are now 
considering this question: Why should we permit a quick fix in an 
appropriations bill for a 13-page legislative amendment? The rules of 
the House which prevent legislation from being included in the 
appropriations bills should be sustained in this instance.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment which will strike the 
Taylor amendment from the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the subcommittee of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in 1989 a 2-by-4, 
8 feet long, was $1.75. Today that same 2-by-4 is $3.02
  Now what that means is that as young people in America want to 
achieve the American dream of owning a home, they are going to pay an 
extra 5 to $7,000 more for timber.
  The point of that is that let us take advantage of this salvage. It 
is salvaged timber. It is diseased, burned; it is not live trees.
  There are three reasons we need to do this, and one is that these 
trees are a threat and fire hazard because, if they stay there, they 
fall over and become fuel for a forest fire that will hit living trees.
  Second, we need to clean the land so that it can be regenerated. Part 
of the money that is earned by these salvage sales will be used to 
replant, reforest, the land so that the wildlife will have habitat in 
the future and there will be timber available in the future. Timber is 
a resource, but it is also a crop.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we salvage these burned and 
diseased trees that can be made into lumber like this if we do it 
within 2 years. Otherwise it rots, and it is no longer useful, no 
longer in the condition that can be made available for home building 
and for the things that we use timber for.
  For all of those reasons I think it is important that we get this 
salvage, harvest it, clean up the land, regenerate it for future 
generations, and I would point out that this is only a 2 year bill. It 
terminates at the end of 2 years for the simple reason that we have to 
do it or the trees will no longer be of the quality that can be used 
for saw logs.
  So I urge the Members to reject this amendment, leave the language in 
that is in.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, for too long the extremes in the debate 
over western forest management have dominated the stage. On one side 
there are those who oppose any timber harvests in our public lands, 
even if it is necessary to improve forest health and reduce the risk of 
catastrophic fires. On the other side there are those who would treat 
our national forests as little more than industrial tree farms, 
sacrificing even the most basic environmental protections in the 
interests of short-term profit.
  Last summer's western fires provided a hint of what may lie ahead. 
Catastrophic fires, unlike the low intensify fire regime that has been 
the historical norm, could devastate habitat for many declining and 
threatened species, including Columbia Basin salmon populations. An 
ecologically sensitive program of thinning. Controlled burning and 
salvage logging is essential to restore forest health across millions 
of acres in the West. If done with care, such a program could improve 
forest 
 [[Page H3231]] conditions while providing the secondary benefit of 
increased fiber supplies for our region's mills.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to offer a balanced alternative to 
this proposal today, but the Republican leadership would not allow it. 
The issue should never have been brought to the floor in this fashion. 
Salvage and forest health should be properly debated in the committees 
with jurisdiction and expertise and not written by special interests in 
the back rooms out of the public eye.
  This proposal lacks even the most basic environmental protections for 
steep, unstable slopes, fragile soils, critical riparian habitat, even 
wild and scenic rivers. It defines what is to be harvested as dead, 
dying, diseased or associated with the large stands of green timber to 
be harvested.
  I have legislated salvage before, but I did it properly in my first 
term in Congress. I played a major role in resolving a salvage 
controversy at least as contentious as the forest debate now raging 
here in Congress. The Silver Fire burned and erodes this area of the 
Siskiyou National Forest, long defended by environmental activists. 
That salvage was successfully done without harm. We could do the same 
across the Western United States if we were given the chance to offer a 
proper amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long, the extremes in the debate over western 
forest management have dominated the stage. On one side, are those who 
oppose any timber harvest on our public lands, even if it is necessary 
to improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic fires. On 
the other side, there are those who would treat our National Forests as 
little more than industrial tree farms, sacrificing even the most basic 
environmental protections in the interests of short-term profit.
  In my first term in Congress, I played a major role in resolving a 
salvage controversy at least as contentious as the forest health debate 
now raging in Congress. The Silver Fire burned in a roadless area of 
the Siskiyou National Forest long defended by environmental activists. 
The industry wanted to extend a road into the area and engage in 
wholesale salvage of dead and green timber. I was able to mediate an 
agreement that prevented new road building and green timber harvest, 
but allowed a significant amount of helicopter salvage of burned 
timber.
  Neither the industry nor the environmental community were entirely 
happy with the agreement we reached. But today the Silver Fire salvage 
stands as an example of environmentally sound salvage that had the 
additional benefit of providing a significant volume of timber.
  Today, I once again find myself somewhere between the extremes. On 
one side are those who oppose any thinning and salvage logging in the 
fire and pest-stricken forests of the West. On the other side are those 
who would throw all environmental protection out the window, and 
maximize timber production under the guise of a sound salvage program. 
Neither side has it right.
  Forests across the West are in the grip of an ecological crisis of 
unprecedented proportions. The forest health crisis is the result of 
long term drought and a century of human impacts in the form of fire 
suppression, timber harvesting, and the introduction of foreign pests, 
to name a few. The result is that millions of acres of public forest 
are in the worst shape they've ever been, victim to disease, insect 
infestation, and fire.
  Fire suppression has played a big part in undermining forest health. 
Controlling wildfires in forests where frequent, low intensity fires 
historically kept vegetation sparse has allowed a huge build-up of 
dense understory vegetation to take place. One study on the Boise 
National Forest in Idaho found that tree density on one site was about 
29 trees per acre for the 300-plus years before 1906. Today on the same 
site, tree density has increased to 533 trees per acre and the species 
composition has
 changed from predominantly Ponderosa pine to predominantly Douglas 
Fir.

  Last summer's Western wildfires provided a hint of what may lie 
ahead. Catastrophic fires, unlike the low-intensity fire regime that 
has been the historical norm, could devastate habitat for many 
declining and threatened species, including Columbia basin salmon 
populations.
  An ecologically sensitive program of thinning, controlled burning and 
salvage logging is essential to restoring forest health across millions 
of acres in the West. If done with care, such a program could improve 
forest conditions, while providing the secondary benefit of increased 
fiber supplies for the region's mills.
  We need legislation to help expedite a response to the forest health 
crisis in the West. But a sound salvage and forest health program needs 
some environmental safeguards. Unfortunately, the Taylor-Dicks 
amendment contains none. The Taylor-Dicks amendment would allow logging 
in Wild and Scenic River corridors and sensitive riparian and roadless 
areas, with no restrictions based on slope or soil conditions. Its 
definition of salvage is so broad that it opens the door to wholesale 
logging in the region's remaining old growth forests and roadless 
areas. This is not the balanced approach to forest management that most 
Oregonians want to see.
  By setting an arbitrary minimum timber sale level, while prohibiting 
any environmental considerations on the part of the Forest Service, the 
Taylor-Dicks salvage amendment guarantees that sensitive salmon streams 
will be damaged, roadless areas will be opened up to commercial timber 
harvest, and areas that are simply unsuitable for timber management 
will be logged. This is a proposal that lurches from one unacceptable 
extreme to the other. That's why I will vote against this proposal and 
hope we have the opportunity to craft a salvage bill that gets the job 
done while protecting the values that Oregonians share.
  I would have liked to offer a balanced alternative to this proposal 
today, but the Republican leadership wouldn't allow it. The issue 
should never have been brought to the floor in this fashion. Salvage 
and forest health should be properly debated in the committees with 
jurisdiction and expertise, not written by industry lawyers in 
backrooms out of the public eye.
  So I am faced with two unacceptable choices--an extreme salvage 
program with no environmental safeguards or the status quo, which is 
simply not getting the job done.
  It bears stating that the Forest Service is moving ahead with a 
salvage program, though slowly. The agency plans to offer at least 1.4 
billion board feet of salvage in each of the next 2 years. Assistant 
Secretary Lyons tells me they could offer even more if Congress would 
appropriate more money for sale preparation and other related 
activities. But this salvage bill contains no additional money for sale 
preparation.
  Oregonians, by and large, support policies that protect our 
environment and quality of life, without sacrificing our state's 
economic well-being. I hope to have an opportunity in the weeks ahead 
to offer a balanced Oregon alternative to the extreme log-it-at-all-
costs salvage approach offered here today. I believe I'll have the 
support of most of my state's citizens when I do so.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the sponsor of the amendment and a 
distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in 2 minutes I can tell 
my colleagues several things about this. First of all, it will restore 
forest health. Most of the things that have been said about it so far 
just are not true. Scientists recognize that the forests are undergoing 
a serious ecological decline because of a lack of management. Fire 
disasters, unnatural species compositions, disease, insect infestation; 
all of these are threatening the forest health, and this legislation 
which has been worked out with professionals, it has been worked out in 
consulting with the Forest Service, as many people as we could find to 
try to alleviate this emergency were brought in in this short period of 
time, and it is an emergency. Even the chief of the Forest Service, Mr. 
Chairman, has said we need to increase our salvage cutting for forest 
health.
  Second, there are tens of billions of dollars of revenue coming to 
the Treasury, or millions of dollars of revenue coming to the Treasury. 
It is not a loss. CBO scored it $37 million last year. FPA says it 
could be as much as $650 million. So it is a very positive revenue 
producer.
  Third, it will stabilize the cost of homes. It will create jobs, and 
that is why the home builders, and realtors and many others are 
supporting this. It will create thousands of jobs all across this 
country in a much needed area, putting timber in the pipeline, and that 
is why the Teamsters Union supports it. It is why the Western Council 
of Industrial Workers supports it, the United Paperworkers 
International Union supports it, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters 
supports it, the International Association of Machinists and the 
Association of Western Paperworkers, because these are men and women 
who make the livings of this country and recognize that this will 
produce jobs, and they are endorsing this amendment in this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an opportunity for us. It is an opportunity for 
us to 
 [[Page H3232]] provide forest health and to provide a good amendment 
to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the provisions of section 307 of H.R. 
1159, a measure co-authored by myself and Mr. Dicks, and supported 
strongly by a number of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee 
and on the authorizing committees with jurisdiction.
  I wish to outline the intent of the provision, and the direction we 
have provided to the agencies affected for two reasons. First, I wish 
to be sure that the requirements of the provision are not 
misrepresented as the debate over this bill continues to the other 
body. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I wish to provide clear 
direction to the implementing agencies, and do everything possible to 
assure that the agencies understand, and can execute the direction we 
have provided.
  To this latter end, the authors of section 307 have met several times 
with U.S. Forest Service Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, and his staff since 
the provision imposes most of its requirements on the Forest Service. 
The Chief and his staff have been quite helpful in reviewing the terms 
of section 307, suggesting modifications to assure that these 
requirements are technically correct, and evaluating the Forest 
Service's technical and operational capability to meet the requirements 
of section 307, including the volume targets for timber salvage. As a
 forester by training, I am very sensitive to saddling our Federal 
agencies with mandates that they are not able to implement.

  Based upon our discussion with Chief Thomas it is the clear 
understanding of the authors of section 307 that--aside from the 
question of whether the Clinton administration agrees with the goals of 
section 307 as a matter of politics and policy--the Forest Service can 
implement the provision of section 307 in a fashion that meets the 
timber salvage targets contained in this section. Today, I have sent a 
letter to Chief Thomas which I will include in the Record at the end of 
this statement. In this letter, I review with the Chief the intention 
of the authors of section 307 and our expectations about Forest Service 
implementation of the measure. I have asked the Chief for a prompt 
response so that, if there is any difference in interpretation, this 
can be reviewed during Senate consideration of the bill and any 
necessary adjustments can be made. If the measure passes both bodies 
and is signed into law, we expect appropriate implementing actions to 
carry out a clear congressional intent which is, itself, grounded in an 
understanding of agency capabilities.
  Now let me review the terms of section 307. Section 307 would provide 
authority and direction to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
Interior to conduct a 2-year emergency salvage timber sales program on 
lands of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 
The purpose of this one-time, short duration congressional mandate is 
to eliminate the extraordinary backlog of dead and dying trees on 
Federal lands in all regions of the country. This backlog has been 
created by the alarming decline in forest health and the unprecedented 
scale of wildfires over the last 2 years. Without an accelerated and 
dedicated response from the land management agencies in planning and 
conducting these emergency salvage timber sales, the decaying trees 
will soon lose any commercial value, thereby preventing harvesting and 
the timely accomplishment of reforestation and other restoration 
activities on the affected lands.
  The two Secretaries are directed to offer a sufficient number of 
salvage timber sales during the 2-year emergency period following 
enactment to ensure that a minimum of 3-billion board feet is sold each 
year on Forest Service lands and 115-million board feet is sold each 
year on BLM lands (subsec. (b)(2)).
  These volume targets were derived after extensive discussion with the 
Forest Service and BLM. The Forest Service targets were established 
after consultation with the Agency's field offices. They are statutory 
mandates that represent reasonable progress toward reducing the backlog 
of dead and dying timber on our Federal forests. The agencies have 
indicated that it is within their capability to achieve these targets 
and thereby improve the health of our Federal forests under the terms 
of section 307.
  A timber sale qualifies as a salvage timber sale that can be offered 
under the provisions of section 307 only if an important reason for the 
sale is the removal of diseased or insect-infested trees; dead, 
damaged, or down trees; or trees affected by fire or imminently 
susceptible to fire or insect attack. Removal of associated trees for 
the purpose of ecosystem improvement or rehabilitation can occur if the 
sale has an identifiable component of trees to be salvaged. (Subsec. 
(a)(4).)
  Salvage timber sales are to be offered whether or not revenues 
derived from the sales are likely to exceed the sales' costs (subsec. 
(c)(5)). In conducting the sales, the Secretaries are authorized to use 
salvage sale funds otherwise available to them (subsec. (b)(3)). But 
the Secretaries are not to substitute salvage timber sales under 
section 307 for planned non-salvage sales (subsec. (c)(7)).
  Section 307 does not permit any salvage timber sales on specifically 
protected lands, namely areas designed by Congress as units of the 
National Wilderness Preservation System, any roadless areas in Colorado 
or Montana which were specifically designated by acts of Congress by 
geographical name or map reference as Wilderness Study Areas, any 
roadless areas recommended by the Forest Service or BLM for wilderness 
designation in their most recent land management plans, and areas where 
timber harvesting for any purpose has been specifically prohibited by a 
specific statutory provision. This proscription does not include any 
prohibition in any regulation, land management plan, agency guidance, 
research study, or settlement agreement which purports to rely on 
general statutory authority (subsec. (g)(2)).
  This last distinction is important because we do not, even by 
inference, want to prohibit application of this section in areas where 
the agencies on their own have restricted timber harvesting. This 
includes agency initiatives such as the timber sale screens on the 
East-side of the Cascades and the California Spotted Owl Report, the 
following environmental assessment, and the pending draft Environmental 
Impact Statement. Whether and to whatever extent the agencies choose to 
restore the forest health by scheduling salvage sales in such areas, 
they are still bound to meet the salvage targets in subsection (b)(2) 
of this section.
  In order to ensure that the sales are conducted in a timely manner, 
section 307 requires the two land management agencies to follow certain 
schedules, expedited procedures, and reporting requirements. The 
schedule for offering timber sales requires that sales for at least 50 
percent of the volume each agency is directed to make available in the 
first year must be offered in the first 3 months after enactment, and 
sales for at least 50 percent of the volume each agency is directed to 
make available in the second year must be offered within 15 months 
after enactment. Sales for the remaining 50 percent of the volume 
required each year can be spread evenly throughout the remaining 9 
months of the year. (Subsec. (c)(2).) To track compliance with this 
schedule, the Secretaries are required to report to Congress every 3 
months throughout the 2-year emergency period on the sales and volumes 
offered during the last 3-month period and expected to be offered 
during the next 3-month period (subsec. (b)(2)).
  To meet this schedule, the Secretaries are admonished to use all 
available authority in preparing and advertising the salvage timber 
sales. This includes use of private contractors, and applying the type 
of expedited contracting procedures used to fight fires to the tasks of 
advertising and preparing salvage sales. To augment the available 
personnel, section 307 authorizes employment of former employees who 
received voluntary separation incentive payments under the Federal 
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-226) without applying the 
provisions of Section 3(d)(1) of P.L. 103-226. (Subsec. (c)(4).)
  Sale procedures are expedited by the requirement that each Secretary 
prepare a single document analyzing the environmental effects of each 
salvage sale. The level of analysis in this consolidated environmental 
analysis document is to be that normally contained in an environmental 
assessment (not an environmental impact statement) under the National 
Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] on the environmental impacts of the 
sale generally and in a biological evaluation under the Endangered 
Species Act [ESA] on any specific effects the sale may have on any 
endangered or threatened species. (Subsec. (c)(1).) The language of 
this provision is explicit that these are the only document and the 
only procedure required from
 an environmental standpoint to comply with existing laws and 
regulations (subsec.(c)(6)). For example, the agency does not have to 
prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact under NEPA, nor consult with 
the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service 
under the ESA after completing the consolidated environmental analysis 
document. Nor is an agency bound by any existing documents. On the 
other hand, if a NEPA document or a biological evaluation is already 
prepared for any particular sale by the date of enactment, a 
consolidated environmental analysis document need not be prepared for 
that sale. (Subsec. (c)(1).)

  Each Secretary is to make the decisions on a sale's configuration and 
whether to offer the sale on the basis of the consolidated 
environmental analysis document. The Secretary may decide to not offer 
the sale or to reduce the size of the sale for an environmental reason 
grounded in the consolidated environmental analysis document, but he 
must then determine if he can meet the applicable volume requirement on 
schedule. If he determines he cannot, he must substitute another sale 
or 
 [[Page H3233]] sales with volume equal to the shortfall. (Subsec. 
(c)(3).)
  The Secretary's decision, based on that consolidated environmental 
documentation, is deemed to satisfy all applicable environmental and 
land management laws (subsec. (c)(6)). This means, for example, that 
the Secretary cannot be sued for violation of the Clean Water Act, the 
provisions of the National Forest Management Act concerning species' 
viability, unsuitability, or consistency with the resource management 
plans, or the jeopardy or take standards of the Endangered Species Act. 
Furthermore, as indicated, a sale can be offered that does not comport 
with a resource management plan, or interim guidelines, or management 
directives. This provision is both reasoned and consistent with the 
one-time, emergency nature of section 307. Few if any such plans, 
guidelines, screens, or other agency guidance contemplated the dramatic 
decline in forest health and consequent unprecedented wildfires. 
Section 307 does not excuse long-term compliance with such agency 
guidance; instead, it permits only a one-time divergence therefrom. 
Without such temporary divergence, the very wildlife and other 
resources that the guidance is intended to protect may be destroyed or 
damaged, thereby rendering the guidance ineffective for the longer 
term. Finally, a sale can be offered even if it would be barred under 
any decision, injunction, or order of any federal court (subsec. 
(c)(8)).
  Expedited procedures continue to apply after the decision to offer a 
salvage timber sale. Section 307 bars an administrative appeal of any 
sale decision (subsec. (e)). This allows challengers to go directly to 
court and hastens a final disposition of the challenge--a disposition 
timely enough to permit the sale and harvesting of dead and dying 
timber if the court ultimately determines that the sale is legally 
valid.
  Finally as to expedited procedures, in language borrowed verbatim 
from previously enacted law (section 318 of Public Law 101-121), 
section 307 sets deadlines for challengers for filing and appealing 
lawsuits challenging salvage timber sales (15 days and 30 days, 
respectively) (subsec. (f)(1) and (7)) and for the district courts to 
decide the lawsuits (45 days, unless the particular court decides a 
longer period is necessary to satisfy Constitutional requirements) 
(subsec. (f)(5)). To protect challengers, the section requires that 
each challenged timber sale must be stayed by the appropriate agency 
for the same 45-day period in which the court hears and decides the 
case (subsec. (f)(2)). With a mandated automatic stay, restraining 
orders or preliminary injunctions are unnecessary and, therefore, are 
barred (subsec. (f)(3)).
  A court is free to issue a permanent injunction against, order 
modification of, or void an individual salvage timber sale if it 
determines that the decision to prepare, advertise, offer, award, or 
operate the sale was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in 
accordance with law (subsec. (f)(4)). As the sale is deemed by law to 
satisfy the environmental and land management laws (subsec. (c)(6)), 
the challengers must allege and prove to the court under this standard 
that the sale was arbitrary or capricious under, or violates a specific 
provision of section 307.
  The Secretaries' duties do not stop after the salvage timber sales 
are sold; they are directed to complete reforestation of the lands as 
expeditiously as possible after harvesting but no later than any 
periods required by law or the agencies' regulations. This last 
requirement is every bit as important as the rest of the section 
because it completes the forest restoration process and highlights the 
authors' commitment to sound forest stewardship.
  Section (i) of section 307 addresses another related timber supply 
problem of an emergency nature. In this case, the emergency involves 
government liability for failure to perform the terms of a contract.
  Previously-offered timber sales in the Northwest cannot be operated 
due to administrative delays and reviews. Many of these sales were 
mandated by Congress in Section 318 of the Department of Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1990, Pub. L. 101-121; 
others were offered in fiscal year 1991 and some more recently. Many of 
these sales were awarded to purchasers years ago; the government will 
have to pay tens of millions of dollars in contract buyouts if these 
sales were cancelled. Other sales were auctioned years ago but never 
awarded; in some cases the agencies rejected bids well after the 
auction due to administrative reviews and delays and changing 
standards. This is the case even though the preponderance of these 
sales were approved for harvest in the Record of Decision accompanying 
the President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, as not jeopardizing the 
continued existence of any of the numerous species of wildlife 
considered by that plan. The government will forego $207.8 million in 
timber receipts if these sales are not operated.
  Subsection 307(i)(1) frees up all these sales, saving the government 
over one hundred million dollars in buyout claims, generating the 
$207.8 million in revenues and immediately providing substantial 
amounts of timber for mills hurt by Federal supply reductions. It 
applies to all national forests and BLM districts that were subject to 
section 318 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, fiscal year 1990, Pub. L. 101-121; it applies 
throughout fiscal years 1995 and 1996, or longer as necessary, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law; and it requires full 
compliancy by the agencies within 30 days of the date of enactment of 
the section. It directs the award of all unawarded sales as originally 
advertised, whether or not bids on a sale previously rejected, and it 
directs the release of these sales and all other awarded sales in the 
affected area so that all the sales can be operated to completion, on 
their original terms, in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
  Subsection (i)(2) provides that agency compliance with this section 
will not provide a legal basis for a court to block an existing agency 
management plan, or to order an agency to change an existing plan. It 
leaves in place all other grounds unrelated to this section that may 
exist for any person to challenge an agency plan for any reason. It 
does not affect pending cases challenging agency plans for reason 
unrelated to this section.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
     Dr. Jack Ward Thomas,
     Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
     Department of Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chief Thomas: We write to continue our important 
     dialogue on the emergency forest health amendment contained 
     in Section 307 of HR 1159. This amendment has bipartisan 
     support in the House, and will shortly be considered in the 
     Senate when that body takes up HR 1159.
       We thank you and your staff for the technical assistance 
     you provided to us as we developed the provision. While we 
     understand the Administration has yet to take a position on 
     the measure, we nevertheless appreciate the nonpartisan 
     assistance the Forest Service provided to make sure that the 
     amendment is drafted in a technically and legally sound 
     fashion. We are sensitive to the need to avoid saddling our 
     federal resource management agencies with mandates that 
     cannot be implemented on the ground.
       To this end we request one more review by your resource 
     specialists and attorney advisors of the final language of 
     Section 307. Enclosed is the final language and a floor 
     statement we made during House consideration explaining our 
     intent in writing this amendment. We want to ensure that the 
     amendment can be implemented in a manner that brings salvage 
     timber to the marketplace as quickly as possible within the 
     environmental process provided.
       We would like your review to assure that your specialists 
     agree that the language would have the on-the-ground effect 
     that we intend. Alternatively, if this is not the case, we 
     would like to know which provisions are problematic, why this 
     is the case, and what technical changes would better 
     accomplish our purposes.
       Let me be clear that we are not asking whether the 
     Administration, the Agency, or you support the amendment or 
     agree with its intent. We respect any difference of opinion 
     you might have with specific requirements. Nevertheless, we 
     need to be sure that we have a common understanding that our 
     intent is implementable under the term of amendment. If the 
     amendment is passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by 
     the President we will expect full implementation of its 
     terms.
       Since the bill is being taken up in Subcommittee in the 
     Senate next Wednesday, we will need your response by Monday, 
     March 20. We apologize for the short notice, but we are 
     victims of the legislative schedule.
       We appreciate your continuing assistance and cooperation on 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Charles H. Taylor,
       Member, U.S. Congress.
     Don Young,
       Chairman.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Yates amendment to strike the Taylor Timber Salvage Language. We 
have all heard the old adage that you have to spend money to make money 
but the timber salvage provisions of H.R. 1159 turn this into a case 
where we will be spending money to lose money. Nominally, CBO shows 
that such sales will bring in $134 million, a far cry from the $1 
billion in receipts proponents were touting just 2 weeks ago. The other 
side of the CBO analysis which bill proponents will not be speaking 
about is that salvage is direct spending, and thus the money goes right 
back out.
  The taxpayer loses under the Taylor Salvage Language because whatever 
profitable 
 [[Page H3234]] sales there are will subsidize the many below cost 
sales that are not only needed but required to achieve the unrealistic 
cut in excess of 6 billion board feet called for in the bill. Further, 
since the estimates of revenue do not even count such significant costs 
as purchaser road credits the treasury will never see a dime from these 
sales.
  Looking at savage from the question of forest health, what kind of 
perverse logic says that to make our forests healthy, we have to 
suspend not just every environmental law but every law dealing with 
forestry management and administrative procedure. What little judicial 
review there is in the bill, is made meaningless since all salvage 
actions are deemed to satisfy
 APPLICABLE LAW. Not content with this the Taylor Language goes on to 
USURP the role of the judiciary by lifting existing injunctions, 
prohibiting future injunctions, and dictating to the court when and how 
it may consider appeals.

  Proponents of the salvage provisions have taken a complex forestry 
issue and boiled it down to a simple solution. That is to fight fire 
and insects with chainsaws. It is a discredited policy that is being 
resurrected under the guise of an emergency.
  Is the Taylor Salvage Language forest health or hype? If proponents 
are truely interested in forest health, why are they mandating a 
specific, but unrealistic, cut? The answer is that this amendment is 
all about the cut and the notion that a dead tree is a wasted tree. 
Proponents both inside and outside of Congress who for years advocated 
fire suppression at any cost are now seeing that cost. But instead of 
owning up to it, they view it as an opportunity to bypass sound science 
and management and embark on a cutting frenzy. The use of thinning, 
pruning and prescribed burns are not even considered because that would 
diminish the all-driving cut.
  This whole notion reminds me of the General in the Vietnam War who 
said they had to destroy a village to save it. That is what we are 
dealing with here. Look where this cut will come from. In their rush to 
get the Taylor Language out, proponents would open designated national 
wild and scenic river corridors to logging. In what appears at a 
minimum to be a serious oversight but perhaps is a devious design, 
wilderness study areas in Montana and Colorado are protected but not in 
Idaho.
  The vast amount of logging will occur in roadless areas and we are 
not talking about helicopter logging here. No, the widely scattered 
nature of fire and infestation means that heavy equipment will be 
brought in to punch scores of new roads with machinery roaming over a 
forest floor disturbed by fire and highly susceptible to damage.
  If we are serious about forest health, and we should be, the Taylor 
amendment is the wrong answer. It has no place in this bill both from a 
procedural and policy standpoint. The Taylor Salvage Language is a bad 
deal for the taxpayer and the environment. I urge adoption of the 
Yate's amendment to strike this ill-conceived language from the bill.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, let me draw your attention to something 
that I do not think the sponsors of this legislation intended, but it 
will happen under this salvage sale. As my friends know, timber harvest 
and road building is not allowed in wilderness areas. In the last 
Congress this House voted by 300 votes in favor of a bill to designate 
a million and a half acres of wilderness in Montana. Now although that 
bill did not become law, although the Senate went along with most of 
it, there just were not enough days left in the session for it to 
become law. Although it did not become law, this bill before us today 
allows timber harvesting and road building in one million of those 
acres.
  Mr. Chairman, neither Republicans, nor Democrats, would intend that, 
that one million acres in Montana, the last best place that we all 
agree should be wilderness, is now going to be harvested if this bill 
becomes law. The bill is poorly written.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield two minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], a distinguished member of the 
committee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand and strongly support this 
legislation. In the Pacific Northwest, we have seen harvest levels 
reduced by almost 95 to 100 percent over the last 4 years. We have been 
under a court injunction. At the same time, we have had blowdown, we 
have had burned timber, bug-infested timber that could be salvaged, and 
we could take that and sell it and bring money into the Treasury at a 
time when housing prices for lumber are sky high. It has added $5,000 
to $7,000 per house because of the shortage of lumber.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to stick with the committee. 
The committee almost unanimously approved this amendment, and we did it 
with environmental sensitivity. Every sale has to have an environmental 
assessment. Every sale has to have a biological opinion. If they 
violate that, you can still go to the Federal Court for an injunction.
  What we tried to do was expedite the process. Why? Because dead, 
diseased, dying, bug-infested logs only last for 2 or 3 years, and then 
they are gone. So if we went with the normal process, we would simply 
not get to it.
  What are we doing here? We are not raping
   anything or tearing anything apart. We have said we will not go into 
wilderness areas. What we are doing is doing this in a very responsible 
way, that will restore forest health. The ecologists have looked at 
this and said this is a good way to go. There are 18 to 21 billion 
board feet of it laying out there over the country. The administration 
wants to do 3 billion. We are saying go out there and try to do 3 
additional billion, or one-third. So two-thirds of it is going to be 
left, dead, dying, diseased on the ground for the ecosystem, for the 
bugs, to help the spotted owl recover, and all those other good things.

  But this is good common sense. We need the lumber, we need the chips 
for our pulp and paper mills. This is an amendment that makes sense. We 
ought to bipartisanly back it and help out an industry that has been 
badly hurt over the last 4 years.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for the 
gentleman from North Carolina, but this is simply not the way to do 
business. When we walked into the full Committee on Appropriations 
markup, we received a copy of the Taylor amendment for the first time. 
The amendment was over one dozen pages long and included portions that 
were handwritten. There were no hearings on the amendment by the 
authorizing committee nor the Committee on Appropriations. For years we 
Republicans have told Democrats who did this often that this was not 
something that we would countenance. Here we are, in power, and now 
doing it on our side.
  This is not part of the Contract. We do not have to vote on it in the 
first 100 days. It ought to go to hearings. It ought to be considered 
very carefully. It is not simply a good way to do business.
  I am also concerned about the substance of the amendment. The 
amendment overturns past court decisions, limits the power of courts to 
review Federal agency actions, and waives or puts on a fast track 
necessary environmental studies or surveys.
  If the Taylor language truly promotes the long-term health of the 
forest, why must we waive the ability of the courts and the public to 
guarantee that our environment enforced management laws are being 
upheld. This is going to cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars. I urge Members to oppose the Taylor language and to support 
the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Natural Resources, the authorizing committee, to speak to the emergency 
nature of this bill.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, let us look at this amendment. 
This is the amendment to try to harvest dead, dying, dead trees. Double 
adjective. These trees burned last year. If we do not harvest them, 
they are rotted, they cannot be used, they are a waste. And it appalls 
me when I hear Mr. Porter saying this overturns court decisions, et 
cetera, et cetera. These are not live trees. These are burnt trees, 16 
billion board feet standing, and all we are asking is for 3 billion 
board feet this year and 3 billion board 
 [[Page H3235]] feet next year. That is all we are asking, to keep some 
of our American people working. There is no work for these mills, for 
the sawmills, for the people that make their living here, if we cannot 
have trees, and we stopped cutting live trees because of action of this 
Congress and the courts.
  It is time that we pass this Taylor amendment and this legislation. 
We did have hearings. There was a long, protracted hearing of a whole 
day. We heard from those people who are not only working, but from the 
biologists, that said for the health of the forest we must harvest 
these trees. Let us stand with the committee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates amendment to 
strike section 307 or H.R. 1159. This provision is legislation and 
should never have been included in an appropriations bill.
  Section 307 would double the amount of salvage timber cut on Federal 
lands and increase total logging on Federal lands by more than one-
third. Salvage timber is ostensibly harvested to prevent dead and dying 
timber from rotting and going to waste, while reducing the risk of 
disease and fire. But this amendment goes well beyond that. It will 
condemn healthy timber because it sets a salvage quota that is twice 
the amount requested to be harvested by the Forest Service, broadens 
the definition of what constitutes salvage timber, and will allow 
logging on thousands of acres of old growth timber set aside by court 
order. This undermines forest health and rational timber lands 
management.
  If the proponents of section 307 are as concerned about forest health 
as they claim, why does this legislation waive numerous environmental 
laws and administrative review, and severely restrict judicial review 
of timber sales? The answer is that many of these sales would not pass 
muster under the appropriate review. In a rush to sell off public 
assets and under the guise of forest protection, the proponents will 
run roughshod over the Constitution and the law. Of course by now, this 
is becoming somewhat mundane.
  Proponents argue that this provision raises revenue. But under the 
peculiarities of scoring, the value of the assets is not considered. 
The Government can sell a tree worth $100 for $5 and that is counted as 
a receipt of $5. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of 
this provision does not include the millions spent yearly to build 
roads and to prepare timber sales. The scoring process notwithstanding, 
salvage sales do not benefit the taxpayer because most of the receipts 
that they do produce go to mandatory spending programs, much of it to 
hold even more salvage sales.
  Rising interest rates always depress new home starts. This in turn 
depresses timber prices. Timber prices are driven by home sales, not 
the other way around. So tying the ability of Americans to own homes to 
the price of lumber is at best misleading. Dumping billions of board 
feet of timber onto the market under these conditions will further 
depress timber prices and will guarantee a poor return for the taxpayer 
on the sale of their assets.
  Behind the rhetoric, section 307 is a subsidy for special interests 
that will harm the environment, and it has no place on a rescission 
bill. I urge the House to support the Yates amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is really a shame that this issue is having to be 
debated in this way before the House of Representatives, because had we 
wished to put together a thoughtful, well-considered, informed piece of 
legislation to deal with what is a real problem, I am sure we could 
have done it. This is not such a piece of legislation.
  Salvage. We incant that word as if it can be used to finesse 
fundamental definitional and practical problems in this bill. This is 
not just about salvage timber. It goes far beyond that. There was no 
attempt to frame a bill that really fits both reality and practicality.
  Where did the 3 billion board feet a year number come from? We have 
no evidence that BLM or the Forest Service is really going to be able 
to accommodate that. The gentleman from Illinois already pointed out 
this was dropped on us in appropriations with no warning and no ability 
to really engage in thoughtful consideration.
  But, above all, the other gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary who is sitting in the back of the 
Chamber, ought to be particularly exercised. This provision completely 
runs over regular judicial process. It did not go through the 
gentleman's committee for any kind of review. Although it pays lip 
service about availability of judicial review, as a practical matter, 
there is absolutely no way any citizen in this country will have access 
to any process that enables a review of these timber cuts.
  All environmental review, all judicial review, for all practical 
purposes, is gone. It cannot be accomplished, given the constraints 
that have been put in this amendment.
  This is going to cost this country in untold ways. Among others it 
has a below-cost timber sale provision in it, notwithstanding CBO 
scoring. I would predict we are going to come back in a couple of years 
and find that, again, the harvest has cost more than it has brought in 
by a large measure.
  This provision is an affront to sound environmental policy, it is an 
affront to sound forest management, it is an affront to sound judicial 
process.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a valiant member of the Interior 
Subcommittee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Mr. Yates.
  In my own State of Nevada, 6 years of drought have produced large 
areas of dead and dying trees and other accumulated fuels in Nevada's 
forested lands. Last summer's wildlife season was the worst in history, 
and extreme wildlife danger still exists in many of the forested lands 
in Nevada.
  The Lake Tahoe area, for instance, in addition to the drought, has 
suffered years of insect infestation, resulting in a dangerous 
overloading of fuels.
  The bill before us includes emergency timber salvage provisions that 
are vital for the health of Nevada's forests, and forests across the 
West. Unless we take immediate action, the dangerous build-up of fuel 
for forest fires will continue unchecked, and the 1995 wildfire season 
may well be the worst yet.
  I oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Yates, which would strip these 
necessary provisions from the bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], another distinguished member of the 
committee, who is also a member of the Interior Subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in opposition to the Yates amendment 
and in support of the Taylor amendment. This is a common sense solution 
to a very difficult problem that we face out west. I wish that every 
Member of this body could come through the Copper Butte area of my 
State and my district and see the devastation of the forest fires that 
occurred last summer. You would see the timber rotting in the forest 
and you would see the necessity for this emergency measure.
  It is an emergency measure. This is an expedited treatment of the 
environmental laws and an expedited treatment of an ability to get in 
and salvage timber that is dying and diseased in the forest, and it is 
absolutely necessary to protect the areas of my district. It will 
provide jobs, it will provide money to the Treasury, and it will 
provide a common sense environmentally sensitive solution to this very 
grave problem.
  I ask the support of this body to oppose the Yates amendment and 
support the Taylor amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  (Ms. DUNN of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Emergency Timber Salvage 
Program in the rescissions bill.
  Last year, devastating fires burned almost 1 billion board feet of 
timber in Washington State. I remember flying home last summer 
 [[Page H3236]] and seeing the clear blue sky at 40,000 feet clouded 
with smoke from these fires. As soon as I landed, I contacted friends 
in eastern Washington who were trying to protect their homes and 
orchards from fires burning less than a quarter of a mile away from 
their properties.
  Thankfully, the western part of my State did not suffer from those 
fires. However, we do know about the effect of fires on private lands. 
Just this year there was a fire in Carbanado, a small community in my 
district. And the Forest Service representative in the Mount Baker/
Snoqualmie National Forest informs me that there is a strong 
possibility that a fire similar to the ones in eastern Washington could 
be in our future because of the 200-year fuel load on the ground.
  On my side of the mountains, we also have millions of board feet of 
blown-down timber in need of salvage. Salvage work that could put 
families back to work doing what they have been doing for generations.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not just about salvaging timber. It is about 
salvaging families, communities, and human dignity. We have the 
opportunity to give a hand up to people in need, not the mere handout 
of public assistance.
  Further, this issue is also about the health of our forests. Ignoring 
that concern now will result in larger and more catastrophic 
environmental tragedies later.
  If we do not remove a significant amount of the fire-killed timber, 
we increase the likelihood that the area will burn again in the very 
near future. Another burn would destroy more valuable forest resources 
and wildlife habitat. And once again, we would place human lives and 
property at risk.
  With that in mind, this language simply directs the Forest Service to 
perform emergency salvage sales during a 2-year period and directs the 
Bureau of Land Management to perform salvage sales each year for 2 
years. These sales would be conducted on Federal lands managed by these 
two agencies.
  The salvage program only involves less than one-third of the total 
estimated volume of dead, dying, and diseased timber on suitable 
Federal lands.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there has been some misinformation 
accusing the supporters of this program of ignoring, or trying to 
bypass, the administrative review process required before a sale goes 
to market.
  Nothing--I repeat, nothing--could be further from the truth.
  This language streamlines the process in order to allow the agencies 
involved to expedite these sales over a period of months, instead of 
years. Right now, many of these sales are locked up in litigation, 
appeals, and other roadblocks.
  What this salvage program provides is the predictability that this 
process has so sorely missed.
  Last and certainly not least, this salvage program will also return 
money to the Federal Government, up to $620 million.
  The timber salvage program presents an opportunity to begin cleaning 
up our national forests, generating Federal revenues and providing 
family-wage jobs in affected communities. I strongly support this 
Timber Salvage Program.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Yates/Vento 
amendment which would strike the timber salvage sales provision in H.R. 
1159.
  Under the guise of forest health, the salvage timber sale provision 
would savage our Nation's forests. Not only would the measure throw out 
all existing environmental safeguards and public oversight, it would 
result in significant losses to the Federal Treasury.
  The provision mandates a minimum cut of 6.2 billion board feet over 2 
years--almost doubling the current annual yield from the entire forest 
system. Even areas studied and proposed as wilderness would be open to 
logging.
  The salvage timber sale provision would negate decades of effort by 
Congress and the Forest Service to ensure that national forests are 
managed in an environmentally, socially, and fiscally responsible 
manner.
  And it wouldn't even provide any real savings. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, ``Salvage timber harvesting generally 
costs more than the revenues they generate because of lower timber 
quality and higher operating costs for buyers.''
  In fact, this provision would likely cost the Federal Treasury at 
least $220 million more than the revenues salvage logging would bring 
in.
  Put simply, salvage timber harvesting makes no sense. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Yates/Vento amendment to stop 
this far-reaching assault on our public forestlands.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Yates 
amendment. I want to quote from a letter I received from the two 
largest Northwest sports and commercial fishing groups. They represent 
100,000 jobs in my area and billions of dollars. They say, ``We oppose 
the effort to approve sufficiency language and mandate minimum timber 
harvest levels in the northwest.'' They say, ``It makes no economic 
sense to harvest timber on the backs of fishermen and the expense of 
jobs and coastal communities which salmon support. This would be a form 
of economic suicide.''
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a forest health program. It 
needs to be fixed, but not by bypassing our laws and sacrificing good 
science. I urge my colleagues to support the Yates amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a member of the Interior 
Subcommittee.
  (Mr. BUNN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time we bring 
common sense back into the formula. I have listened to the extremists 
say if lightning strikes, let the trees burn and ignore the jobs. I 
think it is totally absurd when we are trying to find a balance, we are 
trying to maintain a sustainable yield, that we will not take the 
pressure off the green timber, but instead we have an opportunity to 
salvage trees that are going to rot if we do not do it. We are simply 
going to lose 22,000 jobs and deny the opportunity to maintain a 
sustainable yield. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Yates amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Yates 
amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to use some common 
sense here and ask yourself a question: If this bill only relates to 
burned timber and rotting timber, why was it necessary to suspend every 
single environmental law which applies to forest, to fish, and to 
wildlife and recreation in order to pass it? If it applies only to 
burned and rotting timber, why was it necessary to provide in the bill 
that it is OK to log and build roads in a wilderness area that is 
permanently protected?
  That is not what this bill is all about. This is no way to go about 
this. If you can make the case this is necessary, make the case in the 
authorizing committee. This is an extremely bad amendment.
  Finally, if it is such a good piece of common sense, why in the world 
is it necessary to put a provision in here that says this is OK even if 
we lose money doing it? What interest do the American people have with 
permitting the cutting of forests in a situation in which we are going 
to lose money.
  The fact of the matter is, we are suspending every environmental law, 
letting them log in the wilderness areas, and letting them sell this 
timber at below cost prices, which is a significant detriment to the 
American people. I strongly urge you to vote yes for the Yates 
amendment and oppose this extreme measure.

[[Page H3237]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], a member of the committee, and a distinguished 
one at that.
  (Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the full committee chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  Let me first say to the gentleman from Texas, he obviously has not 
read the provisions of the Taylor timber salvage amendment.
  The Taylor amendment explicitly excludes wilderness areas or those 
areas under study or consideration for designation as wilderness. This 
bill is not about ideology. It is about jobs. It is about good 
productive resources, and it is about making our federal resource lands 
for fire suppression purposes and the health of the forest land.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, even if it is a salvage sale, we have got to 
do a complete EIS. That takes 3 years. It takes the Forest Service 3 
years to prepare a single sale.
  This is an emergency. If we do not do it rapidly, the timber is going 
to rot and is not going to be useful. That is why we have to do an EA 
instead of an EIS.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
his contribution and his efforts, which make it a genuinely bipartisan 
effort.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Yates motion to strike. Support 
the Taylor amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of our National Forests and the hard-
working Americans who rely on the forests for their livelihoods. We are 
facing a national emergency.
  A landmark timber salvage amendment is included in H.R. 1159, offered 
by Representatives Charles Taylor and Norm Dicks, with my full support. 
This amendment is about putting people back to work in one of our most 
important industries.
  At a time when many are concerned about exporting jobs, we have a 
chance to put Americans to work--in an industry owned by Americans, 
harvesting a product consumed by Americans.
  By providing the increased harvesting of salvage timber, we will be 
providing a product for idle sawmills throughout the country. Since 
1987, a total of 51 facilities have closed in California. Twelve of 
those sawmills were in my district.
  We must return to an intelligent, long-term forest management plan 
that is primarily focused upon forest health. This amendment starts us 
off in that direction.
  This amendment also makes fiscal sense. CBO scored it as a revenue 
maker. Industry and labor estimate the provision will generate at least 
$620 million in additional Federal revenues. Local governments will 
receive another $200 million.
  The U.S. taxpayer spent over a billion dollars and 33 lives to fight 
forest fires last year. These losses could have been drastically 
curtailed had similar legislation been in place.
  This amendment is a win-win proposition. We must not miss out on this 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, our forests are sick and our communities are dying. We 
must help our people get back to work. We must help our forests regain 
their productivity and provide a renewable resource for our children 
and grandchildren to enjoy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Taylor-Dicks amendment.

                                    Sierra Pacific Industries,

                                       Arcata, CA, March 14, 1995.
     Re: Taylor/Dicks Emergency Salvage Amendment.

     Congressman Frank Riggs,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Riggs: An article in the Times Standard Newspaper 
     on Sunday, March 12, regarding the proposal to salvage the 
     dead timber on our National Forests prompts me to write this 
     letter. The article reports that the large amounts of timber 
     that would be logged from our National Forests as a result of 
     the Emergency Salvage Amendment would decrease the price of 
     private timber to the point that the private landowner could 
     ask the Forest Service for relief under the theory of a 
     ``taking.'' Further in the article Senator(?) Leahy guesses 
     that the G.O.P. has created this situation.
       I find it hard to read this kind of reporting without 
     wondering whatever happened to responsible thinking and 
     reporting. I would like you to know that a salvage program on 
     our National Forest is a must. The scare tactic that our 
     National Forests will be overcut as a result of removing the 
     dead material is just not true. In fact years of responsible 
     management of our National Forests has resulted in wood 
     products for our country as well as a healthy National Forest 
     for all of us to use and enjoy.
       You and your colleagues know that there are a lot of us 
     here in Humboldt County that want you to support the passage 
     of an emergency amendment to salvage the dead and dying 
     timber on all our National Forests. As you know it will not 
     put an extra amount of timber on the market and result in 
     lower prices on private land. The salvage timber will help 
     maintain existing jobs. I doubt that it will create new jobs, 
     however, because the amounts of timber that will be harvested 
     are far below historical levels once produced under sound 
     forest management practices. The practice of salvaging will 
     help to maintain a healthy forest. You must ask (tell) the 
     National Forest to closely monitor the harvest to assure all 
     salvaged area will be fully restocked with new trees whether 
     they are planted or seed in naturally from the surrounding 
     timber.
       The mills in our area will be asked to competitively bid on 
     any salvage timber offered for sale. In the past this process 
     has resulted in jobs for not only woods workers and their 
     families but also for mill workers and support businesses and 
     their families. Our schools will also benefit from the income 
     to the Forest Service because 25% of the money received from 
     the sale of timber goes to the county schools and county road 
     departments. Our mill currently is no longer sawing any 
     National Forest timber due to the fact the Six Rivers 
     National Forest is no longer selling any timber sales. The 
     salvage timber that could be sold from the Six Rivers 
     National will help our sawmill as well as the other sawmills 
     in the local area.
       Please support the theory of a healthy National Forest by 
     working for an Emergency Salvage Amendment. Thank you for 
     your time and consideration of this matter.
           Very Truly Yours,
                                                       Ron Hoover,
     Timber Manager.
                                                                    ____

                                     Schmidbauer Lumber, Inc.,

                                       Eureka, CA, March 14, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Riggs: This letter is intended to indicate 
     our STRONG SUPPORT for the Taylor/Dicks Emergency Salvage 
     Amendment.
       This amendment will create jobs in our area, and improve 
     Forest Health of increasingly unhealthy public lands.
       This amendment is critical to the future of our area and 
     the future of our company. Please make every effort to see 
     that this amendment is attached to the Omnibus Rescission 
     Bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark Anderson,
     Resource Procurement.
                                                                    ____



                                    Blue Lake Forest Products,

                                       Arcata, CA, March 14, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     Congressman, First District of California.
       Dear Frank: Blue Lake Forest Products employs directly 100 
     men and women and another 300 jobs in the area are indirectly 
     dependent on the company's operation.
       We strongly support the Emergency Salvage Amendment. It 
     means jobs and survival to companies in the hard hit region. 
     The Amendment will raise substantial revenues for the U.S. 
     Government.
       The Amendment fosters forest health, as the local Forest 
     Service are full of dead and dying trees. This bill is 
     critical to our company's survival and to local forests, and 
     economic health. We urgently request you and your colleagues 
     to support this amendment.
           Very Truly yours,
                                                  Bruce M. Taylor,
     Owenr Blue Lake Forest Products.
                                                                    ____

         United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 1995.
       Dear Congressman: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the 
     United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, I am 
     writing to request your support for the timber salvage 
     amendment to the Omnibus Rescission Bill sponsored by 
     Congressmen Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Charles Taylor (R-NC). This 
     measure gives the U.S. Forest Service emergency authority to 
     remove dead, dying, diseased and fire-damaged timber from 
     federal forests.
       This amendment addresses two primary concerns of our 
     membership. First, salvage harvests will provide a needed 
     supply of timber to mills where tens of thousands of our 
     members work. Harvest restrictions to protect endangered and 
     threatened species on federal forest land have created a 
     timber supply crisis, particularly in the Pacific Northwest 
     and Northern California. During the past five years, almost 
     20,000 timber-related workers have lost their job in the 
     region due to the supply crisis. Salvage timber, if removed 
     in a timely manner, can help slow mill closures.
       The Dicks-Taylor amendment mandates the Forest Service 
     salvage not less than 3 billion board feet of timber from 
     federal forest in 1995 and 1996. In 1994, the Forest Service 
     salvaged just 1.5 billion board feet nationally. Doubling the 
     salvage amount will 
      [[Page H3238]] create approximately 22,000 new jobs in 
     forest products and related industries and timber-dependent 
     communities nationwide.
       Secondly, removing dead, dying and diseased timber will 
     protect the health of our national forests. The dead and 
     dying timber presents a serious fire hazard--standing as a 
     fuel load across billions of acres of federal forest land. If 
     not removed quickly, diseased timber can infect other trees, 
     jeopardizing the health of the entire forest.
       Importantly, this legislation requires salvage sales comply 
     with environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act. 
     It also expedites the judicial review process without 
     undermining the public's right to challenge federal timber 
     sales. This is important because of the brief window of 
     opportunity for obtaining the value of salvaged timber.
       It is essential the Congress pass his emergency measure as 
     quickly as possible. In the last five years, an average of 6 
     billion board feet per year of timber died in national 
     forests. The U.S. Forest Service timber salvage program 
     averaged just 1.8 billion board feet for those years. This 
     means that in the last five years alone, 21 billion board 
     feet of dead timber has accumulated on Forest Service lands. 
     This timber must be removed as soon as possible to reduce the 
     risk of fire and obtain the timber for production before it 
     loses its value.
       The Dicks-Taylor amendment provides a rare opportunity for 
     the Congress to provide a ``win-win.'' The amendment will 
     protect the ecological health of our forests and help support 
     the employment base in timber-dependent communities by 
     providing some small amount of timber for milling.
       We hope you will support the Dicks-Taylor timber salvage 
     amendment when it comes before the full House for 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Sigurd Lucassen.
                                                                    ____



                                        Sierra Cedar Products,

                                    Marysville, CA, March 7, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Riggs: Our people, our communities and our state 
     need your help convincing Congress to pass the emergency 
     salvage amendment to the Omnibus Rescission Bill.
       The amendment would allow the Forest Service to salvage 
     fire damaged and dying timber and return burned forests to 
     healthy forests.
       The amendment would provide 6-billion board feet of salvage 
     timber to the harvest and processing industries--a vital step 
     to the renewal of our state's forest products economy.
       Salvage work must begin quickly to help prevent another 
     season of catastrophic fires and destruction of our wild life 
     habitat and our emerging timber lands.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Hal Stilson,
     Sierra Cedar Products.
                                                                    ____

         Western Council of Industrial Workers--United Brotherhood 
           of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
                                     Portland, OR, March 10, 1995.
       Dear Congressman: On behalf of the 20,000 members of the 
     Western Council of Industrial Workers, I am writing to urge 
     your support of the timber salvage amendment attached to the 
     1995 Omnibus Recision Bill. The amendment is sponsored by 
     Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Charles Taylor (R-NC).
       The Dicks-Taylor amendment will help address the national 
     forest health emergency. Over the past five years alone, more 
     than 21 billion board feet of dead, dying and diseased timber 
     has accumulated on federal forests. In my home state of 
     Oregon, foresters estimate that more than half of the 
     national forests are facing a health crisis. The backlog of 
     dead and damaged timber in these forests threatens to infect 
     other trees and serves as kindling for wildfire. The Dicks-
     Taylor amendment will enable the U.S. Forest Service to 
     conduct emergency salvage sales to remove the damaged, 
     diseased and dead timber.
       Additionally, by passing this amendment, Congress can help 
     save the jobs of our members and tens of thousands of other 
     men and women employed in the forest products industry. 
     Salvage timber, harvested in a timely manner, can be milled 
     into forest products. Estimates show the salvage harvest 
     levels called for under the amendment will add 22,900 jobs in 
     forest products and related industries and communities 
     nationwide. At a time of increasing unemployment and mill 
     closures due to harvest restrictions on federal lands in the 
     Pacific Northwest and Northern California, salvage logging 
     can provide an important source of fiber supply to keep mills 
     up and running and workers employed.
       The amendment also recognizes the need to implement salvage 
     operations as soon as possible. Because of the brief window 
     of opportunity for obtaining the value of the salvaged 
     timber, the amendment expedites deadlines for filing and 
     appealing lawsuits.
       Our members have long been concerned about forest health. 
     The forest is our home. It supplies us with our livelihoods. 
     It's where we raise our families. And it's where we recreate. 
     We believe that with proper care, our national forests can 
     continue to provide for an array of needs. We believe we 
     can--and must--protect forest ecosystems and the economic 
     base of our timber-dependent communities.
       This amendment is a sound, moderate approach to help us 
     reach these goals. We urge you to support the Dicks-Taylor 
     amendment as it moves before the full House and join us in 
     our efforts to secure quick passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                     J.L. Perrizo,
     Executive Secretary.
                                                                    ____



                                     Standard Structures Inc.,

                                   Santa Rosa, CA, March 14, 1995.
     Congressman Frank Riggs,
     Longworth H.O.B., Washington.
       Dear Frank: The FY '95 Rescission Legislation will be 
     before the House this week. There is an important provision 
     within this legislation that calls for the harvest and sale 
     of 6.2 billion board feet of dead and dying timber from our 
     national forest.
       It is very important that this provision stays in the bill. 
     As a manufacturer of engineered wood products, we are in 
     desperate need of additional harvesting that will bring some 
     stability to our business.
       This is a win-win provision as it will not only benefit the 
     forest products industry and its employees, but will 
     contribute to the short and long term health of the forests.
       Please do all you can, Frank, to oppose any attempt to 
     strip these provisions from the FY '95 rescission bill.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard C. Caletti,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                         Peterson Tractor Co.,

                                   San Leandro, CA, March 8, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Riggs, I am writing to urge you to 
     support the emergency salvage amendment to the Omnibus 
     Rescission Bill. This is a major first step toward 
     development of a proactive forest health program on federal 
     lands. Of equal importance, it will bring desperately needed 
     jobs to my region again and help stabilize my suffering 
     community.
       With Congress cutting programs to trim the deficit, it's 
     noteworthy that you've found a way to increase revenues and 
     provide environmental benefits at the same time.
       Last summer, more than four million acres of forests 
     burned, largely because of buildups of dead and dying timber. 
     Over $1 billion was spent to control those fires, and several 
     lives were lost in the process.
       The amendment would allow the Forest Service to recover 
     some of the fire-damaged trees, and dying timber elsewhere, 
     through emergency salvage sales. It calls for sales of three 
     billion board feet each year for the next two years. No new 
     money is needed to do this; it's already contained in the 
     salvage trust fund. As a bonus, the amendment would give 
     federal foresters the ability to convert dead, dying and 
     burned forests into healthy young forests for the purpose of 
     stabilizing soils, protecting streams, reducing the risk of 
     catastrophic fire, and developing wildlife habitat.
       With so much dead and dying timber threatening the health 
     of our forests, and thousands of jobs at stake, it's 
     impossible to believe that anyone would oppose a bill like 
     this. Actually, there is a group who opposes it: 
     environmental extremists. They don't want national forest 
     timber harvested under any circumstances. They should be 
     ignored, and I encourage you to pass the bill quickly. 
     Salvage work must begin quickly to gain value from already-
     burned timber and to remove dead and dying timber before it 
     is consumed in this year's firestorms.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jerry Lopus,
     Vice President--Sales.
                                                                    ____



                                         Peterson Tractor Co.,

                                   San Leandro, CA, March 8, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Riggs, I am writing to urge you to 
     support the emergency salvage amendment to the Omnibus 
     Rescission Bill. This is a major first step toward 
     development of a proactive forest health program on federal 
     lands. Of equal importance, it will bring desperately needed 
     jobs to my region again and help stabilize my suffering 
     community.
       With Congress cutting programs to trim the deficit, it's 
     noteworthy that you've found a way to increase revenues and 
     provide environmental benefits at the same time.
       Last summer, more than four million acres of forests 
     burned, largely because of buildups of dead and dying timber. 
     Over $1 billion was spent to control those fires, and several 
     lives were lost in the process.
       The amendment would allow the Forest Service to recover 
     some of the fire-damaged trees, and dying timber elsewhere, 
     through emergency salvage sales. It calls for sales of three 
     billion board feet each year for the next two years. No new 
     money is needed to do this; it's already contained in the 
     salvage trust fund. As a bonus, the amendment would give 
     federal foresters the ability to convert dead, dying and 
     burned forests into healthy young forests for the purpose of 
     stabilizing soils, protecting streams, reducing the risk of 
     catastrophic fire, and developing wildlife habitat.
       With so much dead and dying timber threatening the health 
     of our forests, and thousands of jobs at stake, it's 
     impossible to believe that anyone would oppose a bill like 
     this. Actually, there is a group who opposes it: 
     environmental extremists. They don't want national forest 
     timber harvested under any circumstances. They should be 
     ignored, 
     [[Page H3239]] and I encourage you to pass the bill quickly. 
     Salvage work must begin quickly to gain value from already-
     burned timber and to remove dead and dying timber before it 
     is consumed in this year's firestorms.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ernie Fierro,
                                  Vice President--Product Support.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  (Mrs. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Yates amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is the best news my constituents have heard 
in a long time--cutting Government and putting people back to work. In 
the State of Washington, the spotted owl has caused 50 lumber mills to 
close since 1989, dislocating thousands of workers.
  Now, help is on the way. This bill is going to put people back to 
work in economically depressed areas like Grays Harbor County. A 
sawmill owner there informed me that this bill will free up enough 
timber to put 50 people immediately back to work.
  This bill is also good news for small timber towns in my district 
like Morton, Randle, and Packwood. Mills in these towns travel 
thousands of miles for wood when there is salvage timber right down the 
road.
  Do not be misled by those who claim we are going to harm the 
environment or small critters if we salvage this timber.
  In many cases we are just taking timber that was blown down in storms 
and has been on the ground for several years just rotting away.
  So let us improve the health of our forests and put people back to 
work at the same time. I urge my colleagues to reject any effort to 
remove the timber salvage provisions from this bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Yates 
amendment. This is an obstructionist move that takes aim at the rural 
American taxpayer. A vote for the Yates amendment is a vote against the 
environment and people of this country. A vote for the Yates amendment 
will make our already sick forests sicker, substantially increase fire 
hazards and completely waste a valuable resource that can employ 
thousands of people in a depression community.
  A vote on the Yates motion is a ``no'' vote. The Taylor amendment 
will improve the health of the forest, returning hefty revenues to 
Uncle Sam and put people back to work.
  If your head is screwed on today, as it should be, you will vote 
``no'' on the Yates amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about environmental 
quality in this country. I represent an area in southern California 
that has the highest number of first-stage smog alerts in the Nation.
  I have come to the conclusion that we must have a balanced policy. If 
we look at this issue of restoring forestry health, the need to create 
jobs and the opportunity to kill and actually salvage dead trees, this 
is the responsible approach for us to take.
  I strongly support the language that is included in this bill. I 
believe we can bring down the cost of lumber, the cost of housing to 
people out there who are trying to attain the American dream and 
maintain environmental quality.
  Support the committee position.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. [Yates] has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker. Did I understand 
the Chair to say that the gentleman from Louisiana has the right to 
close?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. He defends the committee position.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield a half minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all, let say that this Taylor amendment is a good amendment. 
Last year we spent a billion dollars fighting wildfires here in 
America. But more importantly, we lost 26 good people and millions of 
acres of forest land.
  The past few years have seen a stunning decline in the management of 
the health of our forests. This amendment will give us a chance to 
bring some of the health back to our forests.
  In the last 5 years we lost 6 billion board feet per year in timber 
wasted in our national forests.
  This is a good, commonsense amendment, the Taylor amendment. I hope 
Members vote for it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  (Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Yates 
amendment. This amendment is anti-forest, anti-taxpayer, and pro-fire.
  Last year 375,000 acres of forest in California and 4 million acres 
nationwide were incinerated by wildfire at a cost of $1 billion of 
taxpayer money.
  This ecological mayhem was caused primarily by the excessive buildup 
of nature fuels in our forests. Some extreme environmentalists claim 
that this buildup and the devastation it caused was natural, but to the 
families of the 33 fire fighters who lost their lives it was an 
outrageous and needless tragedy.
  Mr. Chairman, I have forests in my district that are 60 and 70 
percent dead and dying due to insects, disease and 7 years of drought. 
These forests are fire bombs that will explode in the months ahead 
unless we act now.
  I urge my colleagues to champion our forests, our fire fighters, our 
taxpayers.
  Vote no, no, no to the Yates pro-fire amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 1 
minute remaining and may close the debate. The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Yates] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I rise in support of the Taylor amendment because actually this 
amendment did not require hearings necessarily. We are not creating new 
law. What we are doing is mandating that the Forest Service do whatever 
already has been passed in law in the Resource Planning Act and the 
National Forest Management Act.
  It is required under those acts that the salvage be kept out of the 
forest. This bill does not even go far enough, because this last summer 
we burned 8.135 billion board feet of timber.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will be closing 
debate on his amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Taylor 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Yates 
to strike the Taylor provision from the rescissions bill. The committee 
provision mandating targets for timber salvage sales on our Federal 
lands simply does not belong in this bill. It is an issue that should 
have been given ample and careful review by the appropriate authorizing 
committees.
  The timber industry will love this Federal give-away. Under the 
pretense of saving our forests, the Taylor provision would instead 
double the amount of logging in our forests and wilderness--to 6.2 
billion board feet. Armed with the excuse of removing salvage timber, 
roads will be built where they should never have existed and forest 
areas, previously untouched, will bear the new scars of timber industry 
greed.
  The Taylor provision is a back-door attempt to open the floodgates on 
increased timber harvests. It is bad public policy and should be 
rejected. I urge my colleagues to support the Yates amendment to strike 
this excessive provision.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento 
amendment.

[[Page H3240]]

  Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, without this amendment we will in one sweep double the 
cutting of timber from our national forests and virtually suspend all 
environmental laws protecting our forests.
  I urge you to support this amendment to strip the bill of provisions 
mandating specified levels of timber salvage sales.
  The bill would declare a 2-year emergency and direct the Secretaries 
of Interior and Agriculture to produce a minimum total of 3.115 million 
board feet of timber per year. Since when does Congress set minimum 
cuts? Is this an effort to reduce the risk of forest fires or an effort 
to serve special interest logging companies?
  The bill defines ``salvage'' timber to include the removal of live 
and healthy ``associated trees,'' the removal of insect infested trees 
and the removal of ``trees immediately susceptible to fire or insect 
attack.''
  Mr. Chairman this bill is a radical and excessive chainsaw solution 
that requires the Federal Government to cut regardless of environmental 
impact and regardless of the cost to the American taxpayer.
  Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
It is high time we began to look at what you have written and what you 
have done.
  The reason this has no place in a rescission bill, this is a budget 
buster, this particular amendment. That is why we appropriate hundreds 
of millions of dollars to build timber roads in this country. It is 
because of amendments like this that we are going to have to devastate, 
not only what we have to pay out of our pocketbooks, but we are going 
to have to pay, future generations are going to have to pay with their 
legacy. Read what you have done.
  It protects two States in terms of wilderness: Colorado and Montana, 
and Montana very little. Idaho is completely open. Any area that is a 
nonlegislative study area for wilderness is opened up. You suspend the 
deficit timber sale.
  The fact of the matter is, this is just a fig leaf used to cover up 
to justify action when the authors should get arrested for indecent 
exposure here, based on what is going on, trying to wrap yourself in 
forest health. Forest health has more to do than just cutting down 
trees and trying to blame the wilderness areas for the fires after 100 
years of fire suppression.
  The proponents of this proposal would like you to believe that it is 
a win-win scenario, that we would be saving forests in danger of 
chronic health problems and extracting valuable timber. But this 
salvage timber sale savages the taxpayer and the national forests.
  The substance of the bill points out that forest health is the least 
of their concerns and the real target is to ignore sound science, due 
process, to carve up our forests, to harvest regardless of law and 
cost. This particular measure stands every law right on its head. This 
is going to be the governing document, not the environmental laws, not 
the courts, not any type of reasonable due process that exists under 
current law.
  You have really done it with this one. To superimpose, to mandate on 
the Forest Service and the BLM 6.3 billion boardfeet in the next 2 
years in terms of cutting on top of everything else that they are 
doing, to disregard the courts, to disregard the taxpayer, to disregard 
everything, and it is a loser. CBO, it points out that it makes money, 
but they do not count the cost of the roads.
  The Congressional Research Service points out that almost every sale 
is a deficit timber sale under salvage. You say you do not cut green 
trees, the definition that you put in here cuts out a lot of green 
trees and provides for a lot of roading in areas that are not roaded 
today.
  This will, in fact, destroy many, many wilderness areas. This 
amendment deserves to be promoted. This provision of the bill should be 
knocked out. It has no place in a rescission bill. This is a budget 
buster, and it ought to be defeated, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento amendment to 
strike the timber salvage provision. This provision is an outright 
assault on our public forests and environmental laws and does not 
belong in this bill or any rescission proposal because it is a revenue 
loser. It costs the taxpayer twice--from their wallet and from the 
destruction of natural legacy. The salvage timber provision not only 
violates House rules on legislating in an appropriations bill, but 
arrogantly wraps itself in a label of forest health while savaging the 
substantive scientific issues involved.
  This provision should be labeled for what it is--under the guise of 
improving forest health this provision would allow timber companies 
heretofore unfettered access to logging in our national forests 
suspending all environmental laws, all past Federal court decisions, 
and all public input. The fig leaves used to cover up, to justify such 
action, should get the authors arrested for indecent exposure.
  Proponents of this provision would like you to believe that this is a 
win-win scenario, that we would be saving forests in danger from 
chronic health problems and extracting valuable timber. But not this 
salvage timber provision which savages the taxpayer and the national 
forests. The substance of this bill points out that forest health is 
the least of their concerns and that the real target is to ignore sound 
science, due process and to carve up our forests to harvest regardless 
of law and cost.
  Roadless areas will be carved up in many States and even areas being 
proposed and studied for NFS or BLM wilderness would be put to the 
bulldozer, the saw and the axe with this Taylor policy. The unrealistic 
goal of 6 billion board feet if enacted would change the face of 
America's landscape. Like a Third World nation, American exploitation 
would be our national patrimony for the profit of the few at the 
expense of the taxpayer and our national legacy.
  The definition of salvage timber sales and the arbitrary mandated 6.3 
billion board feet number contained in the provision clearly exposes 
the centerpiece of benefits being yielded to the timber industry. 
Salvage timber sales are defined so broadly that extensive logging of 
healthy trees and forests would be fair game. The Bureau of Land 
Management memo readily points this out: ``This is an obvious attempt 
to open up areas for timber harvest without regard to environmental 
safeguards. it would not be necessary to set minimum harvest levels if 
the intent were to simply remove the trees in need of salvage.''
  The National Forest Service [NFS] in fact has a comprehensive plan to 
address chronic forest health problems based on five
 primary actions, of which selective harvesting is but one element. 
However the Forest Service is careful to point out that salvage timber 
harvesting is not always the best treatment for rehabilitating forests 
and can be used in context with thinning, species composition, 
prescribed burning and watershed restoration.

  The NFS report asserts: ``Some salvage--harvesting--is desirable, but 
often salvaging dead and dying trees in and around root disease centers 
can aggravate the situation and result in increased mortality * * * It 
should be recognized that salvage alone will do little to enhance 
forest health. Our ecosystem analysis will determine whether and when 
salvage should take place.''
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need to aggressively address chronic 
forest health problems. But salvage logging has significant impacts on 
fish, wildlife, soil, and other resources just as in the case of any 
other kinds of timber harvest. Forest health has been hijacked in this 
debate. To simply justify this savage/salvage operation--the same old 
business as usual with Congress feeding the timber company harvest 
sales figures without regards to science or the facts, is 
irresponsible. Past sales figures so stressed U.S. forests in even the 
most productive areas that the courts had to step in and stop the 
violation of fundamental laws--laws that this slam dunk timber salvage 
bill overrides and throws out.
  Lastly, the September 26, 1994, CRS report on salvage sales should be 
kept in mind with regard to cost. Notwithstanding some creative CBO 
scoring on this bill, I quote: ``Salvage sales often cost more than the 
revenues they can generate because of lower timber quality and higher 
operating costs for buyers.'' The report goes on to point out that even 
on revenue generators Treasury loses because by law, 100 percent must 
be returned to the salvage fund and 25 percent of the value must be 
paid to State and local governments, that is, the dollars incidentally 
are permanently appropriated--125 percent spending of 100 percent of 
the revenue. Now we find out that the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] 
doesn't even score the costs of timber roads regarding such sales and 
that the NFS pays out the local revenue up front inconsistent with the 
law--the taxpayer is left holding an empty bag with the enormous 
rehabilitation and reforestation tab for yet more hundreds of millions 
of dollars.
  Approving the salvage timber harvest provision in this legislation 
disregards the science of all environmental laws governing timber 
harvesting, flies in the face of common-sense budgeting and elemental 
fairness. I strongly 
 [[Page H3241]] urge the Members to strike this 14 page legislative 
timber grab from the bill.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has the 
right to close and has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California, [Mr. Doolittle].
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Taylor 
amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 20 
seconds, to the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, this 500-year old Douglas fir is a blow 
down in Washington State. Mr. Carlson tried to buy it for his lumber 
mill for $10,000 to $20,000. He was refused. Later on, as it 
deteriorated, it was sold for firewood and the taxpayers got just under 
$100.
  Let us stop this waste and oppose the Yates amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that Federal 
firefighting alone cost $1 billion in 1994 and whoever sent this flier 
out that says Speaker Gingrich is for the Yates amendment and against 
this Taylor amendment is wrong. This is not true.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento 
amendment.
  As my colleagues know, this amendment would strike provisions in the 
bill which mandate specific levels of timber salvage sales on Federal 
lands in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
  The Yates-Vento amendment would maintain common sense in American 
land use planning. It would strike the bill's dangerous salvage sale 
provisions and ensure that Congress doesn't allow the raiding of the 
Treasury and the pillaging of the environment just to hand a bonus 
check to the timber industry.
  Our distinguished colleagues Sid Yates and Bruce Vento have warned 
that this provision is a timber lobbyist's dream. But it is more than 
that. It is a taxpayer's nightmare.
  As Mr. Yates noted during last week's markup, no funds will be 
returned to the Treasury from the salvage sales, since all receipts 
will go into the Salvage Fund or to individual counties. The loses to 
the U.S. Treasury will require subsequent supplemental appropriations 
and new funding to cover the costs.
  The bill ignores our current fiscal problems and encourages timber to 
be cut at any cost, stating in section c(5) that salvage activities 
``shall not be precluded because the costs of such activities are 
likely to exceed revenues derived from such activities.''
  This means that even if salvage sales don't make money, they will 
continue, because Congress has said that protecting the timber industry 
is more important than protecting the environment or safeguarding the 
U.S. Treasury.
  Perhaps even more incredibly, this provision would waive all Federal 
laws. By passing this bill unchanged, we would literally be suspending 
criminal law, conflict of interest limitations, Federal contracting 
requirements and anti-fraud provisions, not to mention the rule against 
obligating Federal funds without authority to do so.
  Left unchanged, the bill replaces the rule of law with lawlessness. 
It says to the American people that Congress cares more about creating 
a few temporary jobs now than it does about deficit reduction and 
environmental protection for the future.
  During the debate on this bill, we have heard a lot of rhetoric that 
this salvage authority is desperately necessary to save our forests and 
ensure forest health.
  What we have not heard is that the Forest Service is already 
conducting an aggressive ``salvage'' program.
  In fact, since 1978, the Chief's Annual Reports show that 15 percent 
of the cut was salvage--a figure representing more than 22 billion 
board feet!
  The Forest Service currently has all the legal authority it needs to 
carry out an aggressive salvage program within existing law and clearly 
intends to do just that.
  But perhaps my biggest concern with this ill-gotten gains legislation 
is that the level of logging required by this provision would require 
massive new road-building in roadless areas and massive clear-cutting.
  Both of these practices seriously degrade the environment, including 
eroding the soil; harming the watersheds downstream; destroying salmon 
and trout spawning and rearing habitat; threatening watersheds and 
drinking water supplies and reducing the ability of forest soils to 
nourish healthy forests.
  Mr. Chairman, in all the rhetoric of the debate on this issue, we've 
heard repeatedly about how the Clinton administration's land use 
policies have constituted some kind of ``War on the West.''
  I would submit that this timber salvage provision is the real war on 
the West.
  Unless we pass the Yates-Vento amendment to strike this industry 
bonus program, we will deliver a one-two punch to our country: we'll be 
robbing the Treasury and destroying our environment and the precious 
natural resources we all cherish.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not come to Washington to do that. My 
constituents sent me here to ensure that we have an environment that is 
protected, natural resources that will still be around for future 
generations to enjoy, and a fiscal policy that makes sense.
  They did not send me to Washington to vote for legislation dressed up 
to look like Little Red Riding Hood that's really the Big Bad Wolf.
  Vote yes on the Yates-Vento amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento 
amendment because it corrects the misguided piece of legislation which 
sits before us today. Unless changed through the adoption of the Yates-
Vento amendment, this rescissions bill will seriously harm America's 
national forests.
  Last week, while the Republican majority was busy cutting and 
slashing social programs which benefit America's neediest Americans, 
they got so carried away that they thought they might clear-cut a few 
trees as well.
  Unfortunately, what has been tacked on to this ``rescissions'' bill 
is a costly environmental disaster known as a timber salvage plan. 
Although timber salvage is rhetorically pleasing--evoking images of 
saving rotting trees from their imminent demise, this timber salvage 
plan is a thinly disguised excuse for unregulated timber harvest in our 
treasured national forests.
  As written, the timber salvage plan would mandate that 6.2 billion 
board feet be cut from our national forests over the next 2 years. Even 
more horrifying is that a majority of this astounding sum will come 
from our Northwest national forests most pristine roadless areas and 
old-growth remnants.
  In order to go in and harvest these trees, the legislation before us 
today allows an extreme and unjustifiable legal exemption which permits 
the Forest Service salvage program to operate well beyond Federal laws 
and environmental regulations for the next 2 years.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible environmental 
policy masquerading as timber salvage before us today and pass the 
Yates-Vento amendment. Allowing the so called timber salvage plan to 
pass not only threatens the future of our national forests, it 
continues Congress' irresponsible assault on our Nation's environmental 
policy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Yates amendment which attempts to remove the Taylor-Dicks 
emergency salvage language from this bill.
  Throughout the West, the condition of our forests could not be worse. 
Years of drought and lack of any management activity on these lands led 
last summer to some of the most devastating wildfires on record. 
Millions of acres of pristine national forest land were destroyed and 
34 lives were lost. If we don't take emergency action, millions more 
acres will be destroyed and even more lives could be lost during the 
upcoming fire season.
  The Taylor-Dicks language in the bill allows for the immediate 
harvest of 6.2 billion board feet of dead and dying timber. In addition 
to providing for healthier forests and more wood for our struggling 
timber dependent communities, this provision will bring in an estimated 
$1.5 billion of revenue into the Federal treasury.
  Mr. Chairman, the Taylor-Dicks amendment is good for the economy. It 
is good for the environment. And on top of all that, it is good for 
deficit reduction. Rarely in this body do we come across a ``win-win-
win'' situation. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this 
opportunity by voting no on the Yates amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 275, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               AYES--150

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     [[Page H3242]] Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--275

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Williams
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Fazio
     Gephardt
     Herger
     Rangel
     Schaefer
     Seastrand

                              {time}  1800

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mrs. Cubin against.
       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Herger against.

  Mrs. THURMAN and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. GREENWOOD, TOWNS, and GILMAN changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          Personal Explanation
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently missed the vote on the 
Yates amendment to strike the timber sales language in the bill. I 
would have voted ``no.''
                    amendment offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Porter: On page 23, line 10: 
     strike ``$1,603,094,000'' and insert ``$1,601,850''.
       On page 24, line 18: strike ``$3,253,097,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,221,397,000''.
       On page 25, line 12: strike ``$82,775,000'' and insert 
     ``$53,925,000''.
       On page 26, line 20: strike ``$2,168,935,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,178,935,000''.
       On page 29, line 4: strike ``$113,270,000'' and insert 
     ``$148,570,000'' and on line 5: strike ``$105,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$140,000,000''.
       On page 29, line 16: strike ``$757,132,000'' and insert 
     ``$747,021,000''.
       On page 29, line 18: strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$90,000,000''.
       On page 29, line 19: strike ``-D,'' and insert ``-E''.
       On page 29, line 20: strike ``$21,384,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,084,000''.
       On page 29, line 22: strike all after the semicolon through 
     the semicolon on page 29, line 23.
       On page 30, line 20: strike ``$232,413,000'' and insert 
     ``$119,544,000''.
       On page 30, line 22: after ``III-A,'' insert ``and''.
       On page 30, line 22: strike ``and -E,''.
       On page 30, line 23: strike ``$151,888,000'' and insert 
     ``$43,888,000''.
       On page 30, line 24: strike ``section''.
       On page 30, line 25: strike ``384(c),''.
       On page 30, line 25: strike ``$31,392,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,523,000''.
       On page 31, line 6: strike ``$83,375,000'' and insert 
     ``$187,475,000''.
       On page 31, line 7: after ``IV,'' insert ``part A-1,''.
       On page 33, line 11: strike ``$34,742,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,716,000''.
       On page 33, line 13: after ``$15,300,000'' strike ``, and 
     part VI, $8,026,000''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes 
on this amendment be divided between myself and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] opposed to 
the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member opposed to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois?
  Hearing none, the unanimous-consent request will be accepted without 
objection.
  There was no objection.


            modification to amendment offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified to correct three technical errors in the drafting of it, 
and I have an amendment for that purpose at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Porter, as modified:
       On page 23, line 10: strike ``$1,603,094,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,601,850,000''.
       On page 24, line 18: strike ``$3,253,097,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,221,397,000''.
       On page 25, line 12: strike ``$82,775,000'' and insert 
     ``$53,925,000''.
       On page 26, line 20: strike ``$2,168,935,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,178,935,000''.
       On page 29, line 4: strike ``$113,270,000'' and insert 
     ``$148,570,000'' and on line 5: strike ``$105,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$140,300,000''.
       On page 29, line 16: strike ``$757,132,000'' and insert 
     ``$747,021,000''.
       On page 29, line 18: strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$90,000,000''.
       On page 29, line 19: strike ``-D'' and ``-E,''.
       On page 29, line 20: before ``-G'' and strike ``and''.
       On page 29, line 20: strike ``$21,384,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,084,000''.
       [[Page H3243]] On page 29, line 22: strike all after the 
     semicolon through the semicolon on page 29, line 23.
       On page 30, line 20: strike ``$232,413,000'' and insert 
     ``$119,544,000''.
       On page 30, line 22: after ``III-A,'' insert ``and''.
       On page 30, line 22: strike ``and -E,''.
       On page 30, line 23: strike ``$151,888,000'' and insert 
     ``$43,888,000''.
       On page 30, line 24: strike ``section''.
       On page 30, line 25: strike ``384(c),''.
       On page 30, line 25: strike ``$31,392,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,523,000''.
       On page 31, line 6: strike ``$83,375,000'' and insert 
     ``$187,475,000''.
       On page 31, line 7: after ``IV,'' insert ``part A-1,''.
       On page 33, line 11: strike ``$34,742,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,716,000''.
       On page 33, line 13: after ``$15,300,000'' strike ``, and 
     part VI, $8,026,000''.

  Mr. PORTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment to correct 12 line 
items in our portion of the rescission bill, and I said, Mr. Chairman, 
that when we began our markup, we probably would make some mistakes. I 
think we did. We have attempted to correct them through this amendment.
  It would add back to the National Skill Standards Board $500,000.
  To the Women in Apprenticeships program also under the Department of 
Labor $744,000.
  To organ transplantation under the Department of Health and Human 
Services, $2.45 million, and 3 rural programs under that department, 
rural outreach at $27.4 million, rural hospital transition grants, $8.5 
million, and essential access community hospitals, $1.5 million.
  Under the Department of Education, Mr. Chairman, we would add back 
$28.811 million. Tech prep, $108 million. In each case, in both of 
those cases, all of the amount that was rescinded.
  Arts and education, $6 million.
  Library literacy, $8.26 million.
  National Institute for Literacy, $4.869 million.
  And Reading is Fundamental, $5.3 million.
  This would be offset by State unemployment insurance and employment 
service operations, $31.7 million, which is money that is not needed.
  From the $300 million of surplus and Pell grants, $104.1 million.
  From the Eisenhower Professional Development line, $30 million.
  And from title I, $35.3 million.
  I do not believe that there is opposition to the amendment, Mr. 
Chairman. I would commend it to the Members.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess this amendment is what I would put in the 
category of ``Thank You for Small Favors.''
  What the subcommittee of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
originally did on this bill is to cut $5.9 billion out of programs such 
as Healthy Start, Chapter 1. Safe and drug-free schools were 
eliminated. Education for the homeless was cut in half. Tech prep was 
cut by $108 million. School-to-work was cut by $25 million. 100,000 
State incentive grant scholarships were cut out for college kids. 
Public broadcasting was cut 10 percent the first year, $60 million the 
next year, and put on a 3-year route to oblivion. Summer jobs is 
totally eliminated in both 1995 and 1996. The new program to raise 
educational standards, Goals 2000, was cut by a large amount. The 
Eisenhower teacher training program was cut by a very large amount. All 
in total, $5.9 billion.
  In addition, the energy assistance program was ended under which 2 
million seniors get help to pay their home heating bills. Even programs 
like Green Thumb were reduced. Veterans medical care was cut back by 
$200 million, something which the House has scurried now to reverse 
today.
  Now this amendment out of that $5.9 billion restores $200 million, 
about 4 percent of the mistake.
  It restores that $200 million by making an additional cut in title I. 
It makes an additional cut in Eisenhower teacher training, and in the 
Pell grant carryover.
  What it does is to restore the cut that was made in homeless kids and 
to restore $37 million of the cuts that were made in rural health 
programs.
  In the rural health area, it still leaves substantial cuts in the 
rural outreach program, in the rural hospital transition program, and 
in the essential access community hospitals program.
  I am not very happy about where these cuts come from, but I think 
that it is hard to object to where they go in the tiny restoration 
which is accomplished by this amendment, and so I would simply say that 
I would support the amendment but I think all it does is indicate just 
how savage some of the reductions and how misguided some of the 
reductions were that were made in the first place.
  I would also note that despite the fact that we were told earlier 
today by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that this bill 
needed to be supported because there were way too many education 
programs and way too many job training programs, that this amendment 
manages to restore 4 of the programs which were eliminated and the 
elimination for which the Republicans were taking credit just about 2 
hours ago, including, I understand, one that has even caught the 
interest of the speaker, I am happy to say.
  So it seems to me that we cannot object to this restoration, but it 
does in the process of restoration indicate how misguided many of these 
original reductions were, targeted as they were at kids and senior 
citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.


amendment offered by mr. castle to the amendment offered by mr. porter, 
                              as modified

  Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Castle to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Porter of Illinois, as modified; Strike the item in the 
     amendment relating to page 29, line 18, of the bill and 
     insert the following:
       On page 29, line 18: strike ``$60,000,000, title IV, 
     $481,962,000,'' and insert ``$100,000,000, title IV, 
     $471,962,000,''.

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment, the numbers 
are large but the basic effect of what this amendment does is it 
reduces the Eisenhower Program which I will explain in a minute by $10 
million, actually $10 million beyond the $90 million that is already 
going to be reduced, and it leaves $10 million in the safe and drug-
free schools and communities to be used for the DARE program.
  That particular program is not a line item program and it is very 
important, I think, that we establish on the floor here today that the 
intent of this body is that $10 million which will be left in the safe 
and drug-free schools and communities program will be used for the DARE 
Program, a program which I think has generally been viewed as highly 
successful in virtually every State of the 44 States it is in, of the 
50 percent of the school districts across the United States of America 
which is participated in by many, many tens of thousands of children 
and which may have had a positive an effect on dealing with the 
problems of young people using drugs as any other program which I know 
of in my personal hands-on experience in the drug area.
  It also has the benefit of leaving this particular area open as the 
Senate considers this legislation to show that we consider this to be 
vitally important. That is the intent of what we do.
  The Eisenhower Program which is going to be cut an additional $10 
million supports State grants for the professional development 
activities to address teacher training needs in all the core academic 
subject areas and indeed that is going to still have some $220,298,000 
left when it is all said and done.
                              {time}  1815

  So that is the intent of the amendment which is before us.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  [[Page H3244]] Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for 
a moment to discuss the DARE Program.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just like to say in my hometown, Colquitt County, GA, the 
DARE Program has been extremely important in our educational system. 
The program has been in effect for the last 4 or 5 years, during which 
period of time we have had numerous incidents of the police officers 
who come into the school being looked upon as role models by the other 
students. This had led not only to an increase in awareness of the drug 
situation and alcoholism in our homes, but it also provided many other 
benefits in the area of child abuse.
  It is a program that I am very familiar with, my wife having been a 
teacher for 25 years in our public school system. It is something that 
has worked very well; it is something that is needed and I support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I too rise to support of the 
Castle amendment to the Porter amendment because the DARE Program 
happens to be the best anti-drug, anti-alcohol, pro-student program 
there is in the United States. It started in Los Angeles County some 
years ago in the sheriff's department. It is now administered in 
Pennsylvania through most of our sheriffs departments.
  It starts in fifth grade and teaches the refusal skills, leadership 
skills. It has done more to bring families together, to have students 
focus on what is really important about learning and leading. It has 
led to students actually being involved with community policing.
  I know in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and in fact the Delaware 
Valley area how important the DARE Program has been, and this amendment 
is certainly a step in the right direction to underscore for our 
students, for parents and for teachers that this is the kind of program 
that the Congress can endorse, the kind of program that America needs, 
and I fully support this program, which is in support of DARE, which is 
the drug abuse education program, and I believe the Castle amendment 
deserves the support of all of our colleagues here in the House of 
Representatives and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on its 
behalf.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say I think this amendment indicates 
just how ludicrous the proposal is which is before us. The bill 
recommended by the Republican majority eliminates $482 million for 
drug-free schools, and then it tries in this amendment to restore $10 
million of that $482 million reduction.
  It pretends that it is going to restore the money for D.A.R.E. But in 
fact, this amendment cannot restore the money for D.A.R.E. because this 
money goes out by formula, goes to States and local school districts, 
and the school districts have the authority to decide how the money is 
spread out.
  So we can pretend, by restoring a tiny $10 million fig leaf, that we 
are restoring D.A.R.E., but in fact this amendment does no such thing. 
It merely pretends to do that. And I guess it is sort of in the context 
of eliminating the entire drug-free school program; it is sort of like 
burning down the House but keeping the front doormat there as a 
souvenir; that is about all we have left of the drug-free school 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise certainly in opposition to the warped 
rescission bill that we have before us. I appreciate my colleague from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and our colleague from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
attempting to try and mollify and to key dollars to some of the special 
programs. I know in the homeless youth education program that there is 
a small program here where he tries to. But I think as we look closely 
at the what is happening here, we are losing our focus.
  A gaping wound is cut and targeted to the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, public housing development. In fact, there is a drug 
rehabilitation program that is targeted for public housing that is 
eliminated in this rescission bill, and block grants.
  The bulk of these programs provide basic housing for Americans in 
dire need of assistance that virtually prevent and end homelessness for 
thousands of families and children, and keep our senior citizens in 
their own homes independent instead of in more expensive nursing homes 
and dependent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this measure before us does 
precious little to deal with the deficit. In fact, as we know, the 
Republicans plan to use most of it for a tax cut for the well-off. And 
regrettably, the human deficit that continues to grow, the kids in 
poverty, the unemployed, the underemployed, the elderly, deeper and 
deeper the despair grows that pervades their lives; they live in the 
shadows.
  We ought to do better; we can do better. We ought to offer hope. We 
ought not to be pulling away the very threads that tend to guide these 
people to a better life and to the people we represent.
  Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to try and 
put out a doormat for these, I think we need real programs and we have 
had them. I hope in the future we can work for that.
  I think it is regrettable we are trying to pass a bill like this. I 
think 43 percent of the cuts in this program go right at the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, at the homeless, at programs that 
deal with public assistance, and our cities will not be able to absorb 
those types of cuts in the next 6 months.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this warped rescissions bill 
which cuts $17.1 billion in spending mostly from programs that serve 
working families, children, the elderly and our Nation's veterans, and 
uses these cuts--not to cut our deficit--but instead to fund the 
current California disaster relief and primarily to fund a tax cut for 
well off Americans. Further, under this rule, which requires that 
restoration of funds not only be paid for from the same chapter, but 
only from the programs included in this bill in the first place, the 
basic inequitable nature of the bill is compounded. Changes are only 
possible by further cutting the people programs included in the bill 
before us not the programs that are not included. This is like the 
starving fighting over a crust of bread.
  Let me be clear, I am not opposed to paying for the supplemental 
assistance to California earthquake victims. I am, however, deeply 
concerned that we are paying with cuts in programs of those least able 
to pay. Knowing that the Republicans want these rescinded funds to be 
used for a GOP contract tax cut for the rich is adding salt to an open 
wound. Furthermore some of the very programs cut are taking from the 
California victims themselves. This is nonsensical.
  Mr. Chairman, a gaping wound is the cuts targeted for the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development: Public Housing Development and 
Modernization, Housing for People with AIDS, Lead-Based Paint, 
Congregate Services for the elderly, Drug Elimination grants, and 
Community Development Block Grants are some of the basic programs that 
this bill targets.
  The bulk of these programs provide basic housing for Americans in 
dire need of assistance. They literally prevent or end homelessness for 
thousands of families and children and keep our senior citizens in 
their own homes--independent--instead of more expensive nursing homes--
dependent. There is a direct link between housing assistance and 
homelessness. Reducing Section 8 assistance will affect at least 12,000 
homeless families and children who will be forced to stay in shelters 
or on the street instead of in permanent housing. Some have estimated 
as many as 63,000 families could be homeless because of this bill 
before the House today. These numbers are part of an entire picture of 
the United States which research has shown to have 7 million people in 
the past 5 years who have been homeless. Increasing homelessness 
through obliterating housing assistance is wrong. We can't deny the 
facts. We should not be washing our hands of the issue and withdrawing 
from a limited commitment.
  The fact of the matter is, 43 percent of these rescissions are from 
programs affecting housing and community development. That is not 
balanced and not fair. It is a tremendously unfair burden to place upon 
programs that support working American families, children, the elderly, 
people with disabilities and the homeless. These cuts are real--very 
real, not just cuts in bureaucratic bodies. In Minnesota, alone, under 
the provisions of the total bill we would have an estimated loss of 
over $296 million. Minnesota would lose 886 Section 8 
 [[Page H3245]] units, $15.5 million in public housing modernization, 
$2.8 million in operating subsidies, $4.7 million in Community 
Development Block Grant funds, and almost $1 million in AIDS housing. 
These are funds that have been planned for and are an integral part of 
hundreds of responsible communities' futures. Minnesotans had a right 
to count on the funding for the last 6 months of this 1995 fiscal year 
to stay in place.
  Other homeless assistance programs under the McKinney Act are 
decimated by this rescissions bill: job training for homeless veterans, 
education for homeless children, adult education and literacy, and the 
McKinney portion of the Emergency Community Services Block Grant. These 
are not budget busting programs. These are not problem programs--they 
are working in Minnesota. This elimination serves notice that the 
unique programs designed to take the necessary step for our most 
vulnerable citizens today are serving as targets, literally: targets 
for potshots at programs aimed at alleviating poverty and helping 
working people help themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, several amendments will be offered here today that I 
will support--amendments to restore what was so irresponsibly cut from 
vital housing programs and I would urge my Colleagues to support these 
amendments that will prevent homelessness and the tremendous burden 
that that represents for people and governments. Unfortunately, because 
of this gag rule, several more amendments I would have supported cannot 
be offered.
  Referring back to the underlying legislation, another provision which 
deeply concerns me is the proposal to zero out the funding for the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. As a 
Member from one of the coldest States in the Nation, I am alarmed by 
the potential impact of this ill-advised action.
  In 1994, approximately 6.1 million households received aid to help 
cover heating costs nationwide. Nearly half of these households contain 
elderly or handicapped persons--often on fixed incomes--and about 80 
percent of them earn less than $10,000 a year. Where are these people 
to turn when they no longer can afford to heat their homes? Where are 
my constituents in St. Paul to turn when the temperature drops to 15 or 
20 degrees below zero and they do not have the money to pay for heating
 fuel?

  The Republican answer to us today is that the States and the utility 
companies will pick up the tab. Are they so flush with money? Well, the 
reality of the situation is that this $1.3 billion LIHEAP rescission is 
literally going to leave families in the cold. The shortfalls in our 
economy and disparities of incomes today, need programs such as LIHEAP 
to fill in the gaps.
  The atrocious cuts to education contained in this bill counter any 
pretense of deliberate consideration of public policy. My frustration 
with the education cuts contained in this bill are not only with the 
cuts to Minnesota, which are indeed significant--over $14 million--but 
also with the lack of respect for the children who are our future. 
Every dollar for education is an investment in the future of this 
country and our national economy. This bill eliminates the funds used 
by 94 percent of schools across the country to make schools safer and 
drug free. This action is not just thoughtless, it is ignorant of the 
problems and needs and it is this indifference that speaks to an 
arrogance in this Congress today which doesn't serve the people. This 
bill cuts funds to assist students striving to meet higher standards 
for achievements and kills aid that makes college more accessible for 
thousands of students. At a time when jobs demand more preparation, 
cutting education funding is indeed a losing proposition. We need to 
support education as a budget priority and this bill before the House 
has it backward.
  The cuts in summer youth job training and employment programs are 
illogical and shortsighted. How can we advocate choosing sensible 
alternatives when indeed none would exist for so many of our urban 
youth with this program terminated. Young people often choose improper 
behavior, even illegal activities, and the cost associated with the 
juvenile justice system pale in comparison to the cost of helping young 
people prepare themselves for a responsible future. The $210 million 
cut in the National and Community Service [AmeriCorps] has the same 
effect of pulling the rug out from under positive opportunities which 
offer hope for the future for young adults.
  Another of President Clinton's priorities, Community Development 
Financial Institutions [CDFIs], whose development was bi-partisan, has 
fallen under the rescissions axe. CDFIs could be powerful utilizers of 
Federal seed capital for private sector community activities that will 
provide job creation, economic development, and affordable housing 
opportunities in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The cut of 
their funding before they have even had a chance to prove themselves is 
grossly unfair.
  From the party that claims the high ground on private property rights 
and management of our National Parks, the cuts contained in this 
legislation strike me as hypocritical. The rescissions to both the BLM 
and National Park Service Land Acquisition funds are a perverse 
infringement on private property rights. Private property owners within 
parks or the public domain want to sell their land to the Federal 
Government but this legislation eliminates the funding needed to 
accomplish such end--in effect, denying property owners such long 
sought compensation. In addition, my Republican colleagues constantly 
complain about the inability of the NPS to manage their backlog and yet 
the first thing they do is to eliminate the funding necessary to carry 
out commitments--hence compounding the problem. When will we engage in 
common sense regarding this debate?
  Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns in what these rescissions mean 
both in themselves and in what they signal as the direction of this 
Republican Congress. What I am seeing is an erosion in support for 
working families and an eradication of support for those who cannot 
make ends meet: all in order to give folks making $200,000 or more a 
tax break and such tax cut is 30 times more than families making $20 to 
$30,000 a year. As I said, Minnesota will be out nearly $300 million in 
the next 6 months if this proposed bill were to become law. These cuts 
have been narrowly pulled from a small part of the Federal budget, cut 
from American working families, their housing, their schools, in 
essence, their hope for a better life.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a budget deficit and we have a human deficit. 
This rescission bill will do little to help the deficit. In fact, the 
Republicans plan to use it for a tax cut for the well off, and 
regrettably the human deficit grows, the kids in poverty--the 
unemployed deeper, and the underemployed. The despair pervades those in 
the shadow of our society. We ought to be offering hope. This 
legislation does not acknowledge the reality that the Federal 
Government must remain a partner for supporting the basic needs of our 
citizens, and not serve as just an agent to cost shift burdens to State 
and local governments, and the non-profit sector that is already 
operating on overload today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this rescissions 
bill.
  In my 30-plus years in public service I have never witnessed such a 
vicious and mindless assault on the Nation's children.
  This rescission bill is the clearest demonstration of the cynicism, 
indecency and greed of a Republican strategy to relieve their rich 
friends of the responsibility to pay taxes.
  They would rather eat their young than cut one penny--one penny--out 
of defense.
  Let the record show: when the Republicans decided to cut spending to 
pay for their tax cut they went after children, especially 
disadvantaged children. They went after these children with vengeance.
  Nearly two-thirds of the rescissions are in low-income programs--even 
through they account for only 12 percent of fiscal year 1995 
discretionary appropriations. The bill would slash 15 percent of 
appropriations for low-income programs, while other programs would be 
cut by only 1 percent.
  At a time when we should be investing in our people, this bill 
reduces funding in education and job training. At a time when we should 
be addressing important social issues, this bill eliminates funding for 
the drug free schools program. At a time when politicians praise the 
value of work, this 
 [[Page H3246]] bill eliminates the Summer Jobs Program and reduces job 
training funding. No Mr. Chairman, this bill makes no sense at all.
  This bill terminates programs that everyone who cares about our 
schools tells us, without a dissenting voice, are important.
  This bill terminates the Drug Free Schools Program. This bill is the 
major Federal effort aimed at providing young people with a wide range 
of drug and alcohol abuse prevention training. By eliminating this 
program, as this bill does, 39 million students throughout the country 
will no longer benefit from drug prevention efforts. Almost every 
school district in the Nation will be affected. This makes no sense at 
all.
  The bill cuts title I funding by $140 million. Title I helps at-risk 
students improve their reading and math skills and master challenging 
school work. It is a successful program. Last Congress we worked on a 
bi-partisan basis to improve it. Yet we all know that not every 
eligible child receives title I services, even though these services 
have helped students achieve better in school. Today about 60 percent 
of eligible title I kids do not receive title I benefits because the 
program does not have enough funds. What does this bill do? It cuts 
title I funds. One hundred thousand at-risk kids will be put more at 
risk by this cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I could take all the time allotted to this bill to 
outline for my colleagues the destruction this bill will cause to 
children and families across this Nation. The bill eliminates funding 
for literacy programs for homeless adults; it eliminates money to help 
schools acquire new technology--the Speaker says that every poor person 
should have a lap-top computer at home. This bill won't even permit 
every school to have a computer.
  The bill eliminates funding for the Star Schools Program, a program 
that is vital to rural areas and areas that rely on distance learning 
as a necessity, not a luxury.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close with a brief discussion as to what this 
bill does to summer jobs. This bill ends the program. Six hundred 
thousand teenagers won't have summer jobs because of this bill. I have 
heard from mayors all over the country about what this will mean for 
their cities. These mayors have decried this elimination of summer 
jobs. And this has been a bi-partisan outcry, from the Republican 
mayors of Los Angeles and Knoxville to the Democratic mayors of Boston 
and Philadelphia. They are united in their belief that this cut may be 
the most illogical cut of all.
  This is a bad bill. It will not get any better through the amendment 
process. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that he would like to put the 
question on the Castle amendment to the Porter amendment if there are 
no further speakers. At that time, there will be time remaining on the 
Porter amendment.
  Are there further speakers to be yielded to on the Castle amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who wants to address the Castle amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] does, and I will support the Castle amendment, 
but what it simply does is it moves a terrible bill into the lousy bill 
category. We have cut $482 million out of drug-free schools.
  Now, I applaud the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for restoring 
$10 million out of $482 million, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] for attempting to restore Tech-Prep and a host of other 
programs, but what they are using as offsets are the Eisenhower 
professional development program, among others things. We are losing 
good education programs, cutting proven education programs to help 
teachers teach better, to help our children learn better, and we are 
moving them, moving them in a shall game from one program to another.
  It is a lousy choice that this bill offers. The gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] and I, a Republican on the other side, offered 
an amendment last year to restore all of the D.A.R.E. funding. This is 
$10 million out of $482 million. We need to go a lot further.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further speakers on Castle amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that all the remaining 
speakers want to address the amendment as well as the underlying 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene 
Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
allowing me to address the Committee for 2 minutes. I serve on the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and the restoring 
of $10 million with the $482 million cut is to small.
  Just recently, a Wall Street Journal--NBC poll showed that 79 percent 
of Americans believe cutting the Department of Education funding is 
moving in the wrong direction. So that means even restoring $10 million 
is moving in the wrong direction.
  Let us look at what the rescission bill does to education as a whole. 
As my ranking member now of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Clay], said, $105 million from Title I of Chapter I funds, in the 
State of Texas we are losing $9 million out of this bill on just title 
I alone.
  Title I was reauthorized last year, and allowed for more flexibility 
in our school district and now we are actually cutting it. Drug-free 
schools, a $481.9 million cut, again, and a $10 million restoration 
will not go anywhere all over the country to help; it is literally a 
fig leaf.
  Diana Kelly, President of the Galena Park Area Council PTA, stated 
that eliminating these programs would be catastrophic not only to her 
district but to our Nation's youth.
  Cutting the safe and drug-free schools by $472 million, if this 
amendment is adopted, is robbing from our kids by providing tax breaks 
for the wealthy. The tax cut is already out of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Tech-Prep was cut $108 million. Tech-Prep, every witness in our 
committee this year called by the Republican majority supported Tech-
Prep, and yet we are zeroing it out because we are taking away money 
from current education. Seventy-nine percent of the people say they did 
not want to cut education funding, yet this House, by thee Republican 
majority, is doing that.
  This represents the Goals 2000, which was many years in the making by 
President Bush and now President Clinton, is actually being cut $142 
million. This is not the way the American people want us to go.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time at this point.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying 
bill, the rescission package in total, and also to the Porter amendment 
and the Castle amendment to it.
  Page after page of misguided and misplaced budget priorities, when 
the Federal Government already distributes such a small amount to 
education programs, to be standing here talking about $200 million in 
education programs we want to cut makes no sense, unless we are not 
concerned about the next generation and we are only focusing on the 
next election.

                              {time}  1830

  I would challenge all of my colleagues to think clearly abut what it 
is that we are saying about where this future of this country lies. We 
need to invest in education, invest in the young people of our Nation, 
and I would hope, even though I know that it will not be the case, that 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will eventually 
wake up and see the light. If they fail to see the light, I would hope 
that the American public one day soon will have them feel the heat.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been enough tragedy in all of these 
rescission bills to go around.
  I see a very great bright spot in what the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] is doing today.
  In the United States there are anywhere between 750,000 and 1 
million 
[[Page H3247]] homeless children every single day. In any of the 
education bills that we have, none of the money applies to them, 
because they are not in school. A few years back with some wisdom we 
put together a bill here to educate the homeless children, to give them 
transportation, a piece of paper and pencil to write with.
  We have reduced the number of homeless children not in school with 
this bill from 50 percent to 18 and continuing to go down. To take this 
program out was the height of stupidity. We are not going to be able to 
compete with the next century if we have children uneducated, 
unhealthy, and unskilled.
  I am delighted to support the Porter amendment, because the homeless 
children in this country who have absolutely no voice but what we can 
muster in this House will have an opportunity to continue a program.
  It is not their fault they are homeless. Their mothers and fathers 
are out of work because we failed somehow to create jobs in this 
country. But I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
for including the homeless children in this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, the remainder of my time, 
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I do want to rise in support of the efforts of my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], but I wish we had 
been given a different choice here.
  I think he is absolutely right when he wants to restore $10 million 
to the highly successful DARE program. Some of us though would have 
liked to have paid for that by taking money, for example, out of the 
operation and maintenance account of the Southeastern Power 
Administration, $13 million. I offered an amendment that would have let 
us pay for this kind of program that way, but because of the rule we 
are under, we are not permitted to do that.
  Having to pay for this out of programs that help in the continuing 
education of teachers is a tragedy. Nevertheless, I will join my 
colleagues in supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], but again, remind the majority they have cut off 
debate where it really should happen here.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
for yielding. I will be very brief.
  But essentially I do believe that the Porter amendment does a lot to 
reinstate some funds that needed to be reinstated as has been already 
set forth on this floor today. But I would also point out that the 
amendment which I have prepared for the DARE program, I believe by the 
discussion we have had today, will go to the DARE program.
  I understand some of the objections which have been raised by some of 
my colleagues concerning where the cuts have to come from. We are 
limited by the rule with respect to that. But I would hope that 
everybody would understand that this is one program which is almost 
universally recognized as having been successful across the United 
States of America in fighting drugs. For that reason, I hope we can 
support both the Castle amendment and the underlying Porter amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], as modified
  The amendment to the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to offer at this time, if 
it were appropriate, an amendment relating to saving the summer youth 
program. Unfortunately, some of the items have been precluded by the 
rules of the House that are being applied to a rescission bill that 
normally are applied to appropriations, which are not rescission bills. 
That is creating great difficulty.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] have already preempted in essence the particular 
sections except for one on the amendment 42 which I had filed at the 
desk at the appropriate time on Monday, and what is left is page 25, 
line 23, where we could at the appropriate time after this, if that is 
not precluded, strike $682,282,000 and insert $582,282,000.
  I would like to see a lot of this problem solved in conference. I 
think there is an overwhelming feeling in this House, in fact, many of 
the leaders on authorizations and Appropriations have said just that to 
me, to do something to restore the summer youth program. The fact is it 
was removed at 1:30 a.m. in the morning when I suggest some of the 
individuals might not have known what they were doing.
  This is very vital for urban America. The school superintendent in 
Long Beach, my home city, has endorsed it even though I was taking 
funds from various education programs.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would just say, my friend, if the 
gentleman does not like so much what is here, then one good way to deal 
with that would be to vote against it, and maybe if the gentleman does 
not like the rule because he is precluded, a good thing would have been 
to have voted against the rule. I think to vote for a restrictive rule 
and then vote for the bill which makes all of these cuts and then to 
lament them is very puzzling.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], as modified, as amended.
  The amendment, as modified, as amended, was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. murtha

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 53.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Murtha: Add the following Section 
     to the end of the bill:


         ``savings to be used exclusively for deficit reduction

       ``Sec. 302. An amount equal to the net budget authority 
     reduced in this Act is hereby appropriated into the Deficit 
     Reduction Fund established pursuant to Executive Order 12858 
     to be used exclusively to reduce the Federal deficit: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I request allocation of half of the 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I want to rise in support of deficit reduction, 
and I think it is important to go back and look from a historical 
perspective of what I am trying to do and what I think is important.
  If we are going to pass a budget resolution, I am convinced it is 
absolutely essential that we show we are going to make the spending 
cuts first. I do not think, based on my years here in Congress, it is 
possible to cut taxes and at the same time balance the budget. I am 
convinced that when President Reagan came to office, he believed he 
could balance the budget in the 8 years that he was here. I am 
convinced that President Bush believed that he could balance the budget 
in the 4 years that he was here, and even before that, President Carter 
talked about balancing the budget.
  Because of the tax cut we implemented during the Reagan 
administration, the deficit got larger. Now, it was not that Congress 
did not cooperate, 
 [[Page H3248]] and it was not that the President and the Congress did 
not want to balance the budget. There were all kinds of efforts during 
that period of time.
  Probably the most important single thing that happened was that 
entitlements increased substantially during this whole period. During 
the period of time that, the 12 years, almost every single 
appropriation bill that was sent to the Congress was reduced by the 
Congress, and the Presidents, President Reagan and President Bush, 
signed those bills. We worked out a compromise, and yet the national 
debt grew. It grew from $1 trillion to $4 trillion.
  What I am saying today and what I am trying to impress upon the 
Members who have been advocating a tax cut is that first we ought to 
focus on the deficit and try to put the savings that we get from 
rescissions like this, and by the way, some of these rescissions I 
agree with, and some of them I do not agree with, but we ought to take 
the savings from these rescissions and put them against the deficit.
  Most of the cuts that were made in the budgets that were sent to us 
were made in defense, and they were forced by the fact that there was 
no place else to go. It was defense against domestic programs, and we 
cut about $155 billion in a 12-period from defense. All of us believed 
that we were cutting the right amount at the right time. We had budget 
resolutions which passed, usually partisan budget resolutions, but in 
the end the bills passed in a bipartisan manner. Democrats and 
Republicans voted for them.
  I am proud to say that the members of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee have reduced the size of the military after the cold war 
and after the Berlin Wall came down in a way that we retained a world 
class military. The Chief of Staff of the Army just testified before 
Chairman Young and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee today and 
talked about how good the Army is compared to after the Vietnam war, 
after the Korean war, and after World War II. It could be better. It is 
about an 8 on a 1-to-10 scale is what he testified today.
  And as I look down the road and as I worry about the possibility of a 
tax cut versus deficit reduction, I see defense competing with critical 
domestic programs. I see Social Security and Medicare and all of those 
programs overwhelming defense, and I do not think there is any way that 
we can keep that from happening.
  I am concerned that Members with less experience that do not 
recognize or realize the difficulty we have gone through and the work 
that we have done, and we were probably the only committee in the House 
over those 12 years that actually made a reduction; everybody else 
might have made cuts in increases, but we in Appropriations made actual 
reductions in budget requests from the President, and we struggled with 
those budget requests, trying to make sure the funding priorities went 
to readiness, to quality of life, and I think that Desert Storm shows 
exactly what happened.
  For instance, when Desert one went down in 1980, we had a very inept 
force, a force that was hollow, a force without training, a force with 
poor equipment. Half the combat aircraft of this country were deadlined 
because of lack of spare parts, and when that operation went in 1980, 
we went to the desert with only four or five helicopters. We lost a 
number of people. We could not even effect a rescue of our diplomats 
who were captured by the Iranians. And yet a decade later, in 1991, we 
pulled off Desert Storm, a magnificent operation.
  So through this period when we made all of these cuts in defense, we 
actually were able to build our quality force, went to an all-volunteer 
force, put a GI bill in place, put new equipment in their hands, and it 
culminated with an operation where we had a very minimal loss of 
casualties and a phenomenal military success.
  So I believe very strongly we have to be careful. We should send a 
message to the country that we are interested in deficit reduction 
first, and this is a policy statement that I believe the Congress 
should make, and I would hope that Members on both sides would support 
this as the goal. Obviously after that, after we make the spending 
cuts, after the deficit is reduced, we can look at the possibility of 
tax cuts.

                              {time}  1845

  So, Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about it, and I would hope 
that Members in this House on both sides of the aisle would support my 
amendment to emphasize deficit reduction rather than tax cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] was an outstanding chairman of our Defense Subcommittee, of the 
Committee on Appropriations. He has done yeoman service for this 
Congress over the years. He has got a good amendment. I support it, and 
I appreciate his cooperation with us in this bill, and I certainly hope 
that he will be voting for the bill on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, on March 10, 1995, Mr. Livingston, 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, along with the Mr. Porter, 
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, sent a 
letter to every Member of the House of Representatives. The letter 
states:

       We are writing to seek your support for the Appropriations 
     rescission bill recently reported by the Committee on 
     Appropriations.
       We are all committed to a program that will redress the 
     decades of financial irresponsibility that has left our 
     children and grandchildren saddled with over $4 trillion in 
     debt. The $17 billion in reductions in this bill are a down 
     payment on this major undertaking; a first step in setting 
     our fiscal house in order. . . .

  Well, if the two chairmen really mean this, and if the Republican 
leadership agrees, they will vote to pass the amendment before us now. 
It is the only way to ensure these rescissions really reduce the 
deficit. It mandates that all savings in the bill be applied to the 
deficit.
  As it stands now, this bill, and that letter, are a fraud. The $12 
billion in ``so called'' savings in this legislation are not destined 
for our children and grandchildren. They are destined to offset new tax 
cuts.
  And these tax cuts are not for kids. Just yesterday, the Republicans 
announced their tax plan which abolishes the alternative minimum tax. 
This means a return to the pre-1986 tax days where hundreds of 
corporate giants including Sears Roebuck, Texaco, Boeing, General 
Dynamics, Dun and Bradstreet, and J.P. Morgan and Company, could play 
the system and pay no taxes whatsoever. Zero.
  Just think about it: today, we cut programs our kids depend on; 
tomorrow, we force our kids to pay for corporate tax cuts. Some legacy.
  Two months ago, over-two thirds of the House of Representatives voted 
to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Regardless of 
what happened in the Senate, it is our obligation to behave as if that 
amendment were law.
  Because I voted for the balanced budget amendment, I supported these 
rescissions in full Committee, even though I did not necessarily agree 
with the cuts.
  Rescissions are not easy. Coming up with $17 billion in cuts is 
agonizing. The Majority rejected school lunch, Women Infants and 
Children, and other children's programs.
  But if our budget crises forces us to make these awful cuts, it is 
imperative that we give our children a better future--as Mr. Livingston 
and Mr. Porter suggest.
  If this amendment fails, instead of coming through for our kids, we 
will be sticking it to our kids. I urge my colleagues support the 
Murtha amendment and give our children and grandchildren a real down 
payment on deficit.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle--under great pressure--have now agreed to 
permit his amendment requiring that the balance of 
 [[Page H3249]] the cuts in the bill be used for deficit reduction. The 
bill currently allows money not needed for last year's California 
earthquake to be set aside for tax cuts that primarily benefit the 
wealthiest Americans and corporations.
  As my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin said earlier, this 
bill is a charade. That is why I will not dignify it by voting for the 
``either/or'' amendments forced upon us by the closed rule.
  While I view the Murtha amendment as a positive change, I regret that 
the process by which we are considering this flawed legislation is such 
a disgrace. It stifles responsible efforts to improve a rescissions 
package that takes direct aim at our children, veterans and elderly 
poor.
  As we have seen throughout the day, the restrictive arrangement we 
are operating under has forced Members to choose between important 
issues like caring for veterans, providing adequate housing for seniors 
and educating our children. It has also placed the defense budget, 
which represents close to half of the discretionary budget, off limits. 
Star wars, contracting cost overruns, and low priority or questionable 
defense programs are preserved in full.
  While I am supporting the Murtha amendment which places deficit 
reduction above financing tax cuts for the wealthy, I still have 
serious problems with the bill. The responsibility for drawing down the 
deficit is being placed squarely on the backs of those Americans who 
need our help most. This is occurring at a time when steps are being 
taken to make the wealthy better off. I can't help but ask two 
questions; ``Are we going to focus on slashing programs which help the 
poor to reduce the deficit?'', and ``How do my colleagues plan to 
finance the $189 billion in tax cuts scheduled to come before the House 
next week?''
  I believe the rescissions now being proposed by my Republican 
colleagues provide a very clear answer to these questions.
  Money to improve the quality of medical care available to our 
veterans is being cut. This is being done despite the fact that the 
projected veterans population requiring health care services will far 
surpass available facilities in the future.
  The Low-Income Heating Assistance Program is being terminated. This 
vital program helps two million elderly households and better than 3 
million low income families meet their home heating needs each year. 
Without it these families will be forced to make difficult choices 
between heat and other basic necessities such as food and medicine. 
Today it is supposed to be 70 degrees in Michigan. After my friends on 
the other side of the aisle are finished, we all better hope that next 
winter is just as mild.
  Cuts from housing programs will leave 14,500 seniors homeless. 
Another 530,000 elderly households will have the security and quality 
of their housing severely impaired as a result of these changes.
  The Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the Healthy Start 
Program which provide nutrition supplements and valuable prenatal care 
to mothers are also being cut.
  The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program is being terminated despite 
recent studies showing that drug use among students is on the rise. I 
find it very surprising that my colleagues would propose this cut less 
than one week after former First Lady Nancy Reagan stressed to a House 
subcommittee the importance of educating our young people on the harms 
of drugs.
  Other valuable programs to construct schools and enhance their 
technologies are being terminated.
  Programs to help move disadvantaged children from school to the world 
of work have also been put on the chopping block. The elimination of 
the Summer Youth Employment Program will translate to more than 600,000 
lost opportunities for high risk youths. Funds are also being stripped 
from the Youth Job Training, Job Corps and School to work programs.
  At a time when we are preparing to consider the issue of welfare 
reform, we should not terminate or reduce funding for valuable programs 
that expose our young people to the dignity of work.
  The rescissions package before us clearly represents bad legislation. 
However, I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering a 
measure to correct a defect in this bill that runs counter to the 
strong desire of the American people to see the deficit reduced. 
Regrettably, the Members on this side of the aisle are barred from 
offering amendments to ensure that we proceed in a responsible fashion. 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote against the 
bill.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Murtha amendment. 
This amendment is essentially the same as one that I had printed in the 
Congressional Record that I had intended to offer. However, my 
amendment was not made in order.
  While I do not support many of the rescissions in this package 
because they are targeted on programs that benefit children, youth, the 
elderly, veterans and others in need of assistance, I believe that if 
we are going to rescind funds for programs, those funds should be used 
for deficit reduction and not used to pay for tax cuts for wealthy 
Americans.
  I recently introduced House Resolution 94 which calls on Congress to 
make deficit reduction a top priority. Clearly, we need to cut spending 
if we want to get our fiscal house in order and there are certainly 
many programs on the books currently that we don't need or can't 
afford, such as the $10 billion space station. Unfortunately, that 
program was not targeted for a cut in this legislation. I am pleased 
that the Murtha amendment requires the net budget savings under this 
bill go to the Deficit Reduction Fund established by Executive Order 
12858 and used exclusively for deficit reduction.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421, 
noes 1, answered ``present'', not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     [[Page H3250]] Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--1

       
     Williams
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Ehrlich
     Fazio
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Mfume
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1912

  Mr. MENENDEZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  On behalf of the minority, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise and thank 
the chairman and the majority for their consideration. We had a meeting 
and a lot of our people were not here, and you extended the time to 
afford them the opportunity to vote on this amendment. I wanted you to 
know that on this side of the aisle we very much appreciate it. I thank 
the chairman for his actions.
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. De Lay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 29 which was printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. the Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay: On page 25, line 5 strike 
     ``$16,072,000'' and insert ``$19,572,000.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] will be recognized 
for up to 15 minutes in support of his amendment. Is there a Member 
rising in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is allocated 15 
minutes for debate.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for 15 minutes.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly, I am somewhat disappointed that I have to 
offer this amendment today. But because OSHA is so intent on flouting 
the will of this Congress in an effort to add to its own regulatory 
enforcement empire, I must do so.
  My amendment rescinds an addition $3.5 million from the OSHA 
rescission already contained in this bill. This would force OSHA to 
cease its activities on the promulgation of an ergonomics standard that 
is paternalistic in concept and a menace in its implementation.
  Ergonomics is a fledgling science devoted to redesigning workplaces 
to better fit workers. By focusing on work spaces and stations, tools 
and equipment, lighting, typewriter keys and telephones, ergonomics as 
a practice affects virtually every aspect of American Businesses, both 
large and small. There is no consensus in the scientific community over 
risks or remedies of implementing or failing to implement ergonomic 
policies.
  There is certainly no consensus that a Federal
   ergonomics standard can actually have any positive impact on work 
place health or safety.

  OSHA, however, with little regard to cost, is bound and determined to 
press forward with what is by their own admission likely to be the most 
expensive, most far-reaching rule ever promulgated by the agency. It 
has been estimated that this rule would cost $21 billion to implement.
  As has been repeated on this floor, speaker after speaker, before any 
regulations are imposed, there ought to be good science establishing 
the risks requiring the regulation, as well as the benefits justifying 
the new regulatory burden. That is why this House passed H.R. 450, H.R. 
9, and H.R. 1022.
  OSHA's proposal on this standard involved the imposition of billions 
of dollars on the private sector and a radical new level of government 
intrusion into work places and work practices without any scientific 
support.
  The intent of OSHA to ignore and undermine the will of this House in 
reforming the regulatory regime of the Federal Government is quite 
clear by the agency's own statements in just the recent days.
  I would like to share with my colleagues a quotation from the head of 
OSHA's ergonomics standards team which appeared in this Monday's 
papers:

       If the legislation says the moratorium runs through 
     December the 31st, our anticipation is that we would get the 
     proposal out January the 1st, unless it says, do not work on 
     an ergonomics standards or go to jail. If it only says we 
     cannot publish the proposal, we can continue to work on it.

  OSHA's express intention to do business as usual in this area sends a 
very clear signal that the discipline Congress is seeking to bring to 
Federal regulatory agencies will not come easily. This amendment seeks 
to impose a fiscal discipline where it is clear that other forms of 
discipline will be ignored.
  I appreciate Members supporting my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, sent a memo to 
the Republican party leaders. In that memo he said: ``Look, whenever 
you are talking about cuts for these programs, do not talk about the 
program because programs have friends. So simply talk about the 
bureaucrats.'' That is what is happening here. This amendment is being 
presented as though it is a discipline for bureaucrats.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happens. When they continue to cut 
back at OSHA the way they have done in this bill and the way they want 
to intensify it by this amendment, you assure that people are going to 
be injured and you assure that people are going to die.
  Now, when my father ran a floor covering business many years ago, I 
worked with him in it for 7 years. I worked with asbestos products. 
Johns-Manville had known since 1939 that asbestos caused cancer. The 
first time I knew about it is the first day I served on the Labor-HEW 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I walked in here and I listened to the 
NIH person testifying. And they told us that 40 percent of British 
shipyard workers who had worked with asbestos had contracted 
mesothelioma and were dead.
  Now, mesothelioma is a form of cancer. So I think I have a pretty 
good idea of what is going to get me eventually, especially because I 
was a heavy smoker in those days. And back when I was laying that floor 
covering and working with asbestos products, we did not have an agency 
called OSHA to protect workers. And the official position of the U.S. 
Government with respect to worker health was: ``We do not give a 
damn!'' That was the official position.
  Today, thanks to a very fine Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, 
Bill Steiger, who was the father of the OSHA provisions, we have an 
agency charged with the responsibility to protect worker health and 
safety. And sometimes it does a lousy job of it, and sometimes it does 
a darn good job of it.
  But I will tell Members something. You talk about unhappiness with 
the 
 [[Page H3251]] ergonomics standards that they are going to develop. I 
cannot tell you how many times I have walked through plants or offices 
and run into women who have had devices on their wrists and I have 
said: ``What happened to you?'' They said, ``I just had carpal tunnel 
surgery.'' I said, ``What is the matter?'' They said, ``Well, you know 
how it is working at terminals all day long.'' Those women are working 
mothers most of them. And they need our concern.
  Now, the gentleman is worried because he says the ergonomics standard 
is going to be very expensive. Of course it is. Because right now the 
lack of protection for workers on standards like that is causing them 
an immense amount of health problems, and health problems cost money. 
So now we are told, oh, we ought to support another cut in OSHA because 
the majority whip does not happen to like the agency or does not happen 
to like the standard.
  I would suggest, I read the story in the Washington Post 2 or 3 days 
ago, discussing how lobbyists for big business were crawling all over 
the office of the majority whip when they were preparing the strategy 
to go after regulation, and the gentleman may be proud of it. I was 
appalled. I was appalled.
  He can laugh if he wants. I would not want to go to my district and 
brag about the number of lobbyists working in my office to supervise 
the work that I was performing. And so if you want to go ahead, this 
just makes a rotten bill a little bit worse. So go ahead.
  If you do not want to have workers protected from things like carpal 
tunnel syndrome, go ahead. Vote for this turkey of an amendment. But 
recognize that according to OSHA's own estimates, at least 2,500 more 
people will be injured because of the budget reductions provided by 
this amendment.
  If you do not like what OSHA does in specifics, correct their 
mistakes. Do what some of us have done. Work to try to see to it that 
you get proper training and education for those inspectors. But do not 
require an agency to cut back on its whole operation because you do not 
want some more workers to be protected from things like carpal tunnel 
syndrome.
  It is a stupid amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond to the protector of bureaucrats. First off, what 
we are after is good science and good regulations based on good 
science, and the gentleman probably does not know that there is two 
kinds of asbestos: The asbestos that comes from Africa that is harmful 
and asbestos that comes from America. And after some billions of 
dollars were spent in attacking the asbestos problem, we find out that 
if you leave it alone, it is not dangerous and you do not tear it out 
and spend billions of dollars.
  So the gentleman from Wisconsin has no idea what he is talking about 
and exactly what we are talking about is good science and good 
regulation based upon good science here. We have an agency that does 
not care about good science. It is amazing, people will die because we 
will not have ergonomics.
  Ergonomics talks about gripping 10 pounds, pinching more than two 
pounds, twisting and bending the neck like this. Somebody is going to 
lose their life because there is some OSHA regulation about how many 
times you can twist your neck?
  So, Mr. Chairman, the great majority leader in this House said it 
better than anything: the Democrats used to be the party of the only 
thing to fear is fear itself. Now they are the only party, they are the 
party that all they have to offer is fear itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise very proudly to support the 
amendment of gentleman from Texas, [Mr. DeLay]. I do so for two 
reasons:
  The first reason that I support this amendment is I find it 
absolutely unbelievable that we allow a federal agency to absolutely 
disregard what this House wants done. When they sit over there and 
laugh at us when we say that we want a moratorium on their rules and 
regulations and they are just going to figure out a way to get around 
it, I think we need to speak to them.
  Ergonomics is a fancy term for designing jobs and tools to fit the 
physical and psychological limits of people. In general, that is a good 
idea. But if you look at what OSHA does, assuming they pass the new 
ergonomic rules and they can be adopted simply by issuing a public 
comment period without the messiness of having congressional approval, 
employers will be required to continuously survey and fix jobs deemed 
risky by OSHA.
  The list of jobs is virtually unlimited in this country. These 
activities can cause or aggravate more than 160 musculoskeletal and 
nervous system disorders from a back pain to joint pain to a neck pain 
to tendinitis.
  Joe Dear, the assistant labor secretary who heads OSHA, tries to 
rationalize the upcoming ergonomics rule this way. He says, ``We 
clearly intend to propose a regulation whose benefits justify the 
cost.'' In other words, OSHA claims that its rules will result in huge 
savings from reduced injuries and increased productivity.
  Mr. Chairman, that is a wishful claim at the very best and one more 
time they are not using good science at OSHA. Too little is known about 
preventing neuromuscular conditions to justify mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, the answer for us today is very simple. If OSHA 
couldn't hear us when we voted for a regulatory moratorium, maybe we 
need to speak a little louder. If OSHA couldn't hear us when voted for 
cost-benefit and risk assessment legislation, maybe we need to shout. 
Mr. Chairman, perhaps OSHA will hear us when cut back on their funding; 
maybe then they will pay attention to the direction we are taking 
federal regulators. I sincerely doubt they will listen, but this is a 
first step we need to take. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to 
support the DeLay amendment.
                              {time}  1930

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant opposition to my 
leaders' amendment.
  As chairman of the subcommittee that funds OSHA, I do not believe 
that it is possible, by offering an amendment to cut $3.5 million out 
of the salaries and expenses account at OSHA, that we are going to be 
able to get at the regulation dealing with ergonomics. We may be able 
to make a statement that way, but the effect of the amendment will be 
to take the salaries and expenses account that is, after being amended 
in the subcommittee markup down to the fiscal 1994 level, below that 
level.
  In making the mark, I might say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLay], we did not touch salaries and expenses in any line item in our 
bill because we felt that that would be unfair. We are well into and 
mostly through the fiscal year. Even people who work for the government 
have a right to know that they are going to have a job and be able to 
afford to educate their children for the rest of the fiscal year. We 
just did not think that it was fair to them to put them in a position 
where a rescission would cut off their livelihood, very possibly, in 
the middle of the fiscal year, so we did not cut it.
  Mr. Chairman, I might well agree with the gentleman's assessment of 
the regulation, but I do not think this is the proper way to get at it. 
I think it is unfair to Federal employees.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I do reluctantly oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have accused OSHA of being 
an agency out of control. Today, we have a good example of why that is 
true.
  How bad is the ergonomic regulation OSHA is drafting? You do the 
math. According to the compensation insurance industry, cumulative 
trauma disorders cost employers approximately $1 billion per year.
  On the other hand, OSHA's ergonomic regulations will easily be the 
most expensive they have ever promulgated--more expensive than their 
blood-born pathogen rule, more expensive than their asbestos standard, 
even more expensive than their proposed $8 billion indoor air 
regulation.
  Still, the regulation might be reasonable if the size of the problem 
matched the costs. Is that the case? No.
  [[Page H3252]] Cumulative trauma disorders make up less than 4 
percent of all work-related injuries and diseases that resulted in 
missed work.
  OK. What about the science? To reduce the cost to employers, will 
OSHA be able to draft tight regulations which give employers specific 
guidelines and references. No.
  Simply put, there is no scientific support for a national ergonomic 
standard. Everyone agrees that cumulative trauma disorders are a 
problem, but no one knows where the threshold between safety and injury 
lies--not medical doctors, not the Center for Disease Control, not even 
OSHA bureaucrats.
  But that does not deter OSHA. As in the past, they are determined to 
plow ahead where no reasonable agency would tread.
  The woman in charge of writing this new standard, Barbara Siverstein, 
told Forbes Magazine that despite the death of science, OSHA will 
``take some sort of a performance based approach to reducing exposure 
to those things that we know increase your risk of musculoskeletal 
disorders.''
  What Barbara says is true. It is possible to establish performance 
based standards to prevent repetitive motion traumas. I will establish 
one right now: Don't work, don't type, don't do any heavy lifting, 
never strain yourself, and try to avoid breaking out in a sweat.
  The solution is somewhere between having a work place where no one 
works and a work place where something gets done. Unfortunately, 
neither Barbara nor anyone else knows where that point lies.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people sent us to Washington to get the 
federal government off their backs and out of their lives. Support the 
DeLay amendment, rescind the $3.5 million from OSHA, and reign in an 
out-of-control agency.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in total opposition to H.R. 1158. 
H.R. 1158 represents wasteful, inefficient, illogical, and barbaric 
legislation. It is naked power exercised by the Committee on 
Appropriations, which has held no hearings, no site visits, and is in 
no way knowledgeable about what they are doing in this area, or any 
other area where they have promoted these rescissions.
  The Department of Labor will stand behind the facts and figures that 
I cite here. The Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, the 
Secretary of Labor, Lynn Martin, a Republican, started the ergonomics 
studies. They started the process, to be continued by a Democrat, but 
all three have gone through a deliberative process based upon the facts 
that they see.
  Disorders for cumulative trauma, like carpal tunnel syndrome, have 
increased at epidemic rates, up 770 percent in the past decade. In 1993 
more than 300,000 cases of repeated trauma disorders were reported. The 
overall problem of musculoskeletal disorders, including back injuries, 
is much bigger, more than 3 million cases a year.
  The economic costs of these disorders is huge. The workers' 
compensation costs associated with musculoskeletal disorders is $20 
billion a year.
  Mr. Chairman, 56,000 people die every year form accidents on the job 
or from illnesses contracted on the job, 56,000 people die every year, 
which is as high as the number of people who are killed in all of the 
Vietnam War. You can check the facts and figures with the Department of 
Labor.
  Over the 20-year history, the more than 20-year history of OSHA, we 
have saved millions of lives and avoided millions of injuries to 
workers. OSHA is a deliberative agency, based very much on scientific 
evidence and the use of information. This process, with the Committee 
on Appropriations legislative force, is not a deliberative process, it 
is a barbaric process.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1158. This bill 
would cancel $17.1 billion in previously appropriated funds, more than 
99 percent of which represent investments in the American people. In 
return, what will the American people get? If they are low-income, 
working class Americans, they will get next to nothing; but if they are 
lucky enough to be among the few percent of Americans making more than 
$100,000 a year, then they will get a windfall. That is because the 
Contract With America is bloated with tax breaks for the wealthiest 
Americans, and my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are pressing forward with this rescissions package to pay for 
this pork--pork which is considered to be nothing but fatty, gristly 
meat when served on a plate to the Nation's poor, but somehow is 
magically transformed into protein-laden filet mignon when served on 
fine china to the Nation's rich.
  Let me illustrate how the tax breaks in the Contract With America are 
a boon for the rich but a boondoggle for the poor. Under the proposed 
capital gains tax cut, 76 percent of the tax cut, or $10.6 billion, 
would go to those individuals making more than $100,000 a year. 
Moreover, a corporate executive making more than $200,000 a year would 
personally gain more than $3,800, while a family earning between 
$20,000 and $30,000 a year would gain a mere $5.52--not even enough to 
put a t-shirt on a child's back.
  So we can see that all of the promises being made by Republicans--
that people will be rewarded for getting off welfare, working hard, and 
playing by the rules--are illusory. Now let us take a look at all of 
the benefits which the American people will have to sacrifice so that 
the Republicans can spoon-feed the fat-cat freeloaders who belly-up to 
the Government trough.
  To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit, 
the American people will lose 1.2 million jobs for at-risk youth during 
the next two summers. These jobs provide young adults with the money 
they need to purchase clothes and supplies for school. They also 
provide lasting gains in employment and purchasing power.
  To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit, 
the American people will lose nearly 30,000 AmeriCorps members 
participating in the National Service program. That will be a tragic 
loss for communities which are benefiting from AmeriCorps' services, 
and an even greater loss
 for middle class families struggling to meet the costs of college 
tuition for their children.

  To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit, 
the American people also will lose $105 million in assistance to their 
local school districts and, more specifically, services for 100,000 at-
risk children which are designed to help them achieve the highest 
academic standards.
  To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit, 
the American people additionally will lose violence and drug prevention 
programs for 39 million students due to the elimination of the Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools Program. And nearly $175 million will be stripped 
away from GOALS 2000 Education Reform, robbing 4,000 schools and 
thousands of parents of the resources they need to improve the 
education of our Nation's children.
  As a result of this bill, New York alone will be hit with $1.6 
billion in spending cuts. New York will lose $107 million in education 
funding; $540 million for public housing; $164 million for home heating 
for low-income people; and more than $160 million for job training and 
assistance for at-risk youth, displaced workers, and senior citizens.
  The Grand Old Party [GOP] likes to present itself as the party of 
opportunity for those Americans who are willing to work. Clearly, that 
is more fiction than fact, for the wolf is disguised in sheep's 
clothing. Opportunity to the Republican Party means opportunity not for 
those who work the hardest, but for those who have the highest incomes. 
Opportunity to the Democratic Party, on the other hand, means 
opportunity for everyone, particularly American families who cannot 
make ends meet and work their way out of poverty despite working long 
hours at back-breaking jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, because I prefer to reward individuals for the strength 
of their character and work ethic instead of the size of their wallet, 
I must vote against H.R. 1158, and urge every Member of this body to do 
the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise that the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
[Mr. Obey] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
has the right to close, since he is defending the committee's position.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLay 
amendment. In spite of what the opposition says, no one ever died of 
ergonomics. Today we have the opportunity to say no to the runaway 
Federal regulators.
  Earlier this year, in a bipartisan vote, the House passed H.R. 450, 
which placed a moratorium on all new Federal regulations until December 
31, 1995. The passage of this bill and other regulatory reforms was 
intended to send a signal to Federal departments 
 [[Page H3253]] and agencies to end the production and implementation 
of countless regulations that strangle competitiveness and economic 
growth.
  However, one agency did not get the message, OSHA. Earlier this week, 
one of the top bureaucrats at OSHA's ergonomics team indicated that the 
agency will be pushing forward with plans to establish an ergonomics 
rule, blatantly flouting the will of Congress.
  Plainly, OSHA wants to continue the practice of business as usual. As 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Work Force Protection of the Committee 
on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the subcommittee with 
jurisdiction over OSHA issues, let me tell the Members that the 
proposal on ergonomics is one of the broadest and most expansive health 
and safety regulations in recent times.
  An ergonomics rule has the potential of devastating business and 
altering every job in America. Let us not forget that the rationales 
for the ergonomics regulation is not based on sound and strong 
scientific evidence.
  There is a clear choice before us today. A vote against the DeLay 
amendment will signal Federal bureaucrats, particularly those in OSHA, 
that the business of issuing needless burdensome regulation should 
continue. A vote for the DeLay amendment will tell OSJA that it cannot 
impose a new socially-engineered workplace policy, which will literally 
affect every American worker, unless it is based on sound scientific 
and cost analysis.
  Vote for the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear what this is all 
about. As a member of the committee, there is no question in my mind 
that the Republican majority just wants to get rid of OSHA. This is 
just a downpayment in putting OSHA on the chopping block.
  There is no question about it. Let us also make it very clear that 
there is no reason for this to be a partisan issue. In fact, this 
rulemaking was started under a Republican administration. Former 
Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole made the decision to develop an 
ergonomics rule in 1990. Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin initiated the 
rulemaking with the request for comments in 1992. What they want to do 
is just to stop all discussion and stifle any debate.
  Mr. Chairman, this should proceed so there can be careful, thoughtful 
consideration by employers, workers, unions, and others that can have 
input on this important rule. This ergonomics rule has not even been 
proposed right now. I suggest that we vote down this amendment so we 
can proceed in an orderly fashion.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a champion against regulations.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, during the debate on regulatory reform, I 
spent a great deal of time on the floor. I had a chance to re-read the 
Constitution, in this little pocket edition of the Constitution. In the 
back of this booklet is the Declaration of Independence.
  If Members have not read it in a while, I recommend it. It states 
forth the reasons why this country sought its independence from the 
King, the oppressive King. Let me read one line here in the Declaration 
of Independence.
  It says ``He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither 
swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.'' 
This is exactly what Washington, DC, has done, and what this agency has 
done.
  OSHA has driven our employees out of business, it has harassed our 
businesses, and operates in conflict with the principles of the 
Constitution. In fact, our employers and our business men and women in 
this country are guilty until proven innocent.
  Here is another regulation that will send swarms of new officers into 
our workplaces, harass our people who are trying to create jobs, keep 
jobs in this country, and make sense out of an agency that is totally 
out of control.
  Pass this amendment and send OSHA a message that this rule and OSHA's 
oppressive actions must stop.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. Let 
us call this amendment what it is, another mean-spirited Republican 
attempt to harm working people in this country.
  First, it is ``Let us depress wages, let us not increase the minimum 
wage.'' Then it is ``Let us destroy Davis-Bacon. We cannot have 
prevailing wages.'' Now it is ``Let us destroy the health and the 
welfare and the safety of America's workers.''
  For shame, majority, for shame. The fact is that OSHA saves lives. 
OSHA improves workers' health. OSHA's enforcement programs improve 
safety. Safe workplaces save dollars. OSHA's job is far from done. Each 
year, 56,000 workers still die from work-related accidents and 
illnesses.
  The fact of the matter is that working people in this country, the 
people that built this country, the people that continue to build this 
country, need protections, and OSHA provides those protections. We 
ought to stop the mean-spirited Republican assault on working people in 
the United States.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne].
  (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does nothing to improve the 
bill before us, and I strongly oppose the rescission package before the 
House today.
  This $17.3 billion cut in Federal domestic programs represents an 
attack on children, the poor, veterans, and the elderly. Nearly two-
thirds of this bill's rescissions are from programs to assist children, 
low-income families, or the elderly poor. Low-income Americans across 
our country will feel the pain of these cuts but these cuts will hit 
especially hard in America's cities.
  Communities in Pittsburgh and other major U.S. cities will suffer a 
major reduction in Federal funds for a range of basic human service 
programs. Urban programs account for 78 percent of the
 cuts in this package. The result will make life harder for hard 
working Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet.

  Who will not be hurt by these cuts? The Defense Department will not 
lose one cent under the Republican majority's rescission package.
  They have even denied Democratic Members the ability to restore 
funding for child nutrition or any other human service program by 
reducing any part of the $262 billion defense budget.
  The Republican majority's rescission package would cut $88 million 
from the Department of Health and Human Services' health resources and 
services account. This cut will cut $10 million in funding for the 
Healthy Start Program that is helping to reduce infant mortality. My 
community of the first 15 U.S. cities to receive a Healthy Start 
Program and has already seen an 18 percent reduction in its infant 
mortality rate as a result. The lives of 18 babies have been saved in 
our area's Healthy Start Program area.
  The elimination of all funding for LIHEAP--the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program--will hit 50,000 households in my congressional 
district alone. Seniors and low-income residents in the Pittsburgh area 
will lose $9.5 million in LIHEAP funds needed to help them pay their 
heating bills this winter.
  This rescission package turns a cold shoulder to the children of my 
district. A total of $1.6 billion will be cut from education programs. 
The Republican majority's bill would eliminate every cent of funding 
for the Drug-Free School Program. Our city schools alone will be denied 
$500,000 needed to fight illegal drug use in our schools. The 
Republican majority also says ``no'' to our area's youth who want to 
get a job. The elimination of all funding for the Summer Youth Jobs 
Program will deny 900 Pittsburgh area teens a chance to learn job 
skills by working this summer.
  Seniors housing accounts for 40 percent of the $7 billion cut from 
Federal housing programs. Cuts in Federal housing programs--including a 
$15 million cut in the budget for our local housing authority--will 
hurt seniors and other low-income residents who depend on Federal 
housing assistance.
  Veterans at Pittsburgh's VA hospitals will also be affected by a $206 
million cut in VA medical programs. These cuts will take place even 
while our country prepares to celebrate the 50th anniversary of V-E 
Day. This cut in VA medical programs is an outrageous way to 
 [[Page H3254]] commemorate veterans who fought to defeat fascism 
during World War II.
  Why are we making these cuts? The Republican majority needs to slash 
domestic programs for the poor to pay for $189 billion in tax cuts. 
Many of those tax cuts will benefit upper incomes Americans; for 
example, 75 percent of the capital gains tax cuts will go to 
individuals with incomes above $100,000.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority's rescission package is too 
severe. It slashes Federal funding for children, seniors, veterans, and 
low-income families most in need. It protects the Defense Department 
budget and asks nothing from the most affluent in our society. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I was told by the Chair I have the right to 
close. I have only one closing speaker.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] yielding back 
the balance of his time?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is going to close, I will 
use the rest of the time myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for 
the remaining 2 minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing here is a desperate 
attempt on the part of the minority to protect the status quo and what 
has been going on for the past 40 years.

                              {time}  1945

  They want to continue spending and the joy ride that they have been 
on for the last 40 years, and they want to protect the bureaucrats that 
have been oppressing American citizens for a very long time. That is 
what this amendment is all about, is to stop the bureaucrats and stop 
what is going on.
  I have been collecting horror stories about regulations for every 
year that I have been in Congress, and the most horror stories come 
from OSHA. OSHA is an oppressive agency, an agency that steps way 
beyond its bounds and way beyond the intent of the legislation.
  When we had a decisive vote in this House to send a message to OSHA 
and other regulations that we want regulations based on good science, 
what did OSHA do? They decided to run off and continue operating as 
usual.
  Under these standards of ergonomics, slouching in a chair could be a 
hazard, or someone holding a phone between their shoulder and their 
neck could be a hazard. In Australia, when ergonomic standards were 
adopted in the early 1980's injury rates increased. Workers' 
compensation costs increased by as much as 40 percent in some 
industries. And a single company lost more than $15 million in a 5-year 
period due to increased production costs.
  All we are saying is:
  ``OHSA, heed our message. Step back, look at what you are doing. Use 
good science, good studies to do what you are doing but if you're not 
going to get the message,'' then the best way to get a bureaucrat's 
attention is to cut their central office.
  That is what this amendment does. It goes right to the heart of the 
bureaucracy and cuts $3.5 million right out of the heart of OSHA. If 
OHSA does not get this message, we will come back on an appropriations 
bill and send them another message.
  It is time the bureaucrats in this town got the message. America is 
fed up. I appreciate the Members' support for my amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what a joke we just heard. We were just told 
that it is the Democrats who are protecting the status quo and yet it 
is the gentleman from Texas who is offering the amendment that is 
preventing the agency from moving off the status quo to protect people 
who are getting injured every day in the workplace.
  Come on, get off it. Give me a break.
  This amendment is paraded as the device by which you stop the 
ergonomic study. In fact, this amendment has no way of stopping the 
ergonomic study. It does not do that. All it does is cut 3 million 
additional dollars out of OSHA, and the gentleman is nodding in 
agreement. All that will do is cut the number of consultations which 
OSHA can provide businessmen so that businessmen can find out how to 
correct problems without being inspected, and all it does is also cut 
out their ability to provide needed high visibility inspections.
  Now he says he wants OSHA to follow good science.
  I ask a question: Where do you think you are likely to find that good 
science? From the neutral officials in OSHA who are charged with the 
legal responsibility to protect American workers? Or from the horde of 
lobbyists which the Washington Post described just last week as being 
all over the gentleman's office as he was preparing the anti-regulation 
barrage that we got hit with last week?
  I think you know the answer to that one. With all due respect, if I 
am looking for good science, I am not going to go to the Fortune 500 
list of lobbyists they talked about in that Washington Post article 
just 2 days ago.
  This amendment is just like the tax cuts this party is trying to 
push. They are trying to push capital gains tax cuts and give three-
fourths of the benefits to people who make more than 100,000 bucks a 
year. They are trying to repeal the requirement that every American 
corporation that is a big one and makes money at least pays some taxes. 
They want to go back to the good old days when you do not even require 
the Fortune 500 corporations to pay taxes. Why then we should be 
surprised that they offer an amendment which says to workers, ``Forget 
it, baby, we're interested in your bosses but not you''?
  I think this amendment perhaps ought to be passed. It is a perfect 
example of what the Republican party has come to stand for. It is a 
perfect symbol for how bad this bill is. So vote for it. You are going 
to pass it, you have got the votes, but you ought to be ashamed of 
yourselves.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appered to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254, 
noes 168, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 242]

                               AYES--254

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     [[Page H3255]] Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--168

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Fazio
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, E.B.
     Lewis (GA)
     Solomon
     Yates

                              {time}  2007

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Cubin for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.

  Mr. DEUTSCH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment number 13 originally 
printed by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: At the end of the bill, add 
     the following new title:

                  TITLE IV--DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCKBOX


                      deficit reduction trust fund

       Sec. 4001. (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     ``Deficit Reduction Trust Fund'' (in this title referred to 
     as the ``Fund'').
       (b) Contents.--The Fund shall consist only of amounts 
     transferred to the Fund under subsection (c).
       (c) Transfers of Moneys to Fund.--For each of the fiscal 
     years 1995 through 1998, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer to the Fund amounts equivalent to the net deficit 
     reduction achieved during such fiscal year as a result of the 
     provisions of this Act.
       (d) Use of Moneys in Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amounts in the Fund shall not be available, in any fiscal 
     year, for appropriation, obligation, expenditure, or 
     transfer.
       (2) Use of amounts for reduction of public debt.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall use the amounts in the Fund 
     to redeem, or buy before maturity, obligations of the Federal 
     Government that are included in the public debt. Any 
     obligation of the Federal Government that is paid, redeemed, 
     or bought with money from the Fund shall be canceled and 
     retired and may not be reissued.


         downward adjustments in discretionary spending limits

       Sec. 4002. (a) In general.--Upon the enactment of this Act, 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     make downward adjustments in the discretionary spending 
     limits (new budget authority and outlays) specified in 
     section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1996 through 1998 by the aggregate 
     amount of estimated reductions in new budget authority and 
     outlays for discretionary programs resulting from the 
     provisions this Act (other than emergency appropriations) for 
     such fiscal year, as calculated by the Director.
       (b) Outyear Treatment of Rescissions.--For discretionary 
     programs for which this Act rescinds budget authority for 
     specific fiscal years, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall include in the aggregate amount 
     of the downward adjustments under subsection (a) amounts 
     reflecting budget authority reductions for the succeeding 
     fiscal years through 1998, calculated by inflating the amount 
     of the rescission using the baseline procedures identified in 
     section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.


  prohibition on use of savings to offset deficit increases resulting 
              from direct spending or receipts legislation

       Sec. 4003. Reductions in outlays, and reductions in the 
     discretionary spending limits specified in section 601(a)(2) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, resulting from the 
     enactment of this Act shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] will be recognized for 15 minutes. Is there a Member standing in 
opposition to the Obey amendment?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized for the extra 15 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana asks unanimous consent to 
be recognized for 15 minutes in the face of no opposition being voiced. 
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since I am calling up this amendment on 
behalf of the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brewster, who is the real 
author of the amendment, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today with my good 
friends Mike Crapo, David Minge, and Glen Browder, and thank them for 
working with me on this lockbox amendment.
  I will keep my statement brief since I know there are many amendments 
made in order today.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a subject that is very 
important to me, and other Members of this House. The subject is 
deficit reduction.
  Constituents around the country sent a strong message to Washington 
last November. Americans sent their Representatives to Congress to 
first and foremost--reduce the Federal deficit.
  For most of us in Congress, our contract is with our constituents--
not a President, party or any interest group. All recent polls show 
that the vast majority of Americans are wanting to see Congress keep 
their word and cut the deficit.
  With this said, it certainly surprises me that this appropriations 
bill was reported out of committee with nearly $12 billion in 1995 
spending cuts that do not go toward deficit reduction. The point is 
that these cuts do not result in real savings.
  The Brewster-Crapo-Minge-Browder lockbox amendment will ensure these 
cuts go only to deficit reduction. This amendment will take the net 
savings in the bill--the $17 billion rescissions, minus the expenses of 
the emergency supplemental portion of the bill--and put them in a 
deficit reduction lock box. It prohibits using these funds for anything 
except reducing the deficit, and it also requires the budgetary caps be 
lowered for the outyears.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be candid about my feelings on this bill. There 
are many difficult cuts in this bill. There are programs eliminated 
that are very valuable to my State of Oklahoma. However, Mr. Chairman, 
it took 200 years to reach a $1 trillion debt and since 1980 we have 
added almost $4 trillion more debt.
  [[Page H3256]] I have discussed with my constituents over the last 
few months the seriousness of the Federal debt. They don't like many of 
these cuts either. But, these hard-working, honest citizens are willing 
to once again sacrifice in order to reduce our deficit.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you they will not support these cuts if 
the savings go for anything other than deficit reduction. Quite 
frankly, Americans do not have a lot of trust in Congress right now. 
Let us start changing that today, and give them the deficit reduction 
they have asked for.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of this House to support the 
Brewster-Crapo lockbox amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], the cosponsor of this worthwhile 
amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to get up and talk further 
about the lockbox. The deficit reduction lockbox is an idea that is 
introduced with a much broader scope than just this bill and which I am 
sure we will talk about a lot in the future as we address the questions 
about how we must develop a budget system that truly reduces our 
deficits in this country.
  With regard to this bill, however, I think it addresses one of the 
significant concerns that we have heard again and again and again. The 
argument being made is that, well, we should not be using this money 
for tax cuts, we should be using this money for deficit reduction. And 
it appears that we are getting into this continuous debate as to 
whether it is better to have deficit reduction or tax cuts, deficit 
reduction or tax cuts.
  This will make it clear once and for all that we will make the 
necessary deficit reduction that we have called for in the Contract 
With America. And I believe that we are going to be able to go forward 
in future actions and find the necessary cuts for tax cuts.
  But this bill will put into place a mechanism now that hopefully we 
can use in the future as we address other budgetary problems to assure 
that there is a lockbox mechanism that helps us to achieve deficit 
reduction.
  One thing that I hope it does is clarify the debate so that there 
will be no more objection to the questions about this bill going to 
deficit reduction. We have stated that in an earlier debate, in an 
earlier vote today on the amendment brought by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and this amendment provides the enforceable 
mechanism to make it happen with certainty.
  If we are concerned about deficit reduction, this bill will make it 
happen, and I do not think that those who have debated against this 
bill can now say there is no reason to support it.
  This makes it clear we are working for deficit reduction, and we will 
make deficit reduction a reality.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
                              {time}  2015

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in this rescission bill are 
devastating, WIC, jobs for youth in the summer, fuel assistance for 
low-income Americans, foster care and adoption services, student loan 
programs, housing for low-income Americans, local water treatment costs 
for programs mandated by Congress.
  Can we justify the cuts for these programs in order to finance tax 
cuts for the more affluent members of our communities and increased 
military spending? Absolutely not.
  Going further, we have a convoluted budget-cutting process. In my 
opinion, there are criteria for deficit reduction. We would not simply 
say that it is deficit reduction to plan to shave $200 billion off 
interest on the national debt. That is not realistic.
  We need to have, if we are going to impose deficit reduction on the 
American people, shared sacrifice. We should not be balancing the 
budget on the backs of the poor, the veterans, and children.
  Where are the cuts in the weapons systems that the Defense Department 
does not want? Where are the cuts in programs for those of us with 
higher incomes?
  We are cutting the most vulnerable first. This stands our proud 
heritage of fairness on its head. At the very minimum, let us assure 
low-income Americans, students, and local communities that their 
disproportionate sacrifice goes for deficit reduction.
  I urge you to vote for this amendment. It mandates real deficit 
reduction. It locks in the savings for 1995 and for years to come.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of speeches about how the savings 
in this bill, which will amount to roughly $11 billion net, will go to 
pay for the Contract or whether it will go to pay for tax cuts for the 
rich and the wealthy, notwithstanding the fact that three-quarters of 
the tax advantages of the Contract go to people earning $75,000 a year 
or less.
  But all of that notwithstanding, considering the Murtha amendment, 
which has already passed almost unanimously, and this amendment, which 
I expect will pass, the fact is the savings that we have reaped with 
this fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill will go to help pay off the 
deficit, and I think that is a significant achievement.
  So I rise in support of this particular amendment, and I hope that 
all of the supporters of the amendment who will cast their votes in 
favor of the amendment will likewise vote for final passage of the bill 
when it is all over. I challenge them to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, we will vote in just a minute. I rise to 
support the Brewster amendment.
  This deficit-reduction lockbox dedicates rescissions to deficit 
reduction. The American people have told us loudly and clearly that 
they want us to reduce the deficit first. The American public is 
rightly skeptical when we turn to budgetary gimmicks to pay for our 
wish lists, whether it is tax cuts or new benefits programs.
  It was in the spirit of representing those concerns that we developed 
the lockbox, and it is our desire to reassure the American public that 
deficit reduction comes first.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an example of how bipartisan support 
moves us toward deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
  I urge support of all of our Members for this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to say finally 
this amendment will, in fact, give everyone the chance to put the money 
into deficit reduction that all of our families want and all of our 
children want. That is certainly an amendment I would ask for a 
unanimous vote for.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, my constituents and the American people have 
voiced their priorities to cut spending and cut the deficit. 
Rescissions are difficult. Cutting spending is difficult, hard-fought, 
and often painful. But the American people are willing to cut spending, 
even their own benefits, if those spending cuts reduce the deficit.
  The American people become upset when they find out a cut really does 
not reduce spending but it is simply shifted to other types of spending 
or to tax cuts.
  In hearings in the Committee on the Budget we asked the people, 
``What would you rather have, the tax cut or devote all of the spending 
cuts to deficit reduction?'' Overwhelmingly they asked to reduce the 
deficit.
  This amendment sets up the mechanism to insure that a cut is a cut, 
and it will reduce the deficit.
  I urge adoption of the Brewster amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the lockbox Brewster 
amendment. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and I have been 
 [[Page H3257]] working on this concept for 2 years, and it is 
gratifying to see it come finally to the floor.
  In my judgment the lockbox amendment makes a very bad bill a little 
bit less worse. At the very least, the lockbox will guarantee that the 
spending cuts go to deficit reduction, not corporate tax breaks.
  I will bet most Americans would be shocked to learn that without this 
amendment that the gentleman from Oklahoma and his colleagues deserve 
great credit for in persevering, not one dime of this rescission bill 
would have gone to deficit reduction, not a single dime.
  The original intent of this bill was to guarantee such things like 
General Dynamics and Mobil and other billion-dollar, profit-making 
corporations pay no taxes to pay for the repeal of the alternative 
minimum tax.
  Thanks to the gentleman from Oklahoma, thanks to the lockbox, that is 
not happening, and this, my colleagues, is what the lockbox was devised 
for.
  When we get on the floor and say we are cutting, we should not find 
that money being used to spend for something else or, more importantly, 
to reduce taxes. This amendment will make sure that happens. It will 
make sure that the promise that has been made by so many to the 
American people that we are serious about deficit reduction does not 
just become words but it becomes actions.
  I, for my part, still think the cuts in this bill are unfair and 
skewed against the poor, against the elderly, against the working 
people, and against urban areas.
  It is small consolation, but some consolation at least, that the 
money that we are using for these cuts will go to deficit reduction, 
not tax breaks.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that this bill, this 
amendment, and this concept have many fathers and one mother. As its 
mother, I was proud to help the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] 
and others attach it to the 1993 budget bill, and I was happy to stand 
with the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and others last week to 
propose it as a mechanism to use in our appropriations process.
  I trust, as we did before, we will again work together in the future 
to adapt it to more spending cuts in this House. I support it here 
because it means that the cuts we will make through this bill will be 
devoted to deficit reduction. That is right. It is fair.
  With the failure of the balanced budget amendment, the lockbox 
concept becomes all the more crucial, and spending cuts in the 104th 
Congress that are devoted to deficit reduction, start today.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I hear the gentleman on the other side of the 
aisle shouting ``Vote, vote.'' They are the ones who imposed this rule. 
I think we have a right to use the time granted under it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Brewster amendment, but I 
want to make it clear it does not correct the irresponsibility in the 
provisions of the Contract With America on deficit reduction, because 
of the way that the proposal for the tax cut will be coming to the 
floor, and there is still going to be pressure on programs on our most 
vulnerable in order to finance a tax cut for the most wealthy.
  In the next 5 years all of us hope we will be doing a lot more than 
deficit reduction that would be in this lockbox. If we do not cut $188 
billion more, which is that the tax cut will take out of the Treasury, 
if we do not get $188 billion despite the fact we might have some money 
in the lockbox, the deficit will continue to grow. So this lockbox will 
not protect us from making sure that our programs that affect our 
children that we are cutting, that those dollars will, the fact, go to 
reducing the deficit if we do not address how we are going to finance 
the $188 billion.
  This tax cut goes to the most wealthy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes, the remainder of my time, 
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Wynn]
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this a good amendment that makes a bad bill better.
  I am appalled at these cuts. I understand we have tough decisions to 
make, but I find it ironic that the people that say we need more people 
working and people need to pull themselves by their bootstraps want to 
cut off the bootstraps. They cut adult job training. They cut summer 
jobs. They cut job training programs.
  But what made it so appalling was that they would make these cuts 
affecting the disadvantaged only to give to the rich. Under this bill, 
the wealthiest 2 percent of this country would get 30 percent of the 
tax breaks. The wealthiest, the people with over $100,000, would get 50 
percent of the tax breaks.
  This amendment corrects that. At least we see money going into 
deficit reduction, as it should be.
  Perhaps the poor will benefit from lower interest rates. Perhaps the 
poor will benefit from not having to pay as much in debt service, and 
we can put some of that money back, but clearly we should not be making 
these draconian cuts to give money to the wealthy.
  They say, well, they will find that money elsewhere to do the tax 
cut. Maybe so, but I submit that now the average American can ask the 
question, ``Who is getting the tax break?'' I think when they see who 
is getting the tax break, they will reject this approach.
  I am pleased to support this amendment. I think it is moving in the 
right direction. It makes a bad bill better.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma and his 
friends for offering this amendment, because it brings some sanity to 
what we are trying to do this evening.
  The chairman from Louisiana has been speaking to us in subcommittee 
for the last several weeks about what we are going to do with all the 
money we are saving tonight, all the money we are saving by cutting 
these programs. The chairman has given several different explanations.
  I think tonight finally we are down to one simple explanation: About 
$5 billion or so is going to disaster relief, primarily in California. 
The remainder is going to go to deficit reduction.
  This is a new development. All of you who are following the contract, 
punching out the holes, there is a question tonight about the 
Republican tax plan. All of a sudden this tax plan that they love so 
much they are walking away from. Why would they walk away from a tax 
cut? Could it be the publicity that they have been getting, as 
Americans take a closer look at the Republican tax cut and find out 
that the benefits are, once again, under the Republican plan going to a 
privileged few?
  Take a look at the capital gains tax cuts. If you happened to be 
making less than $100,000, the Republicans have in store for you 26 
dollars and 5 cents. But if you happen to be one of those families 
making over $100,000, guess what the Republicans have to offer you, 
$1,223, too much money for the people who do not need it.
  But where do they come up with this money? They come up with it by 
cutting critical programs, absolutely critical programs that are 
important for people all around America.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. DURBIN. We are talking about education dollars, money that should 
be going for safe and drug-free schools. Instead, they would cut the 
program to give tax breaks to wealthy people.
  What else do they do with their tax cut plan? They end up saying that 
a lot of corporations in America, who otherwise would pay nothing, are 
going to continue to pay nothing, go back to the 1986 days before the 
alternative minimum tax. The Republican tax cut plan says that wealthy, 
profitable corporations should not pay their fair share.
  Well, tonight, ladies and gentlemen, there has been a late breaking 
story. The Republicans have been reading their own publicity. They have 
been looking at the reaction across America and they are having second 
thoughts about this tax cut plan.
  [[Page H3258]] I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and 
his friends for bringing some sanity to this process. If we have to cut 
critical programs, let us at least do it in the name of deficit 
reduction. This lockbox amendment may stop a few of my Republican 
friends, but not in lockstep.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418, 
noes 5, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No 243]

                               AYES--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--5

     Miller (CA)
     Nadler
     Rahall
     Waters
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Davis
     Dooley
     Gibbons
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (GA)
     Moran
     Talent
     Torkildsen
     Yates

                              {time}  2047

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. rogers

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 8, line 24, strike 
     ``$19,500,000'' and insert ``$9,500,000''.
       Page 9, line 11, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$30,000,000''.


            modification of amendment offered by mr. rogers

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, at the behest of the original offeror of 
the amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified 
by the form the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] has placed at 
the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Strike 
     ``$9,500,000'' and insert ``$16,500,000''; and strike 
     ``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$23,000,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers, as modified:
       Page 8, line 24, strike ``$19,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$16,500,000''.
       Page 9, line 11, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$23,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes. Does a Member rise in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition. I doubt that 
there is any Member in opposition, but I would again like to work out 
an understanding on the sharing of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to ask unanimous consent to 
take the 15 minutes in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland.
  I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] to 
explain the amendment and its modification.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would 
reprogram some of the cuts in chapter 2 of H.R. 1159. The amendment 
would restore $3 million that would otherwise be rescinded from the 
research budget of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, 
an equal offset of $3 million is made against the State Department 
account for acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad. This 
 [[Page H3259]] $3 million amendment would partially restore the 
proposed 19.5 billion that would be rescinded from the NIST laboratory 
funding account.
  This represents the lab's core functions, including its basic science 
and mission-related research.
  I first of all wanted to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] for working closely with me on this issue. We are all operating 
under severe budgetary constraints at the current time. I know that the 
gentleman from Kentucky is very appreciative of the role that NIST 
plays in the Nation's overall competitiveness.
  I look forward to working with him and the ranking member in the 
future on these issues. He has always been a good friend both to me and 
to NIST.
  NIST, Mr. Chairman, is one of the premier research and technical 
agencies of the Federal Government. It is a nonregulatory agency whose 
one overriding mission is to promote economic growth by working with 
industry.
  NIST's mission is to develop and apply technology, measurements and 
technical standards. The benefits of NIST activities are enjoyed 
throughout the country, wherever quality and competitiveness in 
manufacturing are valued.
  For over 100 years, governments have recognized the importance of 
measurement standards for economic growth. That is why virtually every 
industrial nation has the equivalent of a NIST.
  Even in the Middle Ages, commerce within a city or town depended upon 
having a standard pint, a standard yard and standard bushel. Today, 
manufacture of world-competitive computer chips and memory devices 
requires the use of measuring techniques accurate to less than a ten-
thousandth of an inch. Measurements this precise require the 
development of whole new measuring technologies, and that is where NIST 
research comes into play.
  NIST laboratory programs receive $265 million in funding for fiscal 
year 1995. This level of funding reflected a careful weighing of 
proprieties by Congress and the administration, taking account of the 
evolving needs of our manufacturing industries.
  NIST laboratories still account for less than one half of 1 percent 
of the Federal R&D budget. These recent increases in the NIST budget 
come after decades of neglect, decades during which, as we all know, 
American industry suffered and an almost fatal decline in its 
manufacturing competitiveness.
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is no other place in the 
Government than NIST where dollars invested will reap such large gains 
for the economy. NIST creates and nurtures the measurement 
infrastructure that allows industry to speak the same language. Without 
measurement standards, industry would be doomed like the proverbial 
Tower of Babel to fall down in disarray.
  Let me offer one example of how NIST laboratory programs benefit all 
of our constituents. Every year in America, doctors perform over 7 
million diagnostic procedures using radiopharmaceuticals. In fact, 
these procedures are given to fully one fourth of all hospital 
patients. Heart patients, for example, often receive a thallium-201 
stress test which allows doctors to actually see damaged portions of 
the heart muscle without ever breaking the skin.
  The market for radio pharmaceutical preparations now approaches $1 
billion annually. Patients and care-givers alike have a right to expect 
that these radioactive materials have been properly measured and 
standardized. It is a matter of safety, foremost, but also good 
medicine and good business practice.
  NIST services are essential in each step of the process that I have 
outlined. It provides first the measurement standards that everyone can 
use; second, the protocol, so that instruments can be properly adjusted 
and calibrated; and third, the crucial standard reference materials for 
instrument testing.
  I want to make one point very clear. The functions that NIST performs 
are not optional for the government. It is not a matter that if we drop 
these programs the private sector will take up the slack. Development 
of measurement standards is costly and research intensive, but most 
importantly, development of these standards is not in the economic 
interest of any one company. That is why we critically need NIST and 
why NIST programs need to be fully funded.
  Furthermore, it is not a matter that we can develop these standards, 
place them gingerly under a bell jar, as it were, leave them there for 
an eternity. We are approaching a very difficult budgetary environment.
  I do not undertake a further offset against the State Department 
buildings account in a light or cavalier fashion, but I think that the 
$3 million is not going to hurt them that much.
  The proposed rescissions to NIST programs this year are quite 
significant. I know that my good friend, in restoring this $3 million, 
will look to the future NIST budget for fiscal year 1996. I look 
forward to working with him, and I wanted this body to hear something 
about how important NIST is.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's 
amendment. I rise not to debate the merits of moving several million 
dollars from the State Department construction account to the NIST 
program, which I support, but more so to talk about the limited rule 
that we have here for us to make this decision in a host of other 
areas.
  Abraham Lincoln once said, ``As the times are new, we must think anew 
and act anew.''
  This is certainly a new idea, to pay for a natural disaster with 
offsets in the budget. I support that. But when you do that, I think 
you have to provide equity and judiciousness and the opportunity to 
restore programs that are important to many Members in Congress with 
offsets from other cuts.
  Take, for instance, WIC, Women, Infants and Children. It is cut $25 
million in this bill.
                              {time}  2100

  That is a program that President Reagan and President Bush supported. 
That should not be cut. We should have the opportunity to offer 
amendments to restore that.
  Mr. Chairman, I offered five amendments in the Committee on Rules. 
Only one was ruled in order. Drug-free schools to keep our children out 
of harm's way and off drugs, where in every one of our newspapers we 
are reading about children in the first grade in my district bringing a 
gun to school. Drug-free schools money was $482 million. We have cut 
that by $472 million in this bill.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, heating for senior citizens, heating for 
senior citizens in the cold Northwest and in the Midwest, we have cut 
that by $1.3 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I am all for making cuts. I offer amendments to cut the 
space station each year however, let us have the opportunity under a 
fair rule to cut these programs like the CIA, with $28 billion a year; 
like Section 936, that allows us to send money down to Puerto Rico, to 
move jobs out of this contiguous United States.
  They debated the A to Z bill when they were in the minority. Let us 
debate cuts A to Z. This bill is A to B. We are not given the 
opportunity to get into half the cuts we want to get into.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, is 
right in saying that our colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella], has come up with a creative way to save a program she cares 
about. We were not given a similar opportunity to offer alternatives to 
spending cuts that we care about.
  I want to repeat something my friend, the gentleman from Indiana 
said, Mr. Chairman. This rescission bill in front of us will totally 
eliminate grants to senior citizens that help them pay their heating 
bills.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us would like to have put that money back in 
the budget and pay for it by taking money away from the S&L bailout for 
the Resolution Trust Corporation. We cannot do that. We would have 
liked to have 
 [[Page H3260]] put money back in the budget and paid for it by 
considering something under another bill, the cancellation of a $50 
million loan from the United States to the Kingdom of Jordan. We cannot 
do that under this bill.
  Some of us would have liked to have put that senior citizen money 
back into the budget and paid for it by cutting some of the money to 
the power administrations, the TVA and some of the other subsidies 
around the country. We are denied the opportunity to do that by the 
procedure under which we are operating here.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Maryland is to be congratulated 
for her creativity, but all the creativity in the world would not have 
given us a chance to vote on the changes I just made.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we did not get the chance because the 
leadership on the other side knows that we would win if we got a chance 
to offer those amendments.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about waste and 
bureaucracy. Let us talk about waste. Do Members know what waste is? 
$10 billion on the space station. Helping senior citizens heat their 
homes in Vermont in the winter time is not waste. Do you know what 
waste is? Corporate welfare and subsidies for large corporations and 
wealthy individuals, that is waste. Drug prevention programs for high 
schools and elementary schools in this country, that is not waste. That 
makes good sense.
  Do people really think it is waste to put money into the WIC program 
so we can provide decent nutrition for pregnant women and their 
children? Is that waste? That is not waste. Keeping the CIA funded at 
almost the same level as in the cold war, that is waste.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would continue along this path that we 
are debating here and say that it is equally shameful, not only not to 
provide us the opportunity to cut some of this waste and some of this 
pork, but to then pit great programs one against the other.
  First of all, the opportunity for us to support our veterans, which I 
just did, and restore $206 million to make sure our veterans get access 
to outpatient care is a great expenditure of money.
  However, then to turn around and say the only way you can do that is 
to cut AmeriCorps and tell 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds that they 
cannot teach in schools in the South, or they cannot help in terms of 
cleaning up the environment in the West, or they cannot help in terms 
of great programs where they volunteer and serve and get into careers 
to help different Americans throughout the country, is a real travesty 
in this country.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman making that 
point. As the gentleman knows, that amendment was supported 
overwhelmingly. It was supported by many of us who feel very, very 
strongly, as the gentleman has just articulated, the importance of 
AmeriCorps. That vote had nothing to do with AmeriCorps, although under 
the rule, as the gentleman points out, that was the way they found to 
fund that particular restoration. I think the gentleman makes a good 
point. We are certainly going to revisit that.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the unwritten clauses with 
the Contract With America is that there will be free, open, and honest 
debate, regardless of party affiliation. Tonight is the night the 
Contract With America was breached. We are all watching it tonight.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. I am delighted she was able 
to work it out with the chairman of the subcommittee, because I think 
what she is doing here is something which does advance the cause of 
science and technology in the country, because she is helping to fund a 
core program that increases U.S. competitiveness in those areas.
  I could not help but be somewhat amused by what we just heard form 
the fear caucus and the look-back caucus here a couple of minutes ago. 
The gentlewoman has done exactly what the rule permits, and the rule 
permits under all circumstances out here on the floor, that she found a 
way to bring her amendment to the floor, to fund it within the right 
account.
  Some people on the other side call that clever. Fine. That is part of 
what the legislative process is about. She has done a very good job of 
it. She deserves to be congratulated for doing that.
  Others could have done exactly the same thing. They just do not like 
the idea that they have to obey the rules. What they want to do is to 
be able to reach into all kinds of areas and pull out, and what do we 
hear that they want to pull out, they want exactly the opposite 
direction from the gentlewoman. They want to kill and cut science and 
technology programs in order to fund social welfare programs.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that that is something that the American 
people might want to think a little bit about, whether or not we ought 
to cut the science and technology efforts of this country in order to 
increase the amounts of money going for largely social welfare 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, in the past few weeks what we have seen happening in 
this country is an understanding developing among the American people 
that what has gone on in Washington over the last several years is 
absolutely immoral; that we have brought about a situation where our 
children and our grandchildren are going to pay massive bills of debt 
that we are racking up because we want to feel good, because we want to 
be politically correct, because we want to be able to say that ``we 
care for you'' and we are going to dish out government money that we do 
not have and pile it on the debt of our kids.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply suggest that if we are going to spend some of 
this money, it ought to be spent as the gentlewoman wants to spend it, 
increasing American competitiveness, advancing the cause of science and 
technology, so that in fact in the future our kids have something solid 
that we have created, so that they have some new economy, some new 
kinds of jobs that we have created out of the competitiveness that we 
brought about.
  Mr. Chairman, what I hear from the other side is that that is not 
what they want to do. They want to cut these programs so we can make 
people more dependent, create more social welfare, and do it in the 
wrong way. I think that is a very, very disturbing trend, and it is 
probably the reason why the rules of the House are the way they are.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman two 
things. One, I will give the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
an opportunity not to re-spend the cut from the space station later 
this year on social welfare programs, but to put it to the deficit. 
That is a program that is tens of billions of dollars over budget.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have debated. 
Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. ROEMER. Could I just make my second point, Mr. Chairman? The 
gentleman yielded.
  Mr. WALKER. Sure.
  Mr. ROEMER. The second point is that the gentleman used the rules in 
this Chamber as a member of the minority, or objected to those rules 
when they were not fair, in instances like A to Z.
  I assume the gentleman signed the discharge petition for A to Z to 
get a full debate on cuts.
  Mr. WALKER. Sure.
  Mr. ROEMER. Now we do not have the opportunity on the floor.
  Mr. WALKER. We are having a full debate now.
  Mr. ROEMER. We are restricted by the rule as to what we can cut.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, it is a much fuller debate then we usually 
got out of appropriations bills brought out of the committee.
  [[Page H3261]] Mr. ROEMER. First, it was a restrictive rule brought 
to the floor.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, under the rules, it is my time.
  I would say to the gentleman that the fact is that when supplementals 
were brought out in the past, we did not even pay for them. We were not 
given an opportunity on the floor to find a way to pay for them.
  What we have here is a rather unique new procedure under the 
contract, where we are actually saying ``Maybe we ought not fund our 
emergencies by piling it on as debt.'' We have a rather remarkable new 
thing out here on the floor, right here, where we are stopping the 
piling on of debt.
  I know the gentleman is complaining about that. The gentleman would 
prefer----
  Mr. ROEMER. I am not complaining about that.
  Mr. WALKER. That what we do is come out here and kill space station, 
so he gets his social welfare money. I think that probably is a major 
mistake.
  The gentleman never has liked space station because he does not think 
that space station creates new technology. I happen to believe it does. 
In fact, the President and his administration, Mr. Gore today, I talked 
to him on the phone, he was against those NASA cuts, because he feels 
as though that is a contributor.
  The gentleman is out of touch with his own party and out of touch 
with, I think, the direction of the Congress.
  Mr. ROEMER. That is helpful in some degree.
  Mr. WALKER. That may be.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority Member for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, back on the ranch, with regard to the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], I rise in strong 
support of the amendment. It would restore $3 million of the $19.5 
million in cuts for the internal laboratory research programs at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would support a full restoration of 
that funding. I know the gentlewoman from Maryland was very interested 
in doing that also, and worked very hard on it. This was the compromise 
she was successful in achieving. I congratulate her for that.
  Before going on to talk a little bit about these programs and why we 
should support the Morella amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
note that I deeply regret that the offsets in this amendment are coming 
from the State Department's Foreign Buildings account.
  This is a big account, there is no question about it, but this 
account provides funds for over 12,000 facilities valued at over $10 
billion. Right now, we have a $400 million plus backlog of facility 
maintenance and repair projects for our decaying facilities overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, this account has already taken two cuts as a result of 
the rescission process. It is a big account, an easy account to cut. 
However, it would really be penny-wise and pound foolish, because we 
are building up a great liability that we are going to have to address. 
And we have already cut $20 million in this bill and $28 million as a 
result of the Senate's action on the defense supplemental.
  I simply want my colleagues to know that continued hits in this 
account jeopardize our foreign buildings, as well as our new embassies.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we would refrain from the temptation to cut this 
account simply because of its size, and slow outlay rate. While I 
regret this account is where we are getting the money to offset this 
amendment, I do support very strongly the NIST laboratories. They 
develop measurement techniques, testing methods, standards, and other 
types of infrastructural technologies and services that provide a 
common language needed by industry in all stages of commerce.
  They respond to the present and anticipated needs of U.S. industry 
and set priorities based on close consultation with industry.
  Mr. Chairman, to this end, this $19.5 million cut proposed in the 
rescission package would have a profound impact on U.S. industry's 
ability to compete in the worldwide high technology markets.
  There are two reasons why this cut would be particularly devastating. 
First, historically, up until a couple of years ago, the NIST labs were 
getting about half of their budget from other agencies in contract 
services. In other words, they were contracting out their services and 
those contracts were supporting NIST employees.
  The increases we see in the budget requests, and it has rightly been 
pointed out that NIST's internal laboratories have received increases, 
since that time represent a shift from this type of funding to a 
straight appropriation. They was a good reason for this.
  Mr. Chairman, this change gives the labs more stability to plan their 
activities from year to year. This has become increasingly important as 
industries become more sophisticated and technology changes more 
quickly. It is important for NIST to be able to set its own agenda, to 
have a budget which supports its FTEs.
  Second, it allows NIST to target resources to high priority areas, 
like advanced manufacturing and biotechnology and information 
technology.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, a 
distinguished member of the subcommittee.
                             {time}   2115

  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to 
reinforce what the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has been 
saying. We debate something that comes to us, and I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's bringing this to the floor, under the bureaucratic 
sounding title of Internal Laboratory Research and Members' eyes gloss 
over.
  It is important to understand the real consequences of the work being 
done under this particular part of the National Institutes. We are 
talking about semiconductor microcircuitry research, materials, science 
research, a whole range of things that constitute a critical ingredient 
in any well-informed and sensible national competitiveness strategy. It 
is a vital part of the administration's efforts to really boost 
civilian research and secure an economic future for this country.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are supportive of the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. I only have one speaker remaining, and I think it is our 
right to close; is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, that simply gives me an opportunity while 
we are on this subject to take my remarks one step further.
  I would like to speak more broadly to all the proposed rescissions in 
the commerce technology programs, both in this bill and in the 
rescission package accompanying the defense supplemental. I want to go 
on record as strongly opposing these proposed cuts in the advanced 
technology program, in the manufacturing extension program, and in the 
Office of Technology Policy. Of course it is relevant to comment on 
these cuts because the NIST internal labs support the other commerce 
technology programs.. This is part of the reason why we desperately 
need this funding.
  According to the charts contained in the World Competitiveness Report 
of 1994, the United States ranks 28th, behind Japan, Germany and all of 
our other major competitors in the percentage of government funding 
allocated to non-defense research and development. We rank fifth in 
total expenditure of R&D as a percentage of our GDP, and 19th in real 
growth of private sector R&D investment.
  Let's face it. Our competitors are heavily investing in programs 
similar to the commerce civilian technology initiatives. They are 
pouring funding into research and development of precompetitive generic 
technologies. They are funding programs similar to MEP, and we are just 
beginning to understand the importance of that.
  [[Page H3262]] Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I particularly regret the 
cuts in the rescission packages to those external civilian technology 
programs.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time allocated and urge the 
support of the Morella amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have one other request for time. How much 
time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, under the general rules of 
germaneness here and since I will not get a chance to talk about this 
elsewhere, I want to say a little bit about HUD.
  We are hearing a lot and a lot in this bill beats up on HUD, and I 
want to acknowledge, HUD has been badly run, because from 1981 to 1989 
under Ronald Reagan, the Secretary of HUD was Samuel Pierce, and rarely 
in the history of America under that Republican administration has any 
Federal department been run so incompetently and corruptly at the same 
time. They rarely did anything at all and when they did anything, it 
was likely to be crooked. The problem we now have is that the poor 
people in this country are going to be penalized by savage cuts in HUD 
which are a consequence in part of mismanagement of that Republican 
rule.
  With Samuel Pierce having presided under Ronald Reagan over the most 
corrupt administration and the most inept in recent memory, it is a 
very cruel thing now to penalize the poor people today, and so these 
cuts in HUD which are being justified by HUD mismanagement are a clear 
case on the part of the Republican Party of killing your parents and 
claiming justification because you are an orphan.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized 
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me explain simply what the 
gentlewoman's amendment does. The 1995 appropriations act out of our 
subcommittee included $265 million for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology's internal laboratory research programs. That 
amount was $40 million over the fiscal 1994 figure, an 18 percent 
increase, and deservedly so, because these labs do a wonderful job.
  The committee rescission in this bill that is pending before us would 
rescind $19.5 million from that amount and reduce the 1995 figure to 
$245.5 million for fiscal 1995. That is still a 9.5 percent increase 
over the 1994 level, even after the rescission is taken.
  The NIST internal program will not lose money. They will just simply 
get as much of an increase as the 1995 bill had given them. They will 
still be able to employ more people, even with this rescission.
  The gentlewoman from Maryland has made a very powerful case to this 
gentleman and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the 
ranking minority member on our subcommittee, of the importance of the 
NIST program over and again to us.
  I have to compliment the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] for 
her tremendous persuasiveness about the effectiveness of NIST and its 
programs. She has convinced us that it would be wise to cut back on the 
rescission in a fairly modest way but a significant way.
  This amendment she offers would restore $3 million to the NIST 
internal research program to enable them to continue the build-up that 
was started a few years ago to bolster our Nation's ability to compete 
by transferring technology to our Nation's industries and businesses.
  I do not think anyone in this room needs to be convinced of the 
efficacy of the NIST programs. This is one of the government's good 
programs. These are dedicated scientists and economists and people who 
understand business and exports. These laboratories at NIST already 
have a 90-plus-year history of working closely with small and large 
companies coupled with a reputation for neutrality and technical 
excellence.
  That is why NIST was selected by the Congress in 1987 and 1988 to 
tackle added assignments. Today we provide services through four major 
programs that make up a portfolio of technology-based tools:
  One is the competitive advanced technology program which provides 
cost-shared awards to industry to develop high-risk technologies.
  Two, a grassroots manufacturing extension partnership helping small 
and medium size companies to adopt new technologies.
  Three, a strong laboratory effort planned and implemented in 
cooperation with industry and focused on infrastructural technologies.
  And, four, a quality improvement program associated with the Malcolm 
Baldridge National Quality Award.
  The NIST laboratories are an invaluable asset of our government in 
assisting American companies to be more competitive in the world 
market.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we do not have enough money in our bill 
to do all we would like to do. The monies that we restore tonight we 
will have to find in 1996 in order to keep these added employees on the 
line. None of us can guarantee that. We have got a tough year coming up 
in 1996. But for the moment, the gentlewoman from Maryland's amendment 
has been persuasive.
  I want to again congratulate her on being able to convince a number 
of us to restore this amount of money to the NIST program.
  I reluctantly have agreed to the amendment, and I will be voting for 
the Morella amendment and urge our colleagues to do the same.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], as modified.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419, 
noes 8, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               AYES--419

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     [[Page H3263]] Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--8

     Abercrombie
     DeFazio
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Johnston
     Manzullo
     Rohrabacher
     Scarborough

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (GA)
     Yates

                              {time}  2143

  Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  2145


                     amendment offered by mr. crane

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Has the amendment been printed in the RECORD?
  Mr. CRANE. Yes, it has, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: page 33, line 20, strike 
     ``$47,000,000'' and insert ``$112,000,000''.
       Page 33, line 22, strike ``$94,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$215,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Is there any Member standing in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Speaker Gingrich has indicated that he would not 
recognize further funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
after 1998, and as a result, we are on a course that is designed to 
totally defund the public contribution to public broadcasting. It is a, 
relatively speaking, minimal contribution right now, and it will be 
zeroed out.
  But in the interim, what I am arguing is that my amendment would do 
this in a way that enables those people to make adjustments as they 
face that final decline of Government money involvement in public 
broadcasting. They would do this in a more rational way.
  The proposal in the legislation before us is mild up front. In 1995, 
it is a 15-percent cut, a 30-percent cut in 1996, but then they are 
faced with a 70-percent reduction in their funding the year that it is 
terminated. My proposal, Mr. Chairman, would, instead, make it 33 
percent, 33 percent, and 33 percent, and I would argue, Mr. Chairman, 
that that is a better way to approach the resolution to this problem 
than is currently contemplated.
  The CPB funding, one must recognize, is a very small percentage of 
total funding for public broadcasting. As I indicated earlier, it is 
roughly 15 percent that comes from Federal appropriations to fund 
public broadcasting. We are talking about the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, not public broadcasting. Public broadcasting will 
continue, and my argument is there are ways in which it can be assured 
of a continuation for those programs that those people who are constant 
viewers, say, of public broadcasting, they can be assured that they 
will still continue to receive those services.
  There will be some adjustments, however, and those adjustments are 
dictated in part by economic reasons, and that has been a part of the 
argument advanced by Speaker Gingrich when he says by 1998 the 
Government taxpayers will no longer be involved in this process.
  I think it is important for our colleagues to understand that from 
1975 until the present the funding for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, the public funding, has risen by 500 percent, 500 percent 
since 1975. And even if you are looking at constant dollars, the fiscal 
year 1995 appropriation is more than three times higher than 20 years 
ago.
  Telecommunications is very different than it was in 1967 when CPB was 
created. The functions of public broadcasting, namely, education, 
entertainment, diversity, access, and so forth are now duplicated in 
other entities such as cable, direct satellite, VCR's, public-access 
shows. CPB provides only one block of programming, while cable provides 
hundreds.
  Some say that we need CPB because many do not get cable, the main 
source of diversity. However, the answer to that problem is to 
encourage access to cable, not to subsidize public broadcasters. Many 
public TV stations themselves are now redundant. CPB estimates that 58 
percent of Americans receive at least two or more public TV stations. 
In the greater Chicago area, for example, my hometown, there are as 
many as four access stations, and New York has four. Washington, DC, 
has three; Kansas City, for example, has two.
  Public broadcasting funds should go to rural stations where the need 
for access and diversity is most acute. If the CPB were truly the 
philanthropic organization it claims to be, cuts in its budget would 
not lead to the end of small stations. Instead, it would end big 
stations where consumers have a number of choices.
  Barney was created by the Lyons group. Founder Sheryl Leach and her 
partner were listed as one of Forbes magazine's highest-paid 
entertainers with 1993 to 1994 earnings of $84 million. The Lyons group 
has the licensing agreement with Hasbro and a theme park at Universal 
Studios theme park in Orlando.
  Barney avoided extinction with the help of a $2 million grant from 
the CPB and public broadcasting. ``What we didn't realize is that 
exposure is so important,'' said Barney creator Sheryl Leach. After 
public broadcasters provided exposure, Barney became an institution.
  The Wall Street Journal reported that despite Barney's $1 billion in 
gross revenues and Leach's $84 million earnings, almost nothing goes to 
CPB. In total, according to the Wall Street Journal, the CPB earned 
$317,000 from product licensing fees in 1991.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to recognize that we are not 
talking about ending public broadcasting. What we are talking about is 
ending that minimal Federal Government involvement in this process that 
is not necessary, not in any way, shape, or 
 [[Page H3264]] form, to guarantee that public broadcasting continues.
  And we know, for example, that there are alternative ways to meet 
that marginal void of the 15-percent taxpayer contribution to the 
process that has perpetuated this with escalating costs to the 
taxpayers and minimal return.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to that noted defender 
of Big Bird, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Crane amendment to impose further cuts on the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting.
  In fact, had the rule not be so restrictive, I would have offered my 
own amendment to cut those cuts even further rather than increasing 
them.
  The House Republican leadership has launched an all-out attack 
against the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as wasteful government 
spending and as culturally elite. This amendment hastens the planned 
demise of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and reveals very 
clearly the extremist agenda of the Republican majority.
  If you oppose violence in the media, you will oppose this amendment. 
Public broadcasting, Sesame Street, Prairie Home Companion, and other 
public programming provide an alternative for preschoolers, families, 
elderly Americans who want to avoid the violence of too much of 
commercial broadcasting. If you disagree with the Republican leadership 
claim that public broadcasting represents a subsidy for the culturally 
elite, you will oppose this amendment.
  Nearly half of public broadcasting's audience are middle-income-
family individuals. Calling public broadcasting culturally elite is an 
insult to the millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans who 
watch public television or listen to public radio. If you oppose the 
commercialization of public broadcasting, you will oppose this 
amendment.
  You will oppose this amendment, because opponents of public 
broadcasting seek to privatize public broadcasting and allow commercial 
interests to take it over. The fact is public broadcasting could not 
support itself solely through revenues from its successful shows and 
should not support itself through commercials.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Crane amendment.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I have not suggested the content. What I 
have suggested is that we are going to terminate public financing of 
public broadcasting by the year 1998, and all that my amendment does is 
to do that in a staggered way where those people can make easier 
adjustments than to take a 70-percent hit in their total budget in 
1997. Mine is 33, 33, 33, so they can make the adjustments to the 
cutbacks. And the other point is it is not cultural elitism that I have 
argued about.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I would just like to thank the gentleman for clarifying 
my statement even further. In fact, what this amendment does do, as you 
suggest, is hasten the demise of public broadcasting, because, in fact, 
you are increasing from 15 to 36 percent the cuts in 1996 and from 30 
percent to 68 percent the cuts in the following year. So you are 
hastening the demise of public broadcasting, and I thank you for your 
clarification.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for one final rebuttal. My point is that is a gentler adjustment time 
frame than what is proposed under the legislation, because if you make 
marginal cuts this year and marginal cuts next year, and then you come 
in and you savage them totally in that final year, that is a bigger 
adjustment than my proposal offers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as well-intentioned as this amendment might be, I 
believe that it would very much undermine the efforts of the 
subcommittee and the committee to graduate public broadcasting off the 
Federal subsidy, and we believe that we are making great progress in 
that regard.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. Fields of Texas, the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, 
and I met with officials of CPB, NPR, and PBS within the last 2 weeks, 
and we had I think a very, very productive meeting and understanding 
that our intention was that CPB become independent of the Federal 
subsidy, that they work on a plan that would provide for alternative 
revenue streams, and that they work also to incorporate a concept of 
graduation from subsidy for member stations who do not need it within 
their plans and to reduce or eliminate station overlap, of which there 
is some involved, particularly on the television side.
  We believe that the cuts that we proposed are very substantial, 15 
percent next year and 30 percent the following year. We believe that it 
allows them adequate time to adjust to the concept of coming off the 
Federal subsidy, and we believe very strongly that the Crane amendment 
would undermine these efforts.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in strong opposition to 
the Crane amendment to increase the cut in the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. But do not let the Crane amendment distract us from what 
is really happening here today, because this rescission bill advanced 
by the Republican majority has huge cuts in the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting: $47 million for this next year, and $94 million the year 
beyond.
  So any words of support for CPB in opposition to Mr. Crane, Members 
should demonstrate their support for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting by voting against this bill in final passage to eliminate 
these huge cuts that are already there.
  Mr. Crane in his remarks said people who do not have cable should get 
it. We should increase access to cable. What will that do? Increase 
access for our children to more sex and violence on television. Cable 
television, even if people can afford it, which they cannot, is no 
substitute for educational TV, which reaches 99 percent of our 
households. Our society benefits immensely from the unique educational 
services CPB provides that stretch across age, sex, gender, and ethnic 
boundaries.
  Make no mistake, this rescission bill has serious cuts in the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If you support it, you will vote 
against this whole bill in the end, because then you will be truly 
standing up for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Another point our colleague has made is that if you eliminate public 
funds, it is still public. That cannot possibly be true.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Crane 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as a bit odd, at a time when we are 
concerned about universal access to the internet, to laptop computers, 
to an array of educational technologies, to be talking about 
eliminating access to the one educational technology that is available 
to everyone already: public broadcasting.
  I am old enough to remember in the 1950s, when broadcast television 
was hailed as the Nation's salvation, offering endless educational and 
entertainment possibilities--possibilities that did not seem outlandish 
in the medium's ``golden age.'' And yet by the 1960s, Newton B. Minow 
famously surveyed the broadcasting landscape and saw nothing but a 
``vast wasteland.''
  So in the 1990's, as the commercial media become ever more 
competitive, they reach reflexively for the lowest common denominator 
of flashy, empty programming, often laden 
 [[Page H3265]] with violence and sex. It is in the public interest 
that quality alternatives be offered that the market is slow to 
provide. The Federal funding in public broadcasting is minimal, and I 
see no reason we should poor mouth our way into an impoverished 
culture.
  Public broadcasting survives, and must survive, to meet real, 
legitimate, unmet public needs. It is a resource we need more than 
ever, and I urge my colleagues to vote against rescinding 
appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is part of the Republican 
campaign for the dumbing down of America. First, they killed the 
fairness doctrine so Americans no longer hear both sides of an issue. 
Then the Republicans invested heavily in right wing radio and TV, so 
that Americans get a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and the world 
according to Professor Gingrich. Now they wanted to kill public 
broadcasting.
  My Republican colleagues live in fear that Americans will hear more 
than their narrow side of the political debate. It is ironic that my 
Illinois colleague, who railed against the freedoms destroyed by 
communism, is anxious to silence the free exchange of ideas on public 
broadcasting.
  The Republicans should not be afraid of information and balanced 
debate. In many foreign nations, this kind of exchange of ideas is 
called the American way of doing things.
  Now, let me reinforce what the gentlewoman from California said. 
Voting against Mr. Crane's amendment does not make you a friend of 
public broadcasting. Keep in mind that the underlying bill, this 
rescission bill, cuts the heart out of public support for public 
broadcasting.
  Those who are standing here opposing his amendment, to say that they 
are friends of public broadcasting I think a lot of us know better. The 
bottom line is this: If we are going to keep a free and open exchange 
of ideas in this country, we have to be subscribing to, supporting 
personally, and providing some Government support, yes, for public 
broadcasting, both radio and TV. Oppose the Crane amendment and oppose 
this bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I assume that free exchange is on Barney and Sesame 
Street that he is talking about, and that is characteristic of the 
other side of the aisle. But let me tell you something: Lyon's Group 
and Children's TV Workshop are grossing about $2 billion a year through 
the exposure of Barney and Sesame Street. Now, why do they not, because 
of that free advertising, permit a little flow-back to replace any 
component part of national public broadcasting that is coming from the 
taxpayers.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman knows, of course, what somebody grosses is 
not necessarily----
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to be sure. I said gross 
income. But my point is that when you are looking at $2 billion a year 
in gross income, for goodness' sake, our contribution that we are 
talking about is inconsequential by comparison.
  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will further yield, the gentleman is on 
the Committee on Ways and Means, a great leader on that committee. 
Could the gentleman give us some idea of how much of tax write-offs the 
commercial television stations get each year, how much the taxpayer 
subsidizes their operations.
  Mr. CRANE. Infinitely preferable to do it in the private sector than 
the public sector.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am 
amazed from what I just heard from this other side of the aisle. They 
said we have to have Government-subsidized broadcasting at taxpayers' 
expense to counter what you are hearing from the free enterprise 
system; that you have to have Government to get out a public propaganda 
message instead of listening to what is on news programs or public 
information programs from free enterprise.
  That is a socialist approach. I reject it. If you want education 
programming, you have got that in private sector already. Look at the 
Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Arts and Entertainment 
Channel, C-SPAN, Spanish Network, Weather Channel, Headline News, CNN; 
then the other commercial stations. You do not need Government to give 
your side of the story whenever the free enterprise system says 
something.
  I reject that notion. That shows what is really going on. Public 
broadcasting should be paid for by voluntary members of the public that 
want to contribute, not tax money.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the free enterprise system does not work to 
serve the children of our country. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox combined have 
on 8 hours of children's television per week, total. PBS, starting at 
6:30 each morning with Sesame Street through 6:30 every night with Bill 
Nye, the Science Guy, puts on 10 to 12 hours a day, 60 or so hours a 
week, of children's television.
  Now, just so you will know the facts, ladies and gentlemen of the 
other side of the aisle, there are 70 million children in the United 
States. Of those 70 million, 33 million of them live in homes without 
any cable. The only channels they can turn to are ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, 
or the other independent stations. There is no children's television on 
it.
  Now, if you want these children to be able to compete in a post-GATT, 
post-NAFTA world the way I do, I voted for it, we have a big deal with 
these kids. We are letting the low-end jobs go and are going to try to 
target the information-age jobs.
  If you take off the only channel on television that provides mothers 
of children that come from the low income areas with the informational 
and educational skills which they need, then you are dooming our 
country to a society where all the welfare reform in the world will 
never make it possible for these children to have the skills that make 
it possible for them to hold the jobs in your so sacred private sector 
that you cut their one link to it that the public is providing them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 4 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 7\1/4\ minutes 
remaining, and is entitled to the right to close since he is defending 
the committee position.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as a father of a 5-year-old and a 3-year-
old, I got to tell you that when you rely only upon the commercial 
sector to produce programming that is in their interest, you do 
sacrifice quality and content.
  I doubt any of you have the opportunity to watch the kinds of shows 
that are put on on Saturday mornings or during the morning on weekdays. 
But the reality is that the only quality is that which you get on 
public broadcasting. What you get on the commercial networks is full of 
gratuitous violence, it has no qualitative content to it. There is a 
reason why the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been maintained. 
It is because there is a vast difference between what it produces and 
what the commercial networks produce. And it all comes down to where 
the motivation is. The motivation for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting is to produce the highest quality programming, to appeal 
to our best instincts, and that is what we got and that is what we 
should keep.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, this rescissions package is a joke, 
worse than what you see on the various cable TV networks. This 
rescissions package guts public corporation television. It guts summer 
jobs, it guts housing for people who need it. And let me say this: I 
resent the Members of the other side of the aisle calling us 
socialists. We simply stand here for working Americans. Public 
television is free television, and it is television for our children.
  What you are asking us to do is take from the Old Testament Solomon's 
rule 
 [[Page H3266]] where he asked the mothers who gave birth to two babies 
how they would resolve who would get the one baby that lived. When they 
could not resolve it, one mother said cut the baby in half. The other 
mother said no, let the other mother take the baby because I love the 
baby too much.
  We love our children. We will not let you put us in the Solomon's 
choice. Republicans can cut the baby in half. Democrats want to keep 
the baby alive because we love our children. Support the Public 
Broadcasting Corporation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to those of you who find 
more sense in being reasonable than to be idealogues. You know, there 
is a place for public television and a place for public radio, and it 
is indeed both in the urban and rural areas. I represent rural America, 
and it is refreshing to know there is a source of information that is 
not only qualitatively and quantitatively superior, but also is 
subjective and has an opportunity to advance learning.
  This is in the American interest that we support it. It is not to 
suggest that we are any less caring about free enterprise, but it is to 
suggest we see value in having the Americans support it because it 
enhances not only the education advancement, but it enhances the 
American way. It makes sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the other side to not only defeat this 
amendment, but to know that you must defeat the whole bill itself.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman, but I think I heard something that was false. It is not 
free. My five grandkids are going to get the bill. We are spending $200 
million a year. It is not free. You are charging to each of my 
grandkids every month a debt they cannot pay, and it is not free. And 
if we do not pay attention right now, you are taking away their future, 
because you think it is free.
                              {time}  2215

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This is once again another instance of mean-spirited Republican 
budget cuts. It really never ceases to amaze me how mean-spirited and 
radical the Republican party has become. When I left this morning, my 
16-month-old son was watching Barney. My kids have grown up on Sesame 
Street. I said this morning, Don't kill big bird.
  Let me tell you something: 40 percent of American families do not get 
cable television. So if we lose public broadcasting, 40 percent of 
America cannot see public broadcasting and these kinds of shows. Do we 
want our kids to be exposed to the sex and violence in commercial 
television? Do we really want our kids to be exposed to all these 
commercials?
  For $1 every $1 that is put in of public funds, $6 in the private 
sector are generated. This is an example of the public/private 
partnership that works. This money that the Federal Government puts 
forth is less than $1 for every American person.
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke. Public TV works. 
Vote against this mean-spirited amendment and vote against the mean-
spirited rescission package.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, we heard the previous speaker equate 
public broadcasting with socialism. I think that kind of laid it bare. 
There is no secret out here anymore. This is an amendment from the far 
right wing of the Republican party, this doubling of cut for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting really goes by name. It is called 
extremism.
  Look, the mainspring of your party and the mainspring in the middle 
of your party, neither want to see the cuts doubled to the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting, and neither your middle or ours or the middle 
of America believe the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is akin to 
socialism.
  This amendment represents the far extreme right wing of your party.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to explain again to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the 
public taxpayer-financed component of public broadcasting, will be gone 
by 1998. All my amendment does is phase that cut in in a way where they 
can make the adjustment easier than is otherwise prescribed under the 
legislation before us.
  It is a 33, 33, 33 percent cut instead of waiting until 1997 and 
taking a 70 percent hit on their whole budget.
  It is history, guys. Open your eyes up. We are talking about letting 
the private sector run it as it always should have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleagues, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. With all due respect, we have a 
gentleman's disagreement.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding time to me, because I rise in reluctant 
opposition to the amendment at this time.
  I think our position as Republicans first of all should be in support 
of public broadcasting. I think there is a niche for public 
broadcasting on the information superhighway. I do not believe there 
should be $1 of Federal money spent in the future when it comes to 
authorization or when we get to the next round of appropriations, I 
will support the gentleman from Illinois.
  But I am now in a gentleman's agreement with CPB, with PBS, and with 
NPR, trying to find a solution to this problem, because I honestly 
believe there is a need for public broadcasting. But again, do not 
misunderstand me, particularly on this side of the aisle, in the 
future, we should not spend Federal money.
  We can have a transitional time of commercial advertising. Then we 
can use the spectrum and through new technology allow compression that 
allows them to move into a new era.
  So reluctantly, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  My colleagues, the hour is late. The fact is the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the members of the subcommittee have done a 
good job. They called for a 15 percent cut in 1996 for CPB and a 30 
percent cut in 1997. I think that is adequate. That gets us on the 
right track.
  Next year we can deal with this matter in the appropriations process 
in the normal time sequence. But I think that we ought to leave this 
bill intact as it is.
  I sympathize with my friend from Illinois. I share his goals as one 
who has been personally attacked, practically, and caused hardship by 
my own public TV station. But I believe that we should deal with this 
at the proper time.
  I urge the committee, the whole committee to support the work of the 
Committee on Appropriations. Vote against the Crane amendment and 
sustain the work of the committee.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] who has a gentleman's disagreement with 
me.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
graciously yielding time to me.
  I, too, disagree with the amendment. I think public broadcasting does 
have a role in our country. Commercial broadcasting is fine for what it 
does, but it does not have the educational component that public 
broadcasting has.
  So I would ask members of my party to please vote against this 
amendment. I think we need public broadcasting to continue that 
education for preschoolers, but also for adults, programs that we would 
not see otherwise.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time to me and ask 
that the amendment be voted down.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Further 
cuts in public broadcasting will not only devastate public television 
and radio systems, but it will also severely 
 [[Page H3267]] hamper the discussion already taking place about the 
future of public broadcasting.
  Faced with the current $141 million reduction, about 30 stations 
would merge or go dark by 1998 and another 30 stations would have to 
shut down local operations by 2000.
  This debate is about the value we place on public education. Public 
broadcasting is education for preschoolers; it's hands-on classroom 
materials for teachers; it's a way to earn a GED or college credits 
from home. The guiding principle of commercial broadcasting is clearly 
profit. For public television, the guiding principle is education.
  Cable has certainly added to the television menu, but only for those 
who can afford its high prices. Basic cable costs around $25 per month. 
That is simply too high a price for millions of Americans, and as a 
result nearly 40 percent continue to go without. Public
 television reaches 99 percent of the nation.

  The public broadcasting industry and Congress are currently 
discussing the future role of public broadcasting for America. 
Draconian cuts would hamper these talks and prevent any thoughtful 
resolution for this issue. I urge my colleagues--even those who would 
like to end Federal funding for public broadcasting--to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, Government ought to do what it has to do, not 
what it would like to do. We would all like to play Walter Annenberg or 
Lorenzo de Medici and be patrons of the arts. If we are serious about 
getting the deficit down, we can no longer do the things that are 
luxuries, that are nice and pleasant.
  Let us go to the foundations. Let us go to the wealthy people who 
subsidize the arts, museums. Let them subsidize public broadcasting. It 
is good. It is worthwhile, but we have to borrow money to pay our 
bills. We can get by without this. We ought to fund it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has \1/2\ 
minute remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 1\1/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say in conclusion, we are not talking about ending public 
broadcasting. Eighty-five percent of public broadcasting is privately 
funded. We are talking about a minuscule contribution from our 
grandchildren who are going to inherit the debt that we are running up 
right now.
  I say it is time to get Government out of public broadcasting. It can 
survive and it can continue to provide the worthwhile services it has 
in the past.
  I urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is irrelevant. The Republicans have 
already decided to kill public broadcasting. This is simply a late-
night sideshow to enable the reluctant dragons of the GOP Gingrich gang 
to get off the hook. That is all it is.
  I never want to hear another lecture about family values from the 
Republicans in this House. I just heard someone on that side of the 
aisle, on the Republican side of aisle say our kids could not afford 
the money we are spending on public broadcasting. What our kids cannot 
afford is the garbage that passes for entertainment on commercial 
television. That is what our kids cannot afford.
  This is a debate between family values and commercial values. And 
when you kill the only kind of television that gives young kids a 
decent opportunity to see something other than the garbage that passes 
for national network television, what you do is abandon them to the 
commercial marketplace. You abandon them to the commercial market 
forces. You say, ``Values out the window, dollars come first.'' I do 
not think this country wants that.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill indiscriminately cuts 
programs of great importance to millions of elderly, poor, and young 
Americans.
  This bill reduces funding for important services like the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting.
  Now we are considering an amendment which further cuts funding for 
CPB.
  CPB plays an important role in educating our young and keeping a vast 
part of our society informed.
  This bill, already cutting CPB's funding by 15 percent, will have 
direct and negative consequences for children, rural areas, and 
minorities. This amendment will devastate public broadcasting.
  My colleagues on the other side argue that CPB can be privatized, 
that the proliferation of cable has surpassed public television, or 
that CPB can survive through advertising, or from the profits from 
Barney and Sesame Street.
  CPB cannot be privatized because there is nothing to privatize. CPB 
has no assets, it is not a business.
  CPB is a grant making organization whose constituents are not-for-
profit TV or radio stations.
  Cable does not replace public broadcasting. Ninety-nine percent of 
Americans have access to public broadcasting. Only about 60 percent of 
Americans receive cable programming.
  Public broadcasting is free and all Americans have access. Cable is 
expensive and it does not serve all homes.
  By law public broadcasters are prohibited from advertising. Public 
broadcasters cannot sell air time for products or services.
  Finally, public broadcasters receive only royalties from Barney the 
Dinosaur and Sesame Street. Last year these royalties were $20 million 
and most of that went back into expensive educational programming.
  America's children, rural citizens, and minorities stand to lose the 
most. Urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, while I find many aspects 
of this rescission bill cold-hearted and callous, particularly where 
the children of this country are concerned, I rise today on behalf of 
all my constituents in South Dakota--young and old--to express my 
strong opposition to the Rohrabacher and Crane Amendments which further 
gut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I simply 
cannot stand by and watch this heartless trouncing of an entity that 
has brought laughter, insight, and thought into the homes of countless 
South Dakotans and people all across this country.
  This rescission bill already strips CPB of much needed funding. Given 
these new funding limitations, CPB must now make decisions about which 
programs will remain, what staff must be cut, and which stations will 
receive less funding. Any additional funding cuts to this invaluable 
resource will dramatically and negatively affect millions of people in 
this country. At a time when commercial broadcasting is bringing an 
excess of sex, violence, and just plain schlock into our homes, we 
simply cannot afford to lose public broadcasting--the one source of 
quality programming that we have.
  Pulling the plug on public broadcasting hurts all of us, from those 
living in small rural communities to those surviving in inner city high 
rises to those residing in senior centers. For many people in South 
Dakota and across this country, public broadcasting is the only source 
of quality television and radio programming.
  Nearly 40 percent of American households do not have cable 
television. In my home state of South Dakota, nearly 60 percent do not 
have cable. Public television and radio are often the only source of 
world and national news to millions of Americans. It plays a vital role 
in thousands of communities. Rural States such as South Dakota will be 
particularly hard hit by the proposed cuts and any additional cuts--25 
percent of South Dakota Public Broadcasting funds come from CPB. Don't 
kid yourself or the American people. Our states will not be able to 
pick up the slack when the gutting process begins.
  No one is opposed to having CPB look more aggressively for ways to 
profit from their occasional commercial success or to find ways to trim 
the fat from their overhead. But any attempt to make public 
broadcasting survive solely on its ability to the commercially 
successful should be thrown out the window.
  I intend to do what it takes to ensure this senseless slashing ends. 
Enough is enough. No more endangering Big Bird. No more silencing 
Lawrence Welk. No more gutting.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this week, House Republicans are pushing 
for cuts in many of our most crucial commitments to children, the 
elderly, pregnant women, and veterans, largely to pay for a capital 
gains tax cut that benefits those at the very top of the economic 
ladder. I believe these cuts are a grave mistake, because they punish 
those who are truly in need to help those who have few needs at all.
  But there is one proposed cut that truly strikes at every single 
American, and that is the wrong-headed proposal to slash funding for 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--wounding public television and 
radio out of sheer partisan enmity.
  Public television and radio perform a crucial public service, because 
they bring extremely high-quality, educational and informational 
programming into the homes of countless millions of Americans. These 
programs help young children to learn and to grow, and offer thought-
provoking analyses of the world around us--programs that enrigh the 
minds and enhance the debate of the country at 
[[Page H3268]] large. I am proud to consider myself a viewer and 
listener--as are so many Americans.
  Perhaps that is why I have been flooded with letters from the people 
of St. Louis, beseeching me to defend the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, and especially KWMU and KETC, from these draconian cuts. 
Educators, psychologists, doctors, parents, and teachers, concerned 
community members from the 3rd Congressional District have all joined 
together in this cause. They know that public television and radio 
offer a depth and perspective that commercial outlets simply do not and 
cannot.
  In the most fundamental sense, the airwaves belong to the American 
people. A handful of partisan Republicans may not like P.B.S., but the 
vast majority of American families do. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
any and all efforts to weaken this cultural source of thought, opinion, 
and entertainment in America.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 72, 
noes 350, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No 245]

                                AYES--72

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Boehner
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Canady
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Flanagan
     Funderburk
     Hancock
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Thornberry
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Zimmer

                               NOES--350

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Chrysler
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (GA)
     Martinez
     Rangel
     Yates

                              {time}  2243

  Mr. HEFNER and Mr. GOSS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LARGENT and Mr. KASICH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  2245


                  amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher: Page 20, line 5, 
     strike ``$18,650,000'' and insert ``$23,450,000.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] will be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  Is there a Member standing in opposition? Is the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will also be recognized 
for up to 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to some Members to 
whom earlier I stated that I would probably not be introducing this 
particular amendment, realizing that after the full discussion that we 
had on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because of the last 
amendment, that this body did not need to spend another half-hour 
debating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I decided not to 
introduce my amendment on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting but 
instead decided to offer an amendment dealing with a piece of waste in 
the budget which I feel that would probably be more worth our time to 
talk about, rather than having another half an hour debate on the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Earlier in the day that was not my intent but, Mr. Chairman, the 
purpose of this amendment is to endorse the original decision made by 
the Interior subcommittee to include $4.8 million for the mild 
gasification plant in Illinois in this rescission package, a decision 
that was reversed in full committee.
  The subcommittee had many sound reasons for not wanting this project 
financed. First, this is a program that the Department of Energy has 
left out of its budget requests since fiscal year 1993. The DOE 
requested this project be terminated in fiscal year 1994. Nevertheless, 
earmarked appropriations were made in 1994 and 1995. Arguments to the 
contrary, scientific justification be damned, the earmarks were made.
  [[Page H3269]] I am now chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, and 
I can tell Members, although coal gasification as a substitute for oil 
may have made sense in an era of high oil prices, both the Department 
of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences now agree that it has no 
practical value at the level of projected oil prices through the year 
2010.
  In addition, this project will duplicate other gasification projects 
already undertaken by the Department of Energy in West Virginia and 
Wyoming.
  Furthermore, we are likely to come to the day when our other advanced 
technologies will replace the need for traditional coke-making 
altogether. As for power generation, this program has no value. Both 
the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Science agree that 
advanced gasification systems for
 power generation should have a higher priority than this mild 
gasification project which is aimed at producing a coal-based 
substitute for oil.

  Mr. Chairman, when even the bureaucrats are saying that a project 
like this is unneeded, you know that what we are talking about is 
wasteful Government spending.
  The timing on this rescission is also important. These are 
unobligated funds. Although construction is imminent at this moment, I 
am assured that the Department of Energy can stop this project now at 
no additional cost, saving the taxpayers almost $9 million over the 
life of the project.
  If we act now, we will be saving $9 million over the life of this 
project. If we wait instead and do not include this in the rescission 
bill, and we wait for the fiscal year 1996 budget process, we will have 
lost our opportunity for real savings, construction will have started, 
and we will not be able to recoup millions of dollars.
  I can assure Members of this, being the chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee. We have no intention of authorizing this project for 
1996, but if we wait for that, we have waited too long and millions of 
dollars will have been wasted.
  I know that some people may argue, ``We're not talking about a lot of 
money when we are talking about $4 million to $10 million.'' But that 
is the problem. For far too long, we have let these pet projects slip 
through while decrying the budget deficit and waste in Government. Here 
is our chance to show that in the 104th Congress, it is not business as 
usual. This project is pure pork, it is not justified by science, it is 
not justified by economics, it is not justified by need. What got it 
through the system was politics.
  Today is a new day and there are different powers in place, political 
powers in place in Washington who will not put up with the type of 
decisionmaking that was made during the last session. Earmarking 
projects that even bureaucrats say is wasteful spending will not cut it 
anymore.
  And, yes, a ``yes'' vote on this amendment is a vote against earmarks 
and a small but important step towards fiscal sanity and a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to at least clarify a few 
facts here. Could I have the attention of the gentleman from 
California.
  Is the gentleman from California aware of the fact that this project 
was the result of a competitive solicitation by the Department of 
Energy and not a congressional earmark?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, the Department of 
Energy has requested that we terminate this project. Let me make that 
very clear. This is officially a request of the Department of Energy.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me reclaim my time. The gentleman has said repeatedly 
this is an earmark, this is pork. In fact it is not. It is the result 
of a competitive solicitation by the Department of Energy. It is not in 
my district but it is in my State and it is not only important to my 
State, it is important to a number of Midwestern States. We are talking 
about the use of high-sulfur coal which is becoming less popular and 
less commercial because of the Clean Air Act. The effort being made 
here is to find an environmentally safe way to use this coal.
  Could I ask the gentleman from California another question. Does the 
gentleman know how much the total project costs?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. $19 million.
  Mr. DURBIN. I believe it is $21 million. I would like to ask the 
gentleman, does he know how much the Federal Government has already put 
into this project before this year?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am told by the Department of Energy that the funds 
have not been expended and that $9 million has been spent and that we 
can save $10 million by acting now.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think the gentleman's information is incorrect. It is a 
$21 million project. We have put in $12 million. It will take roughly 
$9 million to finish. Twenty percent is being provided by the State of 
Illinois and by private sources. I am sure the gentleman is not aware 
of the fact, but if we close down the project, if we stop now, if we do 
not spend another penny to finish it, the $8 million or $9 million to 
finish it, it will cost us $3.1 million to close down the project.
  Here is what we are faced with. We either spend $8 million to finish 
the project, do the research and see if it helps, or we spend $3 
million to close it down.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman from California faces his own 
challenges in his State and we will be addressing some of those. We 
face a challenge in the Midwest because of the Clean Air Act. We have 
abundant coal resources which cannot be used under the Clean Air Act. 
We are desperately, desperately trying to find ways to use these coal 
resources to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. This research 
project, the result of a competitive bid through the Department of 
Energy, is an effort to find an environmentally safe way to produce 
form coke to help the steel industry. We have seen the coal industry in 
my home State of Illinois decline dramatically in the last few years. 
We have gone from 20,000 plus coal miners to 7,000 or 8,000. We are 
trying to find responsible ways to use this resource.
  In the committee, the gentleman is correct, I restored the funds for 
this project by cutting other funds. There were setoffs made for every 
dollar that we are putting in this project. I hope the gentleman will 
reconsider his amendment. I hope he understands that to stop now and 
not move forward with the $8 million necessary to complete this project 
will still cost the taxpayers $3 million to close it down. It makes a 
lot more sense to finish the research, move forward, find new energy 
resources and reduce our dependence on foreign energy.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that we have to decide to do on the 
basis not just of whether things have merit but whether or not they 
have priority given the situation that we are in. This is a project 
that has some merit to it. It is a decent project, but it is of lower 
priority than other ongoing gasification efforts. This is not the only 
place that we are looking at how to gasify coal. There is a project in 
West Virginia. There are a number of places where we are looking at how 
to do this.
  The question we have to ask ourselves in the House tonight is whether 
or not we want to go ahead spending money on what is a project of lower 
priority. The information I have is that the $12 million referred to by 
the gentleman in fact is $9 million, about $9.2 million of money that 
was invested by the Federal Government and another $3.7 million that 
was invested by industry, but we have some ongoing spending that has to 
go forward and that is the question that the gentleman from California 
has raised, as to whether or not we ought to continue to spend money 
for this project which with the merit that it has is of low priority.
  These are the kinds of projects that we have to begin to think about 
in the Congress as we consider science. Science in the Federal 
Government's priorities ought to be toward a lot of those basic science 
missions that only some of the Federal research labs can do. This is 
the kind of thing that industry ought to be doing if industry wants to 
survive. Industry is contributing to this but industry is also 
expecting us 
[[Page H3270]] to come up with the bulk of the funding. The gentleman 
from California who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy who is in 
charge of these research programs is bringing to you an amendment that 
suggests that maybe this is a lower priority effort that we ought not 
continue to fund. I support the gentleman's amendment. I think he is on 
the right track.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment from the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. I know it is getting late 
and I will try to keep my remarks short. But I do want to give Members 
a little bit of the history behind this mild gas conversion project.

                              {time}  2300

  I live about 4 miles from where the research is taking place on this 
project. It is a DOE bid solicitation from 1991 because of this fact: 
When we passed another Federal regulation in this body, the Clean Air 
Act, the entire high-sulfur coal industry in this country, which I 
represent a great part in the State of Illinois, others here from 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and other places represent 
other coal fields, suddenly came under attack from our inability to 
come into compliance with these new clean air regulations.
  Folks, try to understand this. The most plentiful energy supply 
source that we have in this entire country is not oil, it is certainly 
not solar, it is coal, and in particular high-sulfur coal.
  In these eight or nine respective States of which I speak, we have 
the most plentiful energy resource in this country, enough high-sulfur 
coal to run the entire energy needs of this Nation for 300 solid years. 
With all of the known oil reserves in the entire world we have barely 
30 years of those reserves left. If we truly want to provide a low-cost 
energy resource for the future of this country, then what we
 need to do is put the money into the technology to help us find a way 
to desulfurize the coal. That is what the mild gas conversion project 
will help us do. It was solicited by the Department of Energy, not by 
any Member in this body. It is barely into its third year now and we 
need to complete it.

  We just ask for the money to go forward in making this project 
prosperous.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let me point out one other significant fact 
here: This research goes to clean up an energy source that is mined by 
some of the poorest people in this country. Sixty-Five percent of the 
mines in my district are closed now as a result of the Clean Air Act. 
Unless we can develop the appropriate technology to serve these people, 
people who are working in those mine fields and who now are unemployed, 
their children have nothing left for the future, they do not have a job 
left. Are Members telling me we cannot invest another $2 million in a 
$1,600 billion budget to help poor people find a way to go back to work 
in the mines? Is this that important?
  Help us out here; help the miners who go down into the belly of the 
Earth every day and serve the needs of this Nation. We need this 
project. Help us out.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, that was a very emotional appeal but the fact is there 
are many facts that were incorrect in the presentation.
  Yes indeed, the Department of Energy did solicit on this project in 
1991. Shortly thereafter, within a few years after that, it was 
determined that this was a totally worthless project. The Department of 
Energy solicited my office, solicited this Member to come here and 
prevent this money from being wasted.
  The fact is, yes, there is some experimentation that needs to be done 
on coal gasification. The Department of Energy's position is this is 
not that project. This is a wasteful project that if we terminate right 
now, which we have the chance to do, we will be able to save $9 million 
dollars.
  The experts, the scientific experts, Bob Walker, the chairman of the 
Committee on Science, myself who is the chairman of the authorizations 
subcommittee, are telling Members this will not be authorized next 
year, if we do not eliminate the spending now we will have committed, 
it will have already been committed, as the process goes on the money 
will have been wasted.
  The Department of Energy, let me note this, says whatever comes out 
of this project will not be worth the investment because of low oil 
prices until the year 2010. This money is a total waste, it is going 
down one big black hole.
  the gentleman may be very well intended, he may love his 
constituents, but the money is wasted; it is not a good expenditure.
  We have to make priority decisions here. When we have all of the 
experts telling us it is not a good project, we should cut our losses 
and save the taxpayers $9 million dollars.
  That is what this is about. I ask my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman how much time do I have remaining?
  Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, just in response to the gentleman from 
California, I can only tell the gentleman that we have letters here 
from the Department of Energy going back to the very beginning of this 
project and so on. To my knowledge, the Department of Energy has not 
told us at this point in time that they do not any longer want this 
project.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is he 
sure he is aware of the Department of Energy' position?
  Mr. POSHARD. We have a letter here from the Governor of the State of 
Illinois, Governor Jim Edgar who is a Republican governor and form the 
leadership in the Republican governor and from the leadership in the 
Republican governor and from the leadership in the Republican State 
legislature, both Senate and House, who do not want this project 
terminated because they know what it means to the high-sulfur coal 
industry and the future of this industry.
  So we are not speaking here in a partisan way. That is a very 
bipartisan concern of the people back in Illinois to help this country 
with respect to the high-sulfur coal industry.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I remember 2 years ago when 
we were arguing over the superconducting super collider and you guys 
gave the same argument against Texas. We had the same research from the 
departments that this was the greatest project in the world, and it 
definitely had and would produce results. And you know what, we stopped 
it, and it has 3 billion Federal dollars in it and a billion Texas 
dollars in it to close it down.
  This is a little project. I do not see any reason that we should keep 
trying to find out how to fix coal.
  And I also remember in Texas a few years back when the Department of 
Energy made us switch from gas, natural gas, clean-burning natural gas 
to coal, and we now see coal going from Montana to Texas in 100 train 
carloads every day.
  You know what, it is not clean. We need to stop this pork.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has the right 
to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I want to 
talk about fixing coal. Coal was fix, high-sulfur coal was fixed by 
this Congress and the White House with the passage of the Clean Air 
Act. They fixed it all right, because a half a billion dollar study 
commissioned for 10 years by this government showed that what the Clean 
Air Act was going to do to coal was not going to solve the problems of 
[[Page H3271]] the rings in Los Angeles, but did anybody pay attention, 
at least the majority of the votes on both sides of the aisle? No.
  So what we are trying to do is hold on to what we have, which is very 
little in the Ohio coal fields or in the Midwestern coal fields or 
Pennsylvania coal fields. We have very little left.
  If Members want to debate whether it is $3 million spent to keep the 
project, or whatever the economic figure, coal jobs produce 6 to 1, for 
every coal miner that works, we have 6 spinoffs. So we are going to 
pay, if we want to look at economics, one way or another as more people 
lose their jobs, good paying jobs, we are going to pay in welfare, in 
unemployment and in reduction of monies to schools. But these projects 
have merit because we are not going to try to recreate the coal 
industry. What is out there, that is shot, is shot. We are trying to 
just simply hang on to the very little bit that we have.
                              {time}  2310

  And I want to also tell you, to mention the factor of oil. If we want 
to count on oil, and oil is great for the country, our production of 
oil, remember past embargoes of oil? Remember upheavals in the Mideast? 
Those types of situations can mean the price of oil, and I thank my 
colleague who reminds me we fought a war over oil. We had an embargo 
years ago in this country over oil.
  Tomorrow morning the Strait of Hormuz can be shut off, and 90 percent 
of the Western World's oil is gone.
  So we have got to preserve what we have. That is all we are asking 
through the coal fields is to simply preserve what we have left.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Costello].
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. I am sure that all of 
the Members, realizing this is the last vote, we want to go home, but 
let me just reiterate a few points that were made earlier by some of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in particular the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  You know, we are always talking about partnerships as opposed to the 
Federal Government putting up all the money for projects. This is truly 
a partnership between the private sector, the State of Illinois, and 
the Federal Government. Let me also say that I think the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard] referred to the fact that the Governor of 
Illinois, a Republican Governor, sent a letter to our delegation saying 
that he realizes that we need to cut the Federal budget, but this is a 
priority project for the State of Illinois.
  The State is willing to put up the money and do their part.
  Let me also say that if this rescission goes through this evening, we 
are not talking about rescinding $4.8 million, we are talking about 
killing this project. This is a project that is under construction 
right now.
  I am sure that the gentleman from California, in fact, very few of 
the Members who spoke on this issue, other than me and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin], have been actually to the coal park, to the construction site. 
I can tell you the project is under construction.
  If you rescind this money this evening, the project is dead. If, in 
fact, the project is not rescinded and we go forward with this 
appropriation, it will be completed.
  Let me close by saying that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
referred to the fact that it would take $3 million to close the project 
down, and I would ask Members to keep that point in mind.
  The State of Illinois is willing to do their part. The Republican 
Governor and the Republican legislature, they are willing to put the 
money up. It is a good project.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, and ask my colleagues to vote 
against the Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a chance tonight, ladies and gentlemen, to save 
$9 million. That is what this is all about. I am sorry for keeping us 
all here for this small sum of $9 million.
  I will tell you this much: These choices, and you have heard lots of 
great arguments of why we should spend money on this mild coal 
gasification program, I will tell you that in the next 6 months we will 
be hearing lots of arguments about why this or that program should be 
financed out of our budget. There will be many, many decisions that we 
will face that will be much tougher than this.
  This is a very easy decision. In 1994 the administration, the 
Department of Energy, and the official position of this administration 
was that this program was not worth the money and that it should be 
terminated. That was the official budget request of the administration, 
and the fact is that this has got through; the reason why it got 
through at all this far is because last year the chairman of the 
subcommittee that made the decision came from Illinois, and we passed 
on to a program that is duplicative. The same type of research is being 
done elsewhere in Wyoming. It is being done in Wyoming and West 
Virginia, and the Department of Energy is adamant in that it will never 
come up with an energy source that is economical.
  Thus, all the money will be a waste, and they have asked us to 
terminate it.
  I ask you to join me in saving $9 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 3 minutes, to 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of this side of the aisle 
that supported the superconducting super collider, I thought it might 
be appropriate to answer the gentleman from Texas who asked the 
question why we should not support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California.
  I think the real answer is that this program, clean coal technology 
program and the incredible investment we have in it over the years 
producing good results, allows us to burn coal cleanly. He rightly 
notes that natural gas is a clean-burning fuel.
  We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, if you will. We have coal reserves 
in the ground that can guarantee energy independence into the future.
  I support multiple fuel use; I support multiple, flexible, fuel use 
policy in this country, and I think that is the best way for us to 
achieve energy independence around the world in whatever circumstances.
  Keeping using that incredible reserve of coal is to keep going to 
fruition with the clean coal technology program, a program in which we 
have invested, as the gentleman rightly points out, considerable 
amounts of money. I hope he would see the advantage of supporting coal, 
as I see the advantage to supporting oil and gas and always have, and 
lament the fact that the superconducting super collider was terminated, 
as a matter of fact.
  I would also say to my friend from California that in a piece of 
legislation where California is benefiting mightily, it is a bit 
disconcerting to have a cut targeted so regionally when under this bill 
domestic discretionary is being hit, domestic discretionary being used 
from across the country and gathered up and targeted to help our 
friends in California.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 274, not voting 18, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 246]

                               AYES--142

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     [[Page H3272]] Danner
     Davis
     DeLay
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ensign
     Forbes
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Klug
     Latham
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Luther
     Martini
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Dixon
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Martinez
     Rose
     Solomon
     Stark
     Waxman
     Williams
     Yates

                              {time}  2335

  Mr. MANZULLO, Ms. McKINNEY, and Messrs. KIM, MANTON, and REYNOLDS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GANSKE and Mr. STUPAK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman for an 
outstanding job.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the aisle would also like 
to congratulate the Chair on his fairness and firmness today.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kim) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1158) making 
emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster 
assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1995, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________