[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3281-H3303]
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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
115 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 1158.

                              {time}  1015


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
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, with Mr. 
Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
March 15, 1995, amendment No. 66, offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], had been disposed of and the bill was 
open for amendment at any point.
  Two hours and 3 minutes remain for consideration of amendments under 
the 5-minute rule.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the Committee rise and report the bill 
     back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
     clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized on his preferential motion. Five minutes will be allowed on 
each side. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will control 
the other 5 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to the motion?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I am moving to strike 
the enacting clause to give the House an opportunity to reconsider what 
it is about to do on this legislation today.
  Everyone recognizes in this House that we need to save money. Let me 
stipulate again as I have throughout the process, I fully support 
cutting every dollar in the macro amount, in the total amount in this 
bill.
  The only dispute that we have on the Democratic side of the aisle 
with those on the Republican side of the aisle is where you cut the 
dollars in this bill and where you do not. We think you ought to change 
the targets. We think you ought to cut more congressional pork, for 
instance. We think you ought to reconsider your decision to prevent the 
Coleman amendment from coming to the floor which would have allowed us 
to cut $400 million in Members' highway pork. We think you ought to 
reconsider your decision to prevent us from offering an amendment which 
delays for 5 years the construction and purchase of the F-22 aircraft. 
The F-22 aircraft is meant to replace the F-15. The F-15 is the best 
fighter in the world. Nobody can come close to that fighter. For us to 
move
 to replace the F-15 with the F-22 when the F-15 clearly has a military 
life extending out to the year 2014, for us to decide we are going to 
buy the replacement plane at $150 million a copy is budgetary nonsense.

  We think that we ought to delay the construction of the F-15 for 5 
years so that you can save $7 billion so that you do not have to cut 
school lunches by $7 billion. We think that is a better tradeoff.
  We think you ought to cut less in the programs that you have targeted 
that hit kids. We think we should not cut public broadcasting to the 
extent that you have cut it. We are willing to take 
[[Page H3282]] a small cut. We think you should not cut Healthy Start. 
We think you should not eliminate summer jobs for 610,000 kids around 
the country. We think you should not do what you are doing on the 
school lunch program. We think you should not cut 100,000 scholarships 
for kids who need it.
  Our concern is that this bill mirrors what you are trying to do with 
the tax bill.
  On the tax bill, you have a capital gains provision which provides 75 
percent of the benefits to people who make more than $100,000 a year. 
It is elitist. We think you should not in your tax bill have the 
provision which eliminates the requirement which we have had for years 
that requires Fortune 500 corporations to pay taxes. We do not think we 
ought to go back to the days when you had companies like AT&T, Du Pont, 
General Dynamics, Pepsico, Texaco, Greyhound, Panhandle East, W.R. 
Grace, et cetera, et cetera, who paid no taxes. We think this bill 
mirrors that mistake that you make in your tax package.
  What I would simply say to you is this: We believe that this bill is 
warped and we believe there is no underlying sense of decency in the 
way the cuts are focused in this bill.
  I would ask, in the words of Joseph Welch, the great counsel to the 
Army during the Army-McCarthy hearings, I would ask with respect to the 
targets you have selected in this bill, ``Have you no sense of 
decency?''
  Why on earth attack children? Why on earth say to 2 million senior 
citizens, ``We are going to make you choose between paying your 
prescription drug bills and paying your home heating bills''? Why on 
earth do you do that?
  Some of you say, well, seniors will still get their heating paid 
because the ulilities will be required to provide that heat. The fact 
is an awful lot of seniors get their heat from fuels that are not 
publicly regulated. So there is no guarantee that they do not get shut 
off in 30-below-zero weather.
  Why on earth would you say to 2 million seniors who make less than 
$10,000 a year that you are not going to help them meet the cost of 
their heating bills so that they have to choose between food, 
prescription drugs, and heat. This is a merciless bill and you ought to 
go back to the committee and start over.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would just like to commend the gentleman both for the 
motion and for his statement, and I would like to point out to the 
gentleman and the Members of this body that on the home heating issue, 
I live in northeast Missouri. We have a lot of senior citizens all over 
northeast Missouri that are going to be impacted by this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's motion, and I 
urge this House to adopt this bill. Postponing the will of Congress, 
delaying this effort for another 10 minutes, half an hour or whatever 
is not going to have any effect. The American people have waited long 
and hard for some common sense and wisdom in congressional handling of 
their hard-earned money. For far too long, we have reached deeply into 
their pockets, and we have seized the cash they have worked so hard 
for, and we have consistently told them how it should be spent and why 
they should be happy that we are spending it that way.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people have waited too long for fiscal 
sanity, and while this is only the first step, only the beginning, the 
fact is that this bill, the largest rescission bill in the history of 
this country, the largest rollback in previously appropriated funds by 
a liberal spendthrift Congress, is the first step toward fiscal sanity 
and a balanced budget and it must be taken. I urge that this motion be 
rejected, that we go forward, and that we adopt this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
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 187, 
noes 228, not voting 19, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--228

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     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
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     [[Page H3283]] Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Clinger
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Johnson, E.B.
     Lewis (GA)
     Mfume
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Seastrand
     Shaw
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1044

  Messrs. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, EDWARDS, FOGLIETTA, and MEEHAN 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. CRAPO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the preferential motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I was at a meeting with a delegation and 
missed rollcall No. 247. Had I been here, I would have voted in the 
negative.


                          personal explanation
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained this morning 
and was not on the floor when rollcall vote 247 was taken. This was the 
motion offered by Mr. Obey to strike the enacting clause. Had I been 
here, I would have voted ``aye.''
                     amendment offered by mr. shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment listed in the March 13 
Congressional Record as amendment No. 70.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays: Page 50, beginning on line 
     6, strike ``$186,000,000 shall be from amounts earmarked for 
     housing opportunities for persons with AIDS;''.
       Conform the aggregate amount set forth on page 49, line 14, 
     accordingly.
       Page 54, line 18, strike ``$38,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$224,000,000''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] reserves a 
point of order.
  Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment as well?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment, 
Mr. Chairman, and I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay] reserves a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
speak in support of an amendment to restore $186 million for people 
with AIDS, housing for people with AIDS.
   Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to restore a cut that 
was made in the Committee on Appropriations that basically eliminated 
all 1995 appropriations for HOPWA. This is the funding that enables 
people throughout the country who are providing those with AIDS with 
housing.
  We have Ryan White funds, and that provides services for people with 
AIDS, but HOPWA provides the housing for people with AIDS, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Flanagan].
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays amendment 
and commend my colleague, Congressman Christopher Shays, for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I have volunteered as a counselor for PWA's at the 
Howard Brown Memorial Center in Chicago. I have seen those suffering 
from this devastating disease die. I have seen those unfortunate enough 
to have contracted AIDS ostracized and abandoned by family and friends 
alike. I know the cruelty of AIDS and how that cruelty extends beyond 
the horrific parameters of the disease itself.
  For many PWA's there is no place to turn, no place to go, no place to 
think of as home during their precious waning moments of time on Earth. 
Like victims of the Black Death in the 14th century, and those sent to 
leper colonies in the 19th and early 20th centuries, PWA's often are 
brutally ostracized by family and community alike.
  The AIDS patients I have known and counseled did not want to be a 
burden to society. That was never their intent. But, many have been 
economically destroyed, and have seen the last of their financial 
resources, because of this crippling disease. AIDS patients are ravaged 
not just physically and economically, but mentally, socially, and 
politically as well. These are people truly in need.
  When all else fails, and personal resources are exhausted, the 
Government has a proper role to play in assisting those in need, those 
who can no longer help themselves. It is for this reason that I truly 
believe it necessary to restore the $186 million in funding for housing 
opportunities for PWA's. These are people who desperately need our 
help. They have nowhere else to turn.
  A decade and a half ago AIDS was unknown. Now, we have just recently 
seen the latest statistics that show that today, AIDS is the No. 1 
killer for all Americans aged 25 to 44. Among our younger population, 
it ranks as the sixth leading killer for those between ages 15 to 24. 
Among women, AIDS is the fourth leading killer, but it is expected to 
rise some time in the next few years to the No. 2 position. Overall, 
AIDS has leapt up to become the eighth leading cause of death in 
America.
  At the end of last year, the death toll from AIDS for the United 
States was 270,870. Although there is nothing that can be done for 
those who have already passed on, there is something that can be done 
for those who are still with us. We can help provide them with housing 
opportunities. We can support the Shays amendment.
  PWA's suffer a lonely existence. Their inability to be 
institutionalized assures it. While it is difficult to know exactly 
what the total cost of institutionalization would be on a yearly basis, 
I am certain that moneys spent for housing opportunities for PWA's 
would be far less.
  In fact, the statistics I have seen show that the average daily cost 
of an AIDS acute care bed is $1,085. Providing housing and services to 
AIDS patients in a residential setting, however, costs between one-
tenth to one-twentieth less than acute care. According to the Human 
Rights Campaign Fund, by using a residential setting, the use of 
emergency health care services is thereby cut by $47,000 per person per 
year.
  It is tragic to me that there are studies that show that about 30 
percent of the people with HIV disease are in acute-care hospitals due 
to the fact that no community based housing alternative is available 
for them. Without restoration of the $186 million for housing 
opportunities for people with AIDS, 50,000 more people could either 
wind up on the streets or also in costly acute care beds.
  Homelessness and costly beds are not acceptable solutions to the 
housing problem for PWA's. The Shays amendment is.
  To those who say there is not public support for helping people with 
AIDS, I suggest they look at the latest bipartisan poll, taken in late 
February 1995, by the highly respected Republican polling firm the 
Tarrance Group and the well regarded Democrat polling firm Lake 
Research. The results of their polling shows that an overwhelming 77 
percent of the people want to maintain or increase Federal funding for 
the care of PWA's.
  As a Republican, I was intrigued to find out that of the people 
polled, 66 percent of Republican men and over 70 percent of Republican 
women support Federal AIDS funding at the current levels or above. Rest 
assured, however, my interest in helping PWA's does not come as a 
consequence of any poll. My long record on this issue surely speaks for 
itself. By citing the Terrance-Lake poll I only wish to make the point 
that there is support for Federal assistance for PWA's among members of 
my party.
  Based on my own experience in counseling AIDS patients, I firmly 
believe 
[[Page H3284]] that restoring the $168 million for housing 
opportunities for PWA's is a necessity. It saves money for the American 
taxpayer. Equally as important, it saves dignity for those suffering 
from the cruel consequences of AIDS by giving them a home during their 
dwindling moments with us.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Shays amendment without hesitation or 
reservation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The 
cuts in this bill to the HOPWA Program, which this amendment restores, 
will be devastating to thousands of individuals with AIDS and their 
families.
  In New York City alone, almost 1,000 people living with AIDS would be 
in danger of being put out onto the streets if these funds are 
rescinded. And make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, the costs to society of 
throwing 1,000 persons with AIDS out onto the streets are far greater 
than the cost of providing them with housing. Hospitals are, by law, 
prohibited from denying emergency medical care, and it should come as 
no surprise that these individuals without housing will turn to 
hospitals. The average cost of hospital care for people with AIDS is 10 
times the cost of home care.
  AIDS is a public health emergency, and we should treat it as such. 
The HOPWA Program is cost-effective and humane, and its elimination 
will result in greater costs to our entire social network. It will tax 
our already overcrowded hospital system, and will leave members of one 
or our Nation's most vulnerable populations homeless.
  It is estimated that while someone can live for 10 years with AIDS, 
the life expectancy for a person with AIDS who is homeless is 6 months. 
Mr. Chairman, eliminating this program would be cruel and unusual 
punishment to AIDS patients and their families who are already 
suffering immensely. The HOPWA Program will save money and keep 
families together. Support the Shays amendment.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays 
amendment to restore vital assistance to one of our Nation's most 
vulnerable groups--people living with AIDS. In the absence of a cure or 
an effective treatment, the HOPWA Program provides what AIDS patients 
need most--a home, a place to restore their strength and hope.
  In my own State of Connecticut, perhaps 25,000 people are HIV-
positive; of these, close to 5,000 have AIDS. Yet decent affordable 
housing is in drastically short supply. In 1993, for example, there 
were 309 requests for housing in Hartford; yet only 21 individuals and 
4 families with children were accommodated. Statewide, in the same 
year, only 141 of 1,000 requests for housing could be filled.
  Mr. Chairman, I could argue against cutting HOPWA because the amount 
of money involved in vanishingly small in the vast sea of the budget 
deficit. I could argue against it on the grounds that it actually saves 
money, making it possible for people to leave hospitals and go to much 
less expensive housing. But the most telling argument, I believe, is 
that penalizing the most vulnerable in our society is simply wrong. We 
are a better country than that. We can do better than that. And I urge 
my colleagues to do so. Support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wish to 
press or withdraw his reservation of a point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. I would also 
withdraw my request to manage time against the amendment. I thought the 
gentleman was offering a different amendment, and I do not have an 
objection to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member insist on a point of order at 
this time?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is 
recognized on his point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I will not make a point of order, but I 
would like to address a colloquy to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Louisiana requesting time in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am asking for the time, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I shall not use the 15 minutes. I would just like to 
extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Connecticut. I know he 
cares deeply about this subject, and he has struggled long and hard in 
an attempt to get this matter heard.
  I know he has great reservations about the mark in subcommittee and 
full committee on this particular program. I have spoken with the 
subcommittee chair, and I know that he likewise feels strongly about 
his position.
  I have to tell the gentleman that, in terms of research, aside from 
housing, but in terms of research, I looked at the figures recently on 
AIDS. I found that this country spends $1,000 per afflicted patient on 
AIDS recipients, about $500 per afflicted patient on cancer recipients, 
as little as $25 per afflicted patient for those with Parkinson's 
disease, and a little bit more than that for those afflicted with 
Alzheimer's. So there is an imbalance on research.
  I dare say that on housing and the like, AIDS patients get more than 
their share of money when compared to other afflicted patients.
  Now, that does not intend to minimize the suffering that people 
undergo if they are afflicted with AIDS. It does not diminish the 
intensity of the concern that the gentleman from Connecticut and all 
those who support his bill feel for people who are truly in suffering.
  I would suggest or I would ask the gentleman, if I might have the 
gentleman's attention, I would ask the gentleman to consider 
withdrawing this amendment at this time and I will assure the gentleman 
that he will get full representation and a full opportunity to discuss 
the matter with those of us in conference. While I cannot concede any 
position to the gentleman on the part of the conferees, I would just 
like to ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I would simply 
assure the gentleman that I would be happy to discuss with the 
gentleman his points in favor of this provision, and I personally would 
be happy to bring it up at the conference.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding.
  I want the Members to understand very clearly that this rescission 
did not reflect in any way, shape, or form a lack of concern for this 
problem. This Member takes no back seat to any Member regarding this 
issue.
  I introduced the first resolution regarding evaluating strategies to 
deal with this problem in 1980 before most people knew what the problem 
was. I supported the first funding regarding research in this subject 
area years ago. The reality is that between 1992, in this program, and 
1994, we accumulated $306 million in this program. As of this moment, 
86 percent of that money has not been spent.
  It is a program in disarray because of a lack of effective 
management. Even with the rescission, money to meet fiscal year 1995 
needs will remain available.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, and I think I control the time, I 
would like to yield to the gentleman, could the gentleman elaborate on 
that? Has the gentleman inquired why they have not adequately spent the 
money? Is the program not being administered properly?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, it is 
suggested that HOPWA has complexities that cause time delays in the 
effective delivery of the money. The reality is that a whole array of 
programs for the disabled are mismanaged. There is duplication of 
management and an abundance of bureaucratic maneuvering.
  We are simply in this amendment moving forward the President's 
proposal to eventually consolidate those efforts, and in turn 
recognizing that there is $267 million in the pipeline that will not be 
spent in 1995. So it is a very appropriate time for us to force 
reexamination, and that truly is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I would only want to congratulate 
the gentleman from California for his statement. I know he has the 
utmost sensitivity. I know all of the members of the subcommittee and 
the 
[[Page H3285]] full committee have tremendous sensitivity for the 
subject at hand.

                              {time}  1100

  But we are in difficult times, and we have to understand that lots of 
people are suffering. There is much suffering in the world. We are 
doing the best we can to spread the resources that we have around to 
those who are afflicted. We would like to do it with an even hand.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the balance of my time and 
tender back the opportunity to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays] to control his time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member insist on a point of order?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentlemen to insist upon or 
withdraw their points of order at this time in order to conserve debate 
time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] withdraws 
his point of order.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask of the Chair, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. SHAYS. No, I do not ask that. I have a parliamentary inquiry 
before I make that decision.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want to be up front with every Member on 
both sides, even if I do not happen to agree with them.
  I want the opportunity to use my 15 minutes to state the case on this 
issue. If the gentleman withdraws his point of order, is he allowed to 
bring it up in the future?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not insist upon the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay] insisting upon or withdrawing his point of order at this 
time. He may continue his reservation if he wishes.
  With that ruling, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] on the remainder of his 15 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Chair.
  My understanding is that I have 9 minutes remaining. Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 9 
minutes remaining on his time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], and then to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Schumer], I would like to just point out that we are 
really talking about three issues. We are talking about AIDS research. 
My colleague is right in saying that we have spent a great deal of 
money on AIDS research, without the kind of payback we would like. We 
then talk about AIDS services and the Ryan White funds, to respond to 
that in a very sincere and serious way. Where we have a deficiency is 
housing for people with AIDS. We are housing people in hospitals at 
$1,000 a day instead of $100 or less for people with AIDS in housing 
for people with AIDS. This is what this amendment is attempting to 
address. I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis], I do not know of any greater champion on this issue. He 
has taken a hit he does not deserve.
  The purpose of this amendment brought forth by many people is in no 
way to embarrass Mr. Lewis, because, frankly, he is not deserving of 
some of the criticism he has received.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make three or four quick points that people 
need to understand. The difference between AIDS and every other disease 
that has been mentioned is AIDS is the only infectious disease of all 
of these that was mentioned by the distinguished chairman of the 
committee.
  But, second, I think we need to understand what HOPWA is all about.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is emergency housing for people, in most 
cases, in the final stages of AIDS who finally have been disowned by 
their parents, they have no place to go because of their sexual 
orientation. If you want to put these kinds of individuals on the 
street or in hospitals under Medicaid, it costs much greater. You need 
to understand what you are doing.
  What we are pleading with the committee for is a commitment that we 
will not zero out fiscal year 1995 HOPWA funds. We can deal with the 
issue of emergency housing and Ryan White reauthorization for 1996 
later on this year, but you cannot in good conscience zero out the 
fiscal year 1995 funds.
  The gentleman from California said, ``Well, there is some money in 
the pipeline.'' This is just exactly like the money that is in the 
pipeline in the Pentagon because this housing requires that the money 
be there, you then make the grant application, do the permits, you get 
the approval, you do the construction. So if we are going to say if you 
do not spend it all in 1 year you are not going to get it, we are going 
to have to--we have to totally revise the Pentagon budget. There is no 
difference systematically.
  I plead with our colleagues, we have got to get a commitment we will 
not zero out the fiscal year 1995 HOPWA funds.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  I thank the gentleman not only for yielding the time but for his 
leadership on this issue.
  HOPWA is an extremely important program, offered by the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] and myself several years ago. It has been 
remarkably successful.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, not only is it humane, 
these are people who are dying and who will be on the streets, but it 
is also cheaper. It is a lot cheaper to have someone in one of these 
HOPWA facilities than in a hospital where it costs far more, $500, 
$600, $700, $800 a day, to keep them. They are not treated in a way 
that is as humane, and it is more expensive.
  As for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]--and I greatly 
respect his leadership on this issue--I would say to him that the 
reason the moneys are not expended is that 97 percent of the 1994 
dollars have been authorized and appropriated. The reason they are not 
spent is because the groups have 3 years to do it, to build the housing 
and get the facility ready. It is like defense, any program with a long 
buildout. The money will be spent over the next few years. The 1995 
moneys have not been allocated, because the Department of housing just 
put together a State-by-State analysis.
  So I would appeal to him and others on his side to allow this 
amendment to go forward. It is a compassionate amendment. It saves 
dollars. This is not an issue of politics. This is a simple issue of 
compassion and decency, and I hope we could allow the vote to go 
forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Nadler].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] controls the 
time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I was yielding the remainder of my 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must remain standing.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a vital amendment. The HOPWA Program providing 
funds for housing for people with AIDS, for people who are dying, not 
only will save money, does save money, as my colleague from New York 
says, it provides money for housing for people who are dying who would 
otherwise be on the streets.
  In my district, which is probably the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic, 
it is absolutely vital, and I urge its adoption.

[[Page H3286]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, 
my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, and I rise in support of 
this amendment. I understand the difficult job that my colleagues on 
the Committee on Appropriations are laboring under in their effort to 
move toward a balanced budget, one that I share.
  But I have to say this is one area we should not be cutting. In terms 
of HUD, there are 204 programs in HUD. And with the zeroing out of this 
program, there will be no other place for these people to receive 
funding. As my colleagues have said, there is a long spendout between 
authorization and construction to get these projects on line; they are 
completely correct.
  At the same time, we are making dramatic reductions in the tenant-
based section 8 program. So those people do not go on the waiting list 
and get a section 8 portable voucher to try to relieve their housing 
problem.
  So my friends are right. Some of these people--families--are going to 
end up on the streets, they are going to die on the streets, and the 
other alternative is to have them in far more expensive institutional 
settings such as hospitals.
  So I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I 
thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] also for his 
leadership on this issue.
  I would like to address my remarks to the Chair, noting that I am 
pleased the chairman of the full committee is here, because what the 
purpose of what we are doing in the rescission bill is to reduce the 
deficit. I contend and maintain that to cut these funds will increase 
the deficit.
  Our colleagues have pointed out that the reason we found this 
situation, Mr. Schumer, Mr. McDermott, and I, in the authorization was 
a number of years ago was to enable the private sector, the nonprofit 
sector, to minister to the needs of those with HIV and AIDS to prevent 
them from becoming homeless. Stress on the immune system is the worst 
possible thing you can do. Homelessness increases stress.
  So this enables the continuum of services to be provided to people 
with HIV and AIDS; it keeps them out of hospitals, it eliminates the 
necessity for them to have other kinds of assistance, including income 
support.
  I think if our goal is to reduce the deficit, we can do so by 
restoring these funds.
  Mr. Chairman, it is also a compassionate thing to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the graciousness of the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for letting us proceed, and 
also the majority whip.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward], a former Peace Corps volunteer.
  Mr. WARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to support this. We need always to remember 
that we are not talking about some people whom we will never meet. 
These are our sons, our daughters, our uncles, our aunts, our uncles, 
sisters, our brothers.
  It will cost more to do it without making the changes this amendment 
purposes.
  I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by making a few very basic points.
  I arrived in this House in 1987 at the death of Stewart McKinney. 
Stewart McKinney died of AIDS. There is a real hero in this country 
named Lucie McKinney.
  Lucie McKinney has devoted her life to people with AIDS.
  She was not a public person while her husband was a congressman. She 
became a very public person. She works tirelessly night and day on this 
issue of, not AIDS research, not AIDS services, but providing homes for 
people with AIDS.
  This has not been an easy task for her, because we have so many 
people who are on our streets, without homes, dying of AIDS. 
Occasionally and quite often they find themselves spending their last 
days in a hospital, at $1,000 a day.
  Lucie McKinney provides this housing for them for one-tenth of that 
cost, with the help of the State, with the help of the Federal 
Government, and with the help of so many volunteers and people who 
contribute.
  Mr. Chairman, this cause matters to me. It matters to many people in 
this Chamber. I sincerely believe cutting out the 1995 funds is a 
mistake, and it is a misunderstanding that this issue is continually 
being reviewed.
  It is also my understanding that I could have had a Member, any 
Member here, raise a point of order at any time, and they had the 
graciousness to allow us to continue.
  At this time I would just like to ask the Chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations to clarify with me his request that I withdraw this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
has expired.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] maintains time.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana. [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the chairman.
  I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] that if it 
is his intention to withdraw this amendment and if in fact he withdraws 
his amendment, that I would be happy to work with the gentleman and all 
of the people who have risen today to address this matter in 
conference.
  Obviously, we cannot go forward today because I am confident that a 
point of order will be raised if in fact the gentleman persists in his 
motion. But should he withdraw it, I will work with him and work with 
the other body, and we will attempt to resolve the issue at least 
partially, if not in whole, to his satisfaction.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Louisiana had said 
before that he would not object, and I understand there may be other 
objectors on his side. But this is such an important issue, it is a 
program that has worked with so little waste. I would ask others on the 
other side not to object and to allow this amendment to go forward. It 
seems to me there was a real mistake here made when they zeroed out the 
entire program. I would hope that we could moves this amendment forward 
in a bipartisan air of compassion and understanding as to what this is 
all about.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I have to tell the gentleman I 
have made my position clear. I cannot speak for all of the Members in 
the House. Any single Member has the right to make a point of order.
  Therefore, I must again relay my offer to the gentleman. If he will 
withdraw, I will work with him. If he does not withdraw, then I cannot 
make the same offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield, but think we have to 
move this because we have two or three other amendments that we must 
address before time runs out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] desire to 
press or withdraw his point of order?

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, based on the dialog that has taken place in 
this instance with the chairman, and based on the courtesy of this 
House for allowing me to proceed on an amendment that could have been 
declared out of order, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I rise for 
two reasons: First of all, to commend the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. 
[[Page H3287]] Shays] who is carrying a very heavy burden in a very 
difficult place, and simply to remind Members that this is not a 
request for a proportionate share of bearing the burden of reductions 
amongst all our programs, that this is not a 2-percent, or a 5-percent, 
or a 10-percent cut. We are talking about people who are fatally ill 
and who have no home, and we are not asking them to share 2 percent or 
5 percent of the pain we all have to share; we are asking them to go 
away and to die in the streets, and we are asking for zero funding.
  Mr. Chairman, in Boston this means 244 people sick and homeless. That 
is unacceptable, and I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to amend a 
paragraph previously amended, and the procedures in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, states the following:

       It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an 
     amendment previously agreed to. Thus the text of a bill 
     perfected by amendment cannot thereafter be amended.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended, 
and is, therefore, not in order. I respectfully ask the Chair to 
sustain my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is not out of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have done here is in submission with the rule. 
We have taken money from an existing program. It is a program that was 
cut before. It is within the same walls, the VA-HUD appropriation. This 
is a narrowly restricted rule.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I worked 
long and hard, and we checked over and over again with the 
Parliamentarian to make this amendment, even within the confines of 
that terribly restrictive rule, to be in order because of the urgency 
of this program, and I would say that if an amendment like this which, 
A, cuts the same amount of money as it adds; B, cuts it from a program 
within the VA-HUD authorization/appropriation; and, C, cuts it from a 
program that has already been cut, is not in order, then in God's name 
what is, in this body, on this bill?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. I 
wish to state that if the point of order of the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay] is in order, that just points to the ultra-restrictiveness 
of the rule under which this bill was brought to the floor because we 
did abide by----
  Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California will state her 
objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. My objection is, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] pointed out, that the amendment is in keeping with those 
criteria that were set out by the Committee on Rules that funds come 
from the same title and the same subcommittee allocation. The amendment 
does do that, and it would seem to me that it would be out of order to 
call a point of order against it on that score. If, in fact, it is so, 
it just again points to the restrictiveness of the rule when we are 
used to open rules on appropriations bills.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the gentleman's point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her point.
  Mrs. LOWEY. This to me just seems so unreasonable. This was taken out 
of the budget, it was taken out of the appropriate account. Not to be 
allowed to take a vote on this issue, considering the devastating 
impact of this on cities, on people----
  Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Under the precedents recorded in section 31 in chapter 27 of 
Deschler's procedure, the point of order of the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay] is sustained. It is consistent with the Chair's ruling 
yesterday on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro].
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair:
  If I am not mistaken, the last three amendments that have been 
offered to this bill have come from the majority side of the aisle. 
Would it be possible for me to call up an amendment at this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the members of the committee have precedence, and 
it would be the minority's turn for recognition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to offer 
an amendment.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. 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. Obey: Page 25, line 12, strike 
     ``$82,775,000'' and insert ``$72,775,000''.
       Page 26, line 4, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$60,000,000''.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] reserves 
a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that I am offering this 
amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] 
who is the real author of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized 
for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask at the appropriate time to be 
recognized.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Louisiana insist on his point of order at 
this time?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Not at this time. I reserve my point of order, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
restore funding for the Healthy Start Program. This small, Federal 
program is a proven success story in saving the lives of our Nation's 
infants. Healthy Start provides critical funds to cut down on high 
infant death rates in urban and rural communities across the country, 
from Philadelphia to Pee Dee, SC, from Milwaukee to the Mississippi 
Delta. Healthy Start provides education, prenatal care, clinical 
services and home health visits to pregnant mothers and their new 
babies.
  My colleagues, the important part about this program is that it 
works. In my district, infant mortality rates are as high as Mexico or 
Panama. Before Healthy Start began, 14.2 Philadelphia babies died for 
every 1,000. After just 1 year, the rate has fallen to 11.7, when the 
national average is 8.9.
  The rescissions package takes away $10 million of fiscal year 1995 
funds for this life-saving program. Yet, every dollar makes the 
difference between life and death for babies in these communities. Not 
one baby's life should be scarified for the sake of paying for a tax 
cut package. We cannot let this happen.
  I am proposing to restore funds for Healthy Start by taking an 
additional $10 million from the Buildings and Facilities account of the 
National Institutes of Health. I am told that the funds in this account 
will not be used as intended. The rescissions package takes back $50 
million from this account. I am simply proposing to take an additional 
$10 million to fully fund this Health Start Program. I emphasize that 
none of the lifesaving activities of the NIH will be hindered by this 
additional rescission.
  In cities like New Orleans and Oakland, in places like Northern 
Plains, SD and the Mississippi Delta, Healthy 
[[Page H3288]] Start has just started to do the job. Let us finish the 
job of saving infants' lives by restoring this program of full funding.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is telling the Members of 
the House that this program, which to me in a very mean-spirited way is 
being cut by the majority, is actually to the benefit of infants and 
children.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And, no question, by cutting it they are saying that it 
is all right to do this to the infants and children of people here in 
the United States; is that correct?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I would not speak for the majority, but I assume that 
is what the bottom line is.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is what happens; is it not?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And there is no question in the gentleman's mind and my 
mind that somewhere along the line this very same committee is going to 
fund programs that are going to take care of infants and children in 
other parts of the world?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So it is all right to take care of them someplace else, 
but we cannot do it for our own people. We have got to cut them out. 
Our people have to make all these sacrifices, and no one else does. We 
are going to take care of the rest of them, but we are not going to 
take care of our own.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I believe we should be taking care of 
our own; that is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Foglietta] has expired.
  The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] if he intends to press or withdraw his point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has completed his 
time, I do intend to insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] because it 
seeks to amend the paragraphs previously amended. In the procedures in 
the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, states----
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for just a 
second?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman suspend his point of 
order so I can yield to the gentleman from Missouri?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, with the Chair's consent I suspend my 
point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield then for an inquiry.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the time of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania had expired.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana controls the time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  Are there any other allocations of time asked for on the floor at the 
moment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Only the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] control time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Then at this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point 
of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta]. The program, the 
Healthy Start Program, has literally saved lives. There are children 
who are alive today who otherwise would not be alive. It is something 
that people on both sides of the choice question support. It is an 
effort to intervene in meaningful ways to provide care and information 
and education to would-be parents, particularly women who are about to 
conceive children. It is a program that has worked in Philadelphia.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the point of this exercise is to show how 
much we can cut out of this budget. It is interesting that we could not 
find any dollars from the military to cut even though we spend more 
than the rest of the world combined on our Armed Forces. We could not 
find in any of the billions in corporate welfare any room to cut, but 
somehow we have zeroed in on children, we have zeroed in on Healthy 
Start, on college scholarships, on summer job programs. Somehow we have 
made an aggressive effort to retard much of the progress being made in 
terms of intervening in the lives of young people, to make their lives 
more meaningful and more purposeful.

                              {time}  1130

  Yes, it costs to care, and education is indeed expensive. I would 
argue that lack of caring and ignorance is more expensive, and that we 
should, in this case, support the Foglietta amendment and hopefully 
restore this cut to Healthy Start. Failing to do that, as I have 
indicated yesterday, we should vote against the entire rescissions 
package.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Appropriations for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a program that we really ought to support and I 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] who has offered 
this amendment. Under this rescission funding for Healthy Start has 
been cut $10 million. This program provides resources and assistance to 
rural and urban communities with high infant mortality rates.
  A few days ago over on that same subcommittee we had six Nobel 
laureates who sat before us and talked about the state of health in 
America today. One of the things that they talked about to us was the 
high infant mortality rates in this country today. While infant 
mortality rates is a matter of being able to rate a nation in terms of 
its total health care, our Nation ranks about 17th in the world. Here 
we are, the top country in the world, yet we rank about 17th in the 
world in terms of infant mortality rates.
  Under these cuts, what is going to happen is that about 2,200 
pregnant women would not receive primary care, 33,000 prenatal visits 
would be eliminated, 3,000 pediatric appointments would be eliminated, 
5,800 clients would not receive child care, 3,267 clients would not 
receive skill in job training.
  This is an area in which many of our local and rural communities have 
been able to deal with one of the most pressing problems confronting 
their communities. I would hope that we would restore these funds and 
support the gentleman from Pennsylvania in this very important 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize, in the city of 
Philadelphia, before this program started, the infant mortality rate 
was 14.2 per thousand. After 1 year, 1 year of this program, it dropped 
from 14.2 per thousand to 11.7 per thousand.
  On behalf of the children whose lives will be saved in the future 
with this program, I implore you to withdraw your point of order and 
let us pass this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
restoration of Healthy Start funding. The fact that the Republicans cut 
this program is cruel and shortsighted. This is, by far, the lowest, 
mean-spirited assault on the most vulnerable of our citizens--newborn 
babies and infants.
  It is absolutely intolerable that the United States has one of the 
highest infant mortality rates in the entire world.
  In fact, the United States ranks 21st out of 23 industrialized 
countries or infant mortality. The mortality rate for minority children 
in our inner cities ranks behind many third-world nations.
  [[Page H3289]] To combat this alarming rate of death among newborns, 
we developed the Healthy Start Program. The Healthy Start Program 
provides the only link to the health care system for countless pregnant 
women.
  The severity of the Nation's infant mortality problem is evident in 
the city of Boston. African-American women experience infant mortality 
rates more than twice that of white women.
  Fortunately, these Healthy Start programs work. We have already begun 
to see the results. In Boston, this program helped deliver over a 12 
percent decrease in infant mortality from 1992 to 1993.
  Boston's goal is to build on this progress and reduce the infant 
deaths by 50 percent by 1996.
  We should not take away vital funds from cities that are saving 
lives.
  Just last week, I visited a Healthy Start Program in my hometown of 
Boston. At Boston Children's Hospital, the Advocacy for Women and Kids 
in Emergencies--or the AWAKE Program--responds to the need for services 
for battered women who come to Children's Hospital to get care for 
their abused kids.
  It is the only program of its kind nationwide providing a full range 
of advocacy and outreach services to battered women and their kids in a 
hospital setting.
  Mr. Chairman, to see family violence through the eyes of a child is 
heartbreaking.
  Every day, at least three children die because of abuse or neglect, 
often at the hands of a family member.
  In 1993, nearly 3 million child abuse and neglect cases were 
reported.
  It makes absolutely no sense to cut 10 percent of Healthy Start 
funding--funding that supports so many innovative programs like AWAKE 
that help save the lives of newborn babies and infants.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Philadelphia 
[Mr. Foglietta], which would restore $10 million in funding for the 
Healthy Start Program. The Healthy Start Program is essential to combat 
the disturbingly high rate of infant mortality in this country. In 
Boston, where I represent, infant mortality is a significant health 
problem despite the presence of the world's best hospitals, medical 
schools, and academic health centers. This is a travesty that a rich, 
industrialized nation like the United States has an infant mortality 
rate that is equal or higher than some third-world countries.
  If you are a young, black, pregnant woman in Boston, the odds of your 
baby being born prematurely or with low birth weight nearly doubles. 
The Boston Healthy Start initiative has been working in conjunction 
with community health centers throughout the city to reduce this 
alarming infant mortality rate. This program is crucial in that it 
provides pre- and post-natal care to pregnant women that are at risk. 
Healthy Start educates young mothers about proper nutrition for both 
them and their newborns. Healthy start also teaches mothers about 
appropriate health care. But, most important, Mr. Chairman, Healthy 
Start empowers women, families, and communities. This program is a 
modest investment from the Federal Government to building a healthier 
climate for all people in urban areas and the best way to build that 
climate is to give our children a healthy start.
  I find it ironic that my good friends from the other side of the 
aisle claim they want to cut waste and cut programs that don't work, 
but they never seem to bat an eye at throwing $41 billion at some comic 
book weapons fantasy like star wars. I implore my Republican friends to 
have a little forethought, for once, and invest in our kids. I realize 
they don't vote or take you out for dinner or contribute to your 
campaigns, but children are the future of this country. Remember that, 
and vote in favor of the Foglietta amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.


                             point of order

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an eloquent case, 
which will be addressed in conference, but at this time I reluctantly 
make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment because it 
seeks to amend a paragraph previously amended. In the procedures in the 
U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, it states as 
follows: It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an 
amendment previously agreed to. Thus the text of a bill perfected by 
amendment cannot thereafter be amended.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended 
and is therefore not in order. I respectfully ask the Chair to sustain 
my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair is prepared to rule, because 
it is exactly similar to the previous ruling. The gentleman's language 
attempts to amend further a figure changed by the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], yesterday. Under the 
precedents recorded at section 31 in chapter 27 of Deschler's 
Procedure, the point of order of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] is sustained. It is consistent with the Chair's ruling on 
the DeLauro and Shays amendments.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Will I be able under these circumstances to ask the 
gentleman from Hawaii to withdraw his motion?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will allow the gentleman from Wisconsin to 
make an inquiry of the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me state I fully share the gentleman's 
outrage that this amendment is not in order, but I do not think that 
there is any useful purpose to be served by taking out on the Chair the 
fact that we have a stupid rule. I think all the Chair is doing is 
enforcing an extremely stupid, ill-advised, vicious, and cruel rule. So 
I will recognize the justice in what the gentleman from Hawaii is 
trying to do, but I think it is good if we have the right target, which 
is the Republican leadership, and not the Member in the Chair.
  I would urge the gentleman respectfully to withdraw the motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] insist 
on his appeal?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my appeal. 
Respectfully, I am not targeting the Chair. The people of this country 
are being targeted.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to table the motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. A motion to table is not in order in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The question is ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
judgment of the Committee?''
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the pending question following the quorum call. Members will 
record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:
                             [Roll No. 248]

     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
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     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
     [[Page H3290]] 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
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     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 (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
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     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)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1157

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred twenty-four Members have answered to their 
names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.
  The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie] for a recorded vote on his appeal from the ruling of the 
Chair.
  Does the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] insist upon his 
demand for a recorded vote?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. If not, the decision of the Chair stands sustained on 
the prior voice vote of the Committee of the Whole.
                    amendment offered by mr. stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 23.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 22, line 13, strike 
     ``$5,000,000'' and insert ``$15,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that there will be 20 minutes 
of debate, 10 minutes on each side.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] will be recognized for 10 
minutes to control the time on his amendment.
  Does any Member stand in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will indicate opposition to the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes in opposition be divided 
evenly between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I appreciate the opportunity to have this amendment finally. We have 
been waiting quite some time for it. I want to recognize the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Crane] for all the hard work he has done on this 
amendment and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has also been 
instrumental in getting this amendment on the floor. I also want to 
recognize the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] who is the ranking 
member of the Interior Subcommittee. He and I have talked about this. 
He and I are good friends. We approach this particular amendment from 
different perspectives.
  Mr. Chairman, many members have heard this discussion on the NEA ad 
infinitum. We could talk about it for hours. I know the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] has plenty of people on his side as I do on my 
side who feel strongly about this subject. But I can summarize this 
debate very quickly for all of us, because we do not have much time.
  First the NEA is about $167 million in expenditure. We have cut 
within the rescission bill $5 million. This amendment simply asks for 
an additional $10 million. That means a total of $15 million would be 
cut from the NEA budget, less than 10 percent, approximately only 9 
percent total.
  My colleagues, remember, this has to go to the conference committee. 
Traditionally, historically, when it goes to the conference committee, 
they cut it even further down. So I say to my friends here in the 
House, let's make at least a modicum of a cut, 9 percent total, so if 
it goes to conference and it comes back, we will not be left like we 
did last year with a 2.5 percent reduction after we labored for hours 
on the House floor to get just a mere 5 percent.
  At this point, I say to Members, this can be summarized, this is 
simply a 9-percent cut on a $167 million project that under anybody's 
opinion we can cut that much if we intend to reduce the deficit.
  I know the people on that side feel very strongly about this, and I 
respect that, but I am approaching this from a fiscal responsibility 
stand point and I urge the people on that side not to use hyperbole on 
this debate. We have heard this time and time again. This is simply a 
9-percent cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. All we have to do is mention NEA and 
my friends, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns], go into orbit. They are determined to 
immortalize Maplethorpe and Serrano, to make them as famous as 
Michelangelo in order to kill the NEA, which I think essentially is 
what they want to do.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] says his amendment is a 9-
percent cut. On the contrary, for remainder of this year, with the time 
remaining and the amount of funds that are remaining, it amounts to a 
17-percent cut, but really when they talk about Maplethorpe and 
Serrano, which is the fundamental stain that bases their amendments.
  How many people saw the Maplethorpe and Serrano exhibit under NEA 
grants? Not many. Serrano was shown at one gallery, a South Carolina 
gallery. Maplethorpe at two galleries, three museums. How many people 
got to see these exhibits? And yet, because of Maplethorpe and Serrano, 
the sponsors of this amendment want to take NEA funds from hundreds of 
museums throughout the country serving millions of
 people from scores of symphony orchestras and theaters and 
[[Page H3291]] schools where children learn about art and about 
artists.
  Let me read to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. STEARNS] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] an article from The Washington Post 
which occurred on February 12. It is about the executive director of 
the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express, a Shakespeare troupe that tours 
two-thirds of the United States.
  Last year, the NEA gave the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express $5,000 and 
the money helped take a fellow, ``The Taming of the Shrew,'' ``Much Ado 
About Nothing,'' to more than 100 high schools and colleges in more 
than 30 States.
  It is true, most Americans do not associate the NEA with kids 
learning to love Shakespeare and that is because one Senator and others 
have created the compelling fiction that all the agency does is to fund 
kookie and depraved artists.
  Well,

       But here is the real story. Our little Shakespeare company, 
     says the executive director, got $5,000, not much, but 33 
     times more than the human Etch-A-Sketch and our grant, not 
     his, is typical of the NEA. By far the majority of NEA money 
     goes to local theater groups to, community orchestras, to 
     regional museums, what you might call the traditional art. 
     Conservatives often complain about the evils of popular 
     culture, the sex in movies, the violence in rap, the 
     profanity in rock lyrics, but they have targeted the NEA and 
     that is the organization that most assures the continuation 
     of the classical theater, the classical dance and the music 
     in this MTV world. You have to wonder.

  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that NEA is part of the 
fabric of the people of this country, worn by the people of this 
country, and I think the people of this country are firm in the desire 
that NEA continue. I hope this amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. I thank my colleague the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise is support of the amendment. We just heard the 
eloquent plea for the arts from my distinguished colleague from my home 
State of Illinois. Yet it misses the point altogether. The fact of the 
matter is we have an arts bureaucracy in this government entity called 
the National Endowment for the Arts. That government bureaucracy only 
awards one recipient out of every four that makes an application.
  If we look at where those applications or those grantees are, I can 
understand why a colleague from the State of New York might be for 
preservation of the NEA in perpetuity. I can understand why somebody 
from California might take the same position, and I understand why 
somebody from Washington, DC, especially, would want to see it 
preserved.
  The fact of the matter is, I say to my colleague from Illinois, 
Washington, DC is, you probably do not realize this, a hub of artistic 
talent, and they get twice the grants that our whole State of Illinois 
gets. Yet they have fewer people in Washington, DC, than in your 
congressional district or my congressional district. In fact, 
Washington, DC, gets more in grants than Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, 
Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South 
Dakota, and Wyoming combined. That goes to Washington, DC.
  That is what goes to Washington, DC thanks to this arts bureaucracy 
and how they are manipulating public moneys and misallocating public 
moneys.
  Keep in mind another thing, too. That last year the private sector 
anted up $9.3 billion to fund the arts, in contrast to a $167 million 
input at taxpayer expense through this wheeling and dealing operation I 
touched upon.
  A single art auction up in New York, for example, brought in $269.5 
million. For all I know, some of my artistic colleagues from New York 
may have participated. In addition to that, a single painting alone 
last year managed to get $82.5 million.
  I submit to Members that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. 
I hope it will be addressed more fully when we get to the question of 
total funding. That is later in the year. But right now this is a very 
modest cut when we are asked to reallocate scarce resources and we have 
heard eloquent appeals as to where money should be going other than the 
way the committee has determined. I compliment the gentleman on his 
amendment and urge everyone to support it.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that under the rule, we must rise 
at 12:18. We have 11\1/2\ minutes of allocated time. I advise the 
Members there will be insufficient time to have the entire quota.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 3 
additional minutes to make the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. That request is not in order in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, could we have the allocation of the time 
based upon the Chair's stipulation at this point?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair suggests and, without objection, will reduce 
the amount from the two sides equally, 1\1/2\ minutes from the 
gentleman from Florida and 1\1/2\ minutes from the two gentleman 
combined.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 50 seconds.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. I just want to advise Members of the situation. In the 
subcommittee, we took out $5 million from NEA, remembering last year we 
cut it 2 percent on the floor and sustained that in the conference. 
That $5 million comes out of individual grants. There will be no money 
left in the NEA for individual grants which have been the problem. 
None. Zero.
  If this amendment is passed, this will have to come out of the grants 
all over the United States to small communities with symphonies, 
ballet, and museums. It will mean the concert on the mall on the Fourth 
of July and Memorial Day, I hope many Members have seen it on C-SPAN, 
it is a great thing. Basically, if you vote for this amendment, you are 
voting against those small amounts that reach out across the United 
States for educational programs, for the small groups within the 
communities, for the grants to the State arts commissions. You are not 
voting against individual grants. We have already eliminated all the 
money for the individual grants in the subcommittee which was ratified 
by the full Committee on Appropriations.
  The Committee on Educational and Economic Opportunities will have to 
hear the question of reauthorizing the NEA, so that is the place to 
deal with the problem. If we do not want NEA, we do not have to 
reauthorize it for fiscal year 1996 and prospectively. But let us not 
cut out that little bit of money that is being spread across the United 
States to many of the things that you cherish in each of your 
respective communities.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has worked on this amendment.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from the 
State of Florida for yielding me time.
  With regard to an earlier amendment last evening, my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], said really 
what we are about here today is making choices on priorities. In the 
greater scheme of things, I think there are very few, at least I would 
hope there are very few in this Chamber that would disagree with the 
proposition that in the larger scheme of things, when we are looking at 
food and when we are looking at national defense and when we are 
looking at the whole range of priorities that are reflected in this 
rescission bill, funds for the NEA do not rank as high as the other 
provisions.
  That is one reason, one of many reasons why I rise in support of this 
amendment which I have coauthored. I would also point out to my 
distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois that the NEA does 
fund works of so-called art that have titles that cannot even be 
repeated on the floor of this Chamber. We do not need that. The 
citizens of this country and my district do not need that. They do not 
want that.
                       [[Page H3292]] {time}  1215

  That is why I think it is very appropriate in the larger scheme of 
things and based on the merits of this rescission that this amendment 
be adopted.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that he is going to allocate 
the time based upon the time reduction, a slight deduction equally 
shared, one-half minute for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], 1 
minute for the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], and three-quarters 
of a minute for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume 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, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As 
David McCullough said, it is like getting rid of the Navy because of 
the Tailhook scandal.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I find it 
tragically ironic that in this era of fiscal belt-tightening some are 
trying to slash one of the wisest and cost-effective investments the 
Federal Government makes in its citizens.
  Eliminating funding for the NEA is a classic case of being pennywise 
and pound-foolish. The total budget for the NEA costs each citizen only 
65 cents a year, and yet it leverages more than $1 billion every year 
from private donors.
  The activity generated by the NEA produces a huge economic and 
cultural impact on our society. In fact, a study by the Port Authority 
of New York and New Jersey found that the total impact of the arts in 
the New York metropolitan region was more than $10 billion a year.
  All over America, artists, musicians, orchestras, dance companies, 
theaters, and public schools rely on the National Endowment for the 
Arts for essential support. Their work has enriched our communities and 
our quality of life. This amendment will undermine many of these 
organizations and do damage to our cultural heritage. It will take 
funds of out of our schools and away from our children.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the words of two witnesses at a recent 
hearing before the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee: Ken Burns, 
producer of the highly acclaimed ``Civil War'' and ``Baseball series'' 
on PBS, and David McCullough, Pulitzer Prize winning author of the 
biography on Harry Truman.
  Ken Burns declared emphatically that his Civil War series would not 
have been possible without the Endowment's support. And David 
McCullough pointed out that abolishing the NEA just because of a few 
ill-conceived or offensive programs would be like abolishing the U.S. 
Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. I couldn't have said it better 
myself.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will harm our Nation's schools and 
damage our cultural heritage. It must be defeated.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment to 
slash funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  In many ways the Contract on America is a declaration of war. A war 
on children, a war on consumers, a war on the environment, a war on 
senior citizens. In their budget-cutting zeal, the new majority has 
proposed $17 billion in rescissions for 1995, almost entirely from 
programs that make the lives of ordinary Americans a little safer, a 
little brighter.
  The Republicans have structured this rescission bill to eliminate any 
chance that we could even debate cuts to the bloated Defense budget. 
The Pentagon, of course, has returned to its exalted status as a sacred 
cow.
  While they have taken defense off the cutting board, they're making 
mincemeat out of the arts. The new leadership invests in that which 
destroys, but destroys that which creates. The contract may sound good 
on the surface, but its cost cutting rhetoric masks policies that are 
heartless and mean-spirited.
  And the contract's war on the arts is nothing short of primitive.
  The NEA budget for this year is $167 million. Cultural funding is a 
mere two ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the Federal Government's $1.5 
trillion budget. Arts funding costs approximately 64 cents per capita, 
or the same amount as two postage stamps.
  According to a recent Lou Harris poll, 60 percent of the American 
people believe that ``the Federal Government should provide financial 
assistance to arts organizations.'' According to the same poll, more 
than half the American people would support paying up to $15 a year to 
support Federal arts funding.
  Speaker Gingrich has attacked the NEA as providing patronage for an 
elite group. In fact, the NEA increases access to arts and culture for 
all citizens. In the 30 years since the endowments were created, the 
number of theater, dance, and opera companies across America has 
increased from 120 to 925.
  NEA grants work as seed money. They make it easier for recipients to 
raise money from other sources.
  Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey have both stated that 
the Federal Government has no business making grants to artists and 
artistic organizations.
  They say this at a time when violence continues to increase and, in 
our inner cities, human lives are cheaper by the dozen. I cannot 
imagine a worse time to cut programs that exalt the human experience, 
when all around us we see it degraded. Arts advocates who visited my 
office this week described NEA grants they had received which were used 
to create arts programs for inner city children.
  We should be celebrating the contributions of the arts endowments to 
our country today, rather than trying to destroy them. We should be 
congratulating the endowments for encouraging creative ideas that help 
poor children rise above their cruel circumstances.
  As Christopher Reeve said Tuesday in his speech at the Arts Advocacy 
Breakfast:

       There is no leading nation in the world that does not 
     support the arts, usually two, three, ten times as much as we 
     do. Why should we be different? Public arts funding is a 
     concept that stands beside public education as an obligation 
     a government has to its people and to history.

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida which would rescind $15 million, in addition to 
the $5 million rescission already in the bill, from the National 
Endowment for the Arts' meager but important fiscal year 1995 budget. 
We should increase or maintain current levels of Federal support for 
the arts and humanities, not pull the foundation out from under 
cultural projects in most communities throughout the Nation, which 
benefit virtually every American.
  I introduced an amendment to restore the $5 million to the NEA and $5 
billion to the NEH which would be rescinded by this bill. With an 
unreasonably restrictive rule and a mere 10 hours of debate on a bill 
covering every Federal expenditure, my colleagues will not have the 
opportunity to discuss the merits of maintaining the NEA and NEH 
budgets. Some may say that during a time of drastic Federal cutbacks, 
we should expect and accept reduced funding for the arts and 
humanities. Drastic reductions in fiscal year 1995 appropriations to 
the valuable programs funded through the NEA have already been made. It 
is now time to look for somewhere else to cut.
  The NEA exemplifies successful public-private cooperation, impressive 
returns on a Federal investment, and an efficient and productive 
Federal agency on a skeleton budget. With a budget totaling only a 
fraction of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget each year since 
1965, when the NEA was established, the Endowment has made a 
substantial contribution to promoting art and culture in America. Since 
the NEA was established, the number of symphony orchestras has grown 
from 110 to 220, dance companies have shot up from 37 to over 250, 
opera companies have increased from 56 to 420, and state arts agencies 
are up from 5 to 565.
  Congress should continue its important role of supporting arts, 
culture and the humanities in America. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment and any other attempts to undermine Federal commitment 
to the arts.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1158, the emergency 
supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill. While I 
wholeheartedly support the emergency supplemental to provide the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency with additional funds necessary to 
fulfill its mission--much of it for rebuilding in the aftermath of the 
Northridge 
[[Page H3293]] earthquake--I cannot support the massive reductions in 
domestic Federal spending contained in this legislation.
  A little over a year has passed since Congress recognized the dire 
need for the Federal Government to intervene in the wake of the 
Northridge earthquake. Less than a month following the quake, emergency 
supplemental appropriations cleared both houses and was signed by the 
President. Congress recognized the need to treat this funding as it had 
in the past--as a national emergency, off-budget, and in bipartisan 
fashion. What a difference a year makes.
  The majority has now drastically altered the treatment of emergency 
appropriations, requiring offsets in funding--even when those offsets, 
as they do in this bill--cynically pit the general well-being of one 
group of Americans against the well-being of another. While the 
majority recognizes that further emergency expenditures are necessary 
to rebuild Los Angeles' public infrastructure and respond to other 
emergencies across the Nation, they now direct that this should be done 
by undercutting programs which also serve those communities.
  We are establishing a system under which a national disaster will 
have devastating impacts on two distinct groups of Americans--the one 
suffering the disaster and the one asked to pay for the disaster. It is 
a perverse system.
  Is there a need to reform the way in which we respond to natural 
disasters in this country? Certainly, there is. The Bipartisan Task 
Force on Disasters acknowledged as much in proposals to expand the 
availability of disaster insurance, create a reinsurance fund, and 
initiate a public-private partnership to finance disaster relief. Those 
are the issues we should be debating, not funding disaster relief on 
the backs of poor and low-income Americans.
  The bulk of the rescissions in this bill do not go to covering the 
needs of FEMA. They will now go to deficit reduction. While this is 
preferable to their original intention to pay for tax cuts, it is 
unconscionable that the majority in this House has sought to ask the 
least able to make the greatest sacrifice.
  The committee cuts $1.7 billion from the summer youth employment 
program over the next 2 years--eliminating the program. While the 
majority says that Americans should move off welfare and into the 
workplace, that same majority contradicts itself by decimating programs 
which encourage work experience.
  The committee report states that ``this program is a lower-priority 
Federal activity that we can no longer afford.'' What we cannot afford 
is to defund a program which gives 600,000 kids per year their first 
exposure to the workplace and a work ethic. It would seem to me that 
the first step in achieving jobs-based welfare reform is exposing 
underprivileged youth to their first job.
  The Republican mayor of Los Angeles recognizes the importance of this 
program. According to Mayor Riordan, ``the elimination of the Summer 
Youth Employment and Training Program would have devastating 
consequences for the children and youth of Los Angeles.'' Those 
consequences include eliminating employment opportunities for more than 
30,000 low-income youth in our city. To quote from the mayor's letter 
to Chairman Livingston, ``the elimination of $22 million in fiscal year 
1995 and fiscal year 1996 is cost ineffective, poses significant 
challenges to our public safety goals and will ripple through our city 
in a grim fashion.''
  Forty-three percent of the cuts contained in this legislation fall on 
programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Public 
housing funding is cut by $3 billion--nationally, 40 percent of these 
units are occupied by the elderly. A $2.7 billion rescission in rental 
assistance translates to a reduction of 70,000 rental vouchers and 
certificates and 12,000 of those certificates had been reserved for 
homeless women with children.
  In its fiscal year 1996 budget submission, HUD has clearly indicated 
its intention to dramatically reinvent the agency. Indeed that 
reinvention is based on moving primarily to ``tenant-based'' rather 
than ``project-based'' assistance. Yet over $1 billion in public 
housing modernization funds are cut--funds critical to improving the 
condition of units to enable HUD to implement its reforms.
  In their zeal to cut, the majority bypasses the opportunity to have a 
meaningful debate on the future of Federally assisted housing in this 
country, including access to affordable housing, and housing for the 
homeless.
  Throughout this legislation there are reductions in funding and 
elimination of programs in education, job training, veterans benefits, 
and low-income fuel assistance which will cause severe hardship to 
great numbers of Americans. Is there duplication and overlap in Federal 
programs? Is there need for reform? Is there waste and inefficiency in 
government bureaucracy? There may well be, but millions of Americans 
have come to rely on those programs--some for the basic necessities of 
life, others for their first shot at opportunity in this society.
  In a reasonable and rationale atmosphere the American people would be 
well-served by debating true consolidation and true reform. Reducing 
and defunding these programs in this haphazard manner will only serve 
to exacerbate the situation of low-income Americans, increase tensions 
in our communities, and in the end, serve nothing but a political 
agenda based on the devolution of the Federal Government. I urge defeat 
of this legislation.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. My colleagues, I ask you to oppose this amendment. The 
National Endowment for the Arts not only nurtures America's cultural 
inheritance, but it also expands on our Nation's cultural activities.
  Let me give examples. Before the National Endowment for the Arts, 
there were 37 dance companies in America, now there are more than 400. 
Before the NEA, there were 27 opera companies, now there are 120. The 
list goes on. The NEA works. Resist these cuts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is recognized 
for the final 1 minute.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we know what we are about today is the rescission 
package. A rescission package is what do we take out of the budget 
because it is extra. But it is beyond that today. What we really need 
to talk about is the fact that we cannot charge this.
  You see, we spend $200 billion extra a year and we are charging this 
to my grandchildren. Let us take the high moral ground and say no to 
extra spending for the nice things, but they are not necessary.
  It is time to say yes to this amendment and get about what the people 
told us to do, and that is get rid of the deficit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for 
the final 25 seconds.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, a point of information: Do I have the 
opportunity to close the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is defending the 
committee position, and he will have the opportunity to close. The 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] may proceed for 25 seconds.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, for this amendment to pass, it is going to 
require conservative Democrats to help out with the Members on this 
side of the aisle. The question is can we cut a Federal Government 
program by 9 percent, realizing that within $167 million, $26 million 
is for Federal administration.
  Surely we can cut the money within this program when it only adds up 
to 9 percent. So the Members on both sides of the aisle, I appeal to 
their fiscal responsibility and sanity, let us cut this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for 
the final 1 minute.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a correction of the 
gentleman's statement, and that is that the real effect of this is a 
26-percent cut.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this: that I 
have been in business for 40 years, and business is a cost-cutting 
process. I have cut and I have cut, but the one thing you do not cut is 
those things that are quintessential to the very essence of the 
community in which you live. Everything tends to drag us down to the 
lowest common denominator.
  Please do not cut the National Endowment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cripples the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  Before my colleagues think about cutting funding for the NEA I want 
to remind you that 
[[Page H3294]] Federal arts funding benefits every district in the 
country. The national endowment benefits every region in the United 
States through State grants, arts education, and anticrime programming.
  Thirty-five percent of NEA funding goes to each State's art agency in 
the form of a block grant. This amendment automatically reduces the 
size of each States grant.
  Of this 35 percent each State must spend 7.5 percent of these dollars 
on projects that serve rural, urban, and underserved communities.
  In New Mexico--for the last 7 years State grant moneys have funded 
the churches project. Over 100 communities have restored their historic 
churches because of the cultural and artistic symbolism they represent.
  Voting in favor of this amendment means no arts education for our 
children.
  Last year a $22,000 grant to the chamber music residencies pilot 
project which placed chamber music ensembles in rural communities for a 
school year. The chamber ensembles taught children in public schools in 
Tifton, GA; Jesup, IA, and Dodge City, KS, who would not have otherwise 
had any music education.
  Voting in favor of this amendment means reduced funding for crime 
control programs. A youngster with a paint brush or learning lines for 
a play is a lot less dangerous than one with a gun.
  NEA anticrime funds provide for programs like Arizona's APPLE Corps 
which uses arts programs with antidrug messages as after-school 
alternatives. Other anticrime projects the endowment funds include: 
Voices of Youth throughout Vermont, First Step Dance Co. in Lawrence, 
KS, Boise Family Center project in Boise, ID, Arts in Atlanta project, 
Alternatives in L.A. Program, and the Family Arts Agenda in Salem, OR.
  Instead of targeting programs that are wasteful and bloated, this 
amendment targets programs that improve the quality of life for every 
American.
  And it cuts these dollars not to go for deficit reduction but--to a 
windfall for the richest 10 percent of our Nation.
  What voting for this amendment ensures is that the richest 10 percent 
of our country will be the only ones that can ever be able to afford to 
see an opera, a Shakespeare play, to hear an orchestra.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the 
Crane amendment. As chair of the arts caucus, I have watched in 
amazement year after year, as the pittance that the National Endowment 
for the Arts receives from the Federal budget is consistently 
denigrated, incorrectly characterized, and almost always cut. And all 
this from an agency whose entire budget is below what is allocated for 
military bands.
  While Federal funding for the arts, and art agencies like the 
National Endowment for the Arts, make up a mere 0.02 percent of the 
national budget, for each $1 the NEA spends, $11 of activity results. 
The nonprofit arts industry alone contributes $36.8 billion to the U.S. 
economy and provides over 1.3 million jobs to Americans nationwide. 
Business, tourism, restaurants, and hotels strive on the arts. The 
annual audience for nonprofit theaters serve an audience that has grown 
from 5 million in 1965 to over 20 million in 1992. More Americans 
attend art events annually than they attend professional sports events. 
A 1992 poll sponsored by the American Council on the Arts showed 60 
percent of the American people favored Federal support of the arts. 
Further reductions in funding for the NEA would have adverse 
implications on both constituents and the cultural agencies in our 
districts. The author of this amendment must be aware of the 
ramifications his amendment would have on his own district. The 
$181,000 received by the Illinois Art Council in past years to support 
artists residing in Mr. Crane's district would be eliminated. This 
money made it possible for writing, crafts, theater, dance, and visual 
arts projects to exist in Palatine and Elk Grove Village, IL--both of 
which are represented by Congressman Crane. In my district of 
Rochester, NY, the National Association of Local Arts Agencies found 
that nonprofit arts organizations spent approximately $124 million 
annually and supported more than 4,000 full-time jobs.
  Discussion about our national priorities begin and end with 
children--they are our future, our legacy, and our greatest resource. 
What the arts can do in the lives of our Nations children cannot be 
underestimated. The arts have the
 power to change a child's life. Children that create do not destroy. 
Access to art assists in keeping kids in school and off the streets. 
Art has a positive impact on a child, it enriches their lives and 
empowers them with a strong sense of self-worth. The NEA stresses that 
arts education may be the only way to reach at-risk children, deter 
them from violence, and increase their ability in every academic area 
giving them a sense of identity and discipline. Children who have art 
in education are better students with stronger analytical skills and 
higher esteem. The NEA's Arts in Education Program places 14,500 
artists in schools in every State to work with children. Arts education 
is integral to school curriculum as it affects virtually all areas of 
learning. Children who learn through the arts improve in every academic 
area, have better attendance, and have increased motivation to learn. 
In 1993 the college entrance examination reported that students who 
studied the arts more than 4 years scored 53 points higher on the 
verbal portion of the exam and 37 points higher on the math portion of 
the exam than students with no course work or experience in the arts. 
This makes it essential for the NEA to be able to continue to provide 
support to our Nations children.

  The NEA provides equal access and opportunity to the people of our 
Nation, many of whom would otherwise be deprived from experiencing the 
arts in American society. The arts serve as a medium of documentation, 
the essence of the American experience is recorded through art. Art 
remains a living record of civilization and society. Every civilization 
judges the civilization before it by the art it has left behind. Are we 
going to leave anything behind?
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 260, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               AYES--168

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--260

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     [[Page H3295]] Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Burr
     Cubin
     Ford
     Frost
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (GA)

                              {time}  1237

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Cabin for, with Mr. Frost against.

  Mr. MARTINEZ changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SMITH of Michigan, SMITH of Texas, BASS, WHITFIELD, CRAMER, 
POMBO, and KINGSTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting [CPB] and urge Members to oppose rescissions which 
would pull the plug on this valuable service.
  Millions of Americans--including countless members of the bay area 
community in California--have come to rely on public broadcasting for 
quality programming on a wide range of issues.
  Yet some have argued that Federal funds for public broadcasting must 
be eliminated in order to help balance the budget, and others claim 
that CPB should be abolished because it is a bastion of liberal 
propaganda.
  While I certainly favor serious steps to reduce the deficit, and have 
voted accordingly in Congress, the truth is each dollar of Federal 
support for public broadcasting attracts $5 in support from private 
sector sources. CPB is a good investment.
  Furthermore, the assertion that CPB propagates liberal political 
ideals is unfounded. The last time I checked, ``Sesame Street,'' ``Mr. 
Roger's Neighborhood,'' and ``Barney'' were not overtly political 
shows. And when did William Buckley's ``Firing Line'' become a hotbed 
for liberalism?
  Mr. Chairman, as a mother who raised two children, I relied on public 
broadcasting and learned the value of noncommercial television. I never 
worried about leaving the room while my kids were watching Ernie and 
Bert or Fred Rogers because I knew they were in safe hands.
  These are shows which emphasize the values of respect, honesty, and 
good citizenship. I'm certain my children, who have gone on to achieve 
superb educations, got a head start in their academic careers from the 
lessons they learned on public broadcasting. And as young adults, they 
still tune in.
  I strongly urge Members to consider the economic and educational 
benefits of CPB when casting their votes today. This is not a political 
vote. It's a vote for our children. It's a commonsense investment in 
our future.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill, 
H.R. 1158, emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions.
  I am extremely disappointed with the rule under which H.R. 1158 has 
been brought to the floor. It is unfortunate that my colleagues and I 
have been denied the opportunity to offer alternative cuts to restore 
funding for programs we support.
  Cutting programs like the Low Income Home Energy Program [LIHEAP] is 
not the way to get our fiscal house in order. We should not totally 
eliminate the funding for a critical program which targets the very 
poor and helps them stay off other forms of welfare. In a time when we 
were trying to get individuals off welfare, we are eliminating a 
program which really goes to the heart of the problem and offers 
preventive measures.
  In North Dakota, one-third of all LIHEAP recipients receive no other 
government assistance. LIHEAP makes the difference between families 
becoming homeless or dependent on more costly welfare programs.
  For many senior citizens, the winter months force the heartbreaking 
decision of eat or heat. The high cost of heating their home forces 
some seniors to enter a nursing home, spend down their resources, and 
then become dependent on Medicaid.
  In the view of these concerns and the fact that eliminating Federal 
funding for heating assistance places yet another financial burden on 
the States, I cannot support this rescission measure.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill, 
and in support of Citizens like Annie Coleman of my district who will 
turn 73 on April 30. This bill pulls the rug out from under her. Let me 
tell you her story.
  Annie lives on Oakwood Avenue in Toledo, OH, and worked all her life 
for Superior Laundry. She saved to own her own home and raised four 
children. She took care of a dying mother and husband after her 
retirement.
  She now survives by picking up odd jobs, at age 72, because her 
Social Security checks of $640 a month are simply not enough to make 
ends meet. She pays nearly $200 a month for health insurance and 
prescriptions. Her heating bills are $180 a month and she receives $117 
a month in winter heating assistance and emergency heating assistance 
in the winter. Even with this helping hand, she is left with $90 a week 
on which to live. Without it, she must make a choice between food and 
heat. No one who has lived through below zero Midwestern winters should 
be forced to make that choice.
  The bill before us will eliminate the winter heating assistance 
[LIHEAP] Program. It will hurt Annie and 25,000 other citizens in 
northwest Ohio; it will hurt over 2 million elderly citizens across 
America. I cannot support a bill which puts the most vulnerable people 
in our society at risk.
  Over the past 2 days we have engaged in a major debate on the worthy 
goal of balancing our budget by cutting $17.3 billion. Reducing the 
deficit and balancing the budget is a must and I have worked hard and 
continue to work hard to achieve that. But this is not the way to do 
it.
  As we try to plug the red ink dike, the holes in the dike of our 
increasing debt, this $17.3 billion exercise is fruitless because at 
the same time there are billions of dollars flowing out the other side 
of the dike that are not under consideration and we are told are 
completely off the table.
  Why not get rid of tax breaks for corporate welfare? We hear a lot 
about welfare for ordinary citizens. What about corporate welfare? Why 
not eliminate the tax breaks that give $5 billion for pharmaceutical 
companies to leave the United States and manufacture offshore; why not 
eliminate $30 billion worth of transfer pricing that rewards all these 
foreign corporations operating in the United States that do not pay a 
dime of taxes; why not auction off the rights to manufacture the space 
station and exact continuing royalties that will result in $40 billion 
in savings?
  This rescission bill before us today makes none of these cuts. The 
bill before us today is irresponsible fiscal policy. No one should 
swallow the line that this bill will really result in deficit 
reduction. While it hurts our seniors and cuts out the summer jobs for 
our teenage sons and daughters, it also bankrolls the money for a 
future tax cut for America's wealthiest citizens. Thus, not only is the 
money being cut from our children and seniors, but it then is shifted 
to pay for capital gains and other tax cuts for the wealthiest among us 
as well as disaster relief largely for one State, California, which has 
the resources to pay for its own costs. In fact, the Governor of 
California has announced he wants to cut taxes in his State by $7 
billion while asking the Federal Government to pick up $5 billion in 
disaster assistance.
  The cuts in this bill will severely impact my community. I am 
especially worried about the impact of these cuts on the elderly and 
children.
                    [[Page H3296]] summer youth jobs

  Over my strong objections, the summer jobs for teenagers will be 
eliminated by this bill, which will eliminate nearly 2,000 jobs over 2 
years in my district. In fact, 20 percent of the entire savings in this 
bill--$33 billion in all--comes from cuts in the various programs to 
move teenagers into the world of work. The rescission package 
completely eliminates summer jobs which employs about 600,000 young 
people nationwide. Youth, job training, Job Corps, and school-to-work 
accounted for $500 million in cuts.
  In my district, 1,683 youth enrolled in the program and participated 
in jobs that were not make work jobs last summer. They worked at 
community centers and nonprofits throughout the community. The cut 
jeopardizes several innovative programs. The city of Toledo used summer 
youths to remove graffiti. The Arts Commission of Greater Toledo 
provided them with the opportunity to prepare public artwork, and learn 
skills at the same time. The Community Development Center--Spencer 
Township--uses summer youth to run a nutrition program to make up for 
school lunches that disadvantaged children do not get in the summer. 
The Red Cross and Catholic Club run recreation/day camp programs so 
that younger children have some place constructive to go during the 
summer months.
  In addition, hundreds of other youth work at area nonprofit 
communities performing vital maintenance, upkeep and support functions 
that would go undone if not for summer youth workers.


                   winter heating assistance [liheap]

  This bill will eliminate heating assistance to help pay for gas and 
utility bills for over 13,700 seniors and a total of 25,000 low income 
families in my district. This includes 12,531 seniors in Lucas County, 
521 seniors in Wood County, 383 seniors in Ottawa County, and 266 
seniors in Fulton County. Nationwide, 2 million elderly households are 
helped each year through LIHEAP. The rescission package would 
completely eliminate the program. This cut will force low-income 
elderly to choose between heat and medicine or heat and food. No one in 
our Nation should be forced to make this choice.


                          public broadcasting

  Quality educational programming at our public television stations 
WBGU and WGTE will also be affected by cuts of over 30 percent in 
funding that will accelerate over the next 3 years. With the increase 
of violence and degrading television programs, CPB continues to fund 
marvelous children's educational and entertaining programs such as 
``Sesame Street,'' ``Reading Rainbow,'' and ``Square One TV.'' 
Educating children, especially preschoolers is one of the most 
important goals of public television and where public television 
performs best.


                        medigap insurance scams

  The rescission package cuts in half Federal assistance to help senior 
citizens in all income groups being victimized by so-called Medigap 
insurance scams. Literally billions are spent by seniors each year on 
health insurance and while much of it is needed, it is estimated that a 
major portion of the total is either duplicative or coverage that 
seniors already have or is written in a way as to provide most seniors 
with very little added coverage.
  During committee consideration, we attempted to meet deficit targets 
using cuts in programs that did not adversely affect children and the 
elderly. We tried to convert disaster assistance to California from 
grants to loan guarantees in order to minimize the budget impact and 
reprogram dollars to people's needs.
  We must not put the most vulnerable people in our society at risk, to 
provide disaster assistance to States who can afford to pay for their 
own problems or to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest in our Nation. 
This bill is wrong-headed and deserves rejection.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the GOP rescissions bill we 
are debating today is wrong headed. Worse, it sets a dangerous 
precedent, by laying waste to education and nutrition programs in order 
to finance a taxbailout for America's wealthiest individuals and 
corporations.
  Although the bill we are debating would extend necessary aid to 
communities in California damaged in the Northridge earthquake, the 
bill targets programs that help many of our most vulnerable citizens--
schoolchildren, the elderly, and working Americans trying to adapt to a 
changing economy.
  The American people have begun to express their profound unease with 
elements of the Contract With America. Recent polls in the Wall Street 
Journal and the New York Times indicate a growing sense of discontent 
and ambivalence toward many of the major proposals put forth by the 
Republican leadership.
  The American people are not misinformed. They don't need another 
lecture from a talk-radio host. They don't need to read a campaign 
manifesto that bills itself as ``A Job Creation and Wage Enhancement 
Act.'' They don't need to pay for a series of lecture tapes.
  Sadly, they are all too familiar with a governing philosophy that 
puts the wealthiest few ahead of the working family.
  The American people want their representatives to speak honestly. The 
GOP promised much of the same just a few years ago. Tax breaks for the 
wealthy. Savings down the road. The result was deficit spending at a 
record rate and a trillion dollar debt for our children.
  The Republican's have, so far, failed to present a budget to the 
American people that spells out their commitment to hard-working 
families, children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged. What they have 
presented, in detailed fashion, is a bill to slash care for expectant 
mothers and newborn children; a bill to strip schools of the resources 
they need to provide a safe, drug-free environment for learning; a bill 
to deny young people the opportunity to work this summer and next 
summer.
  Instead, they had the temerity to announce a new round of tax relief 
that does little for middle-class working Americans.
  By eliminating the alternative minimum tax, the Republicans have 
given large corporations the opportunity to shirk their tax obligation.
  50 percent of the total benefits of the GOP tax plan would benefit 
those earning $100,000 or more. The capital gains provision would also 
disproportionately benefit upper-income taxpayers--76 percent of the 
benefits would go to the same group of upper-income Americans.
  Ninety-two dollars. That's what the capital gains tax cut would mean 
for families that take home less than $30,000 a year.
  A $92 break--at the expense of a safe, drug-free classroom, or a 
balanced diet for a newborn infant, or a summer job for a young father. 
That sounds more like a con-job than a contract.
  The Republicans offer little relief to the vast segment of our work 
force that has seen real incomes decline. Between 1979 and 1993, 60 
percent of Americans experienced no real income growth.
  Despite the explosive growth of overall household income in the same 
period, most benefits were concentrated among upper-income families.
  Restoring opportunity and providing the foundation for income growth 
for every working American--that is my commitment.
  It is with regret that I cannot support final passage of the disaster 
assistance. However, as immediate needs can be met through existing 
funds in FEMA, Congress still has the opportunity to make responsible 
choices in offsetting this spending. It is unfortunate that the 
Republicans have chosen to go forward with vital disaster aid as part 
of a controversial package of spending cuts.
  Not only have the Republicans suddenly decided to set a precedent and 
offset disaster assistance retroactively, they make three times as many 
cuts as necessary. In order to solve a disaster, they create another 
disaster for many of the very people in need.
  They target those cuts to people who have paid the price in the past 
and who are the most vulnerable, seniors and children, while exempting 
other programs that should be considered and cannot be touched under 
the rule. If the Republicans wanted to deal seriously with the budget, 
they would not have jeopardized disaster assistance or resisted initial 
efforts to link the offset to deficit reduction.
  This bill is dishonest and should not be supported. Disaster 
assistance should be considered on its own merits and not as part of 
some back-room deal to provide a tax cut to upper-income people and 
America's largest corporations, the very folks who really don't need 
it. Even if these cuts are put toward deficit reduction, the pending 
tax cuts will still have to be paid for in the future. It is evident 
what the Republican Members are saying--no matter what it is we are 
paying for, it is those at the lower end of the income scale who will 
pay for it.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the proposed 
elimination of the Summer Youth Program. I fully support the program 
and will fight to restore its funding when the rescissions bill is sent 
to the conference committee later this year.
  At the same time, I encourage private sector businesses to contribute 
to the Summer Youth Program so they may make a contribution to the 
communities in which they do business. In these times of tight 
budgetary constraints, it is my hope that local businesses can assist 
in ways that the Government can no longer afford.
  Although I support the Summer Youth Program, I also saw the need for 
reducing the deficit. If we continue to spend money we don't have, we 
will be passing the financial burden on to our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues, especially the members of 
the Appropriations 
[[Page H3297]] Committee, to work to restore the funds necessary to 
continue the Summer Youth Program.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
rescissions of appropriations for public broadcasting included in H.R. 
1158. These shortsighted cuts will have a serious impact on the 
broadcasting of high-quality educational and cultural broadcasting.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1158 would rescind a total of $141 
million from advance appropriations for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. These rescissions amount to a 15-percent cut in the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriation, and a 30-percent cut in the fiscal year 
1997 appropriation.
  Like many of the rescissions included in this bill, the CPB 
rescission would unfairly hurt middle-income working Americans the 
most--all to pay for the coming Republican tax-cut bill that will 
mostly benefit wealthy Americans.
  Opponents of public broadcasting have often commented that Federal 
funding for the CPB benefits primarily the cultural elite. A close 
study of those who view or listen to public broadcasting shatter this 
myth. Of the more than 15 million people who listen to public radio, 41 
percent earn less than $30,000 annually. More than half the over-18 
million regular viewers of PBS stations are from household incomes of 
less than $40,000.
  Mr. Chairman, 99 percent of the country receives at least one public 
broadcast signal--for free. This broad reach is especially important 
for our cities. Public broadcasting is more than a broadcast service 
for these areas. Public TV provides instructional services to 30 
million students and 2 million teachers in three-quarters of the 
Nation's schools. It provides approximately 1,600 hours of free, 
noncommercial programming each year for off-air taping and classroom 
use.
  Public broadcasting also offers Americans flexible opportunities for 
lifelong learning. About 88,000 adults, each year, use public 
television to study for the high school equivalency examination.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting serves every segment of 
our society. We should not cut its Federal funds to provide tax breaks 
for wealthy Americans. I will oppose these short-sighted cuts and urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about a 
portion of the rescission package currently before the House, one that 
has more to do with policy than with cutting funds.
  Included in the rescission package is wording that concerns one of 
public housing's greatest difficulties--one-for-one replacement 
requirements. These requirements make it almost impossible for a public 
housing authority to tear down old, expensive, often totally abandoned 
buildings because of misguided laws and regulations.
  The distinguished member from California and chairman of the HUD/VA 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Lewis, correctly focuses on this issue 
as one of many impediments to rebuilding our Nation's neighborhoods.
  Clearly, as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on this matter, 
it is my responsibility to set the course on important policy matters. 
Mr. Lewis' repeal of section 18(b)(3) of the Housing Act is a temporary 
measure for fiscal year 1995 aimed at alleviating immediate pressures 
on local PHA's who want to get rid of these boarded-up eyesores. It 
falls on the authorizing subcommittee to enact the serious policy 
changes that can make this happen.
  Even before this rescission bill came up, the distinguished Member 
from Louisiana, Richard Baker, and I were working to draft legislation 
that will address the full range of issues surrounding this 
requirement. Mr. Baker championed this issue in last year's housing 
bill.
  I am glad to see this issue addressed and I assure this body that the 
permanent authorizing language addressing the entire range of problems 
relating to the demolition of vacant public housing is forthcoming.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the 
Appropriations VA/HUD Subcommittee chairman and his actions to send a 
message to HUD--this is not business as usual. I look forward to 
continuing this process in the months ahead.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
bill before us, which attacks many of the programs that assist our 
Nation's neediest citizens. I am particularly disturbed by the fact 
that this bill deals a devastating blow to the millions of American 
households that depend upon fuel assistance provided by the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program to get through each winter by 
eliminating all funding for this program.
  LIHEAP recipients are some of the poorest among us--in fact, 70 
percent of those people who receive LIHEAP funds have annual incomes of 
less than $8,000. They include working families with young children, 
the disabled, and the many senior citizens who live on limited, fixed 
incomes.
  This program is especially critical for people in New England, who 
must wage a battle on two fronts, for survival during winters that can 
be bitterly cold, and for economic stability in a recovering, but by no 
means robust, economy.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent 
considerable time and energy earlier this year professing their 
commitment to protecting our Nation's elderly from financial 
insecurity. When we debated the balanced budget amendment, the 
Republicans told us that they would not raid the Social Security 
Program to bring down the deficit. They were unwilling to write this 
guarantee into their amendment, to enshrine this protection in the 
Constitution, and yet they asked us to take their word for it that they 
would protect Social Security.
  And now, a few short weeks later, the Republican leadership of this 
House has brought before us a bill that completely eliminates funding 
for LIHEAP. Of the 144,000 people from Massachusetts who receive 
assistance from LIHEAP, 40,000 of them are over the age of 60. What 
kind of financial security is the House GOP providing to those 40,000 
low-income seniors by taking their heating assistance away? A study 
conducted by the University of Massachusetts has shown that our senior 
citizens must sometimes sacrifice food in order to pay for fuel to heat 
their homes in winter. Making it even harder for these people to afford 
home heating energy will only make our seniors less financially secure 
in what is meant to be their golden years.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak to an issue of utmost 
importance to my district in western New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud congressional efforts to trim Federal spending 
and reduce our deficit. We are making some bold and difficult 
decisions. The rescissions bill before this body makes many steps in 
the right direction.
  It is an injustice, however, to eliminate programs--which unlike the 
Small Business Administration's tree planting program--people depend 
upon to meet their basic needs.
  I am referring to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or 
LIHEAP. I know this might not be a big concern to citizens in Florida 
or Arizona--but to those who live in areas like Buffalo, NY, it can be 
a matter of life or death.
  LIHEAP provides fuel assistance to disabled, working poor, and low-
income senior citizens who can not meet their own total energy needs. 
Fifty-five percent of households receiving assistance have at least one 
child under age 18 and 43 percent include senior citizens.
  Some argue that LIHEAP was conceived in a time of energy crisis and 
that is no longer needed. We must remember, however, that energy is 
still not affordable to everyone.
  LIHEAP recipients have an average income of $8,257 per year--without 
some assistance their heat could be cut off. Eighteen percent of their 
incomes are spent on energy needs.
  LIHEAP is a vital program which is certainly not pork or luxurious 
Federal spending.
  I am very worried about the families and seniors from my district and 
districts across the Nation who may be unable to properly heat their 
homes next winter. I hope that the good and bad aspects of eliminating 
the LIHEAP program will be more properly addressed during the 
appropriations process.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I believe deficit reduction is critical to 
our Nation's future. I supported the balanced budget amendment and the 
line-item veto. I will support efforts across the board to cut 
unnecessary spending.
  But I am particularly troubled by the provision in the pending 
rescissions bill that completely eliminates the summer youth jobs 
program for both 1995 and 1996. Mr. Chairman, this is not just a cut, 
it's not just holding the line at current levels, it kills the 
initiative entirely.
  I agree that we must reform and consolidate job training programs, 
but this is the worst means to achieve that end.
  The Summer Youth Jobs Program is not pork or welfare. It's work and 
common sense.
  When told of these cuts, Janet Ames, Summer Youth Jobs Program 
coordinator in Washington County in my congressional district said:

       Elimination of the Summer Youth Jobs Program is a terrible 
     mistake. By denying opportunity to our young people, we will 
     send a signal that work doesn't matter. That is the worst 
     message we can send them. These funds must be restored.

  The people I represent are deeply concerned about rising crime in our 
suburban areas.
  As Ron Nicholas, the chief of police of Blaine, MI, stated when told 
of these cuts: ``The Summer Youth Jobs Program is the best tool local 
law enforcement has seen that reduces youth-related crime. It doesn't 
make any sense to eliminate it.''
  If the proposed cuts go into effect, 1,200 young people in my 
congressional district in 
[[Page H3298]] Anoka, Washington, and Dakota Counties of Minnesota will 
have less hope, less opportunity, and less chance for a positive work 
experience to shape their lives this summer.
  Let's be honest with ourselves--many at-risk young people simply 
don't have what most of us had in our own lives--a requirement to get 
up in the morning, a person to show them how to work, or someone to 
appreciate their accomplishments and build their self-confidence and 
self-esteem.
  Let's rise above politics today and give our young people an 
alternative to despair and hopelessness--because there is no denying 
that as predictable as the sun rises every morning, despair and 
hopelessness will result in young lives with unlimited potential being 
forever lost to the tragedy of criminal behavior. We cannot afford to 
let that happen.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1158, 
the omnibus rescissions and disaster supplemental appropriations bill.
  I don't argue with the need to make the tough choices that will lead 
to a balanced Federal budget. That's why I'm sponsoring a balanced 
budget bill with Congressman Bob Wise.
  But I am deeply troubled by what this bill says about our priorities 
as a nation.
  We aren't making tough choices here. We're taking shots at the most 
vulnerable among us: our children and senior citizens.
  We're cutting deeply into the greatest investments we can make in our 
country's future prosperity: education and job training.
  Where is our commitment to investing in the future potential of our 
young people and American workers?
  Let me point out one example.
  This bill eliminates 5 programs that help 60 million American adults 
who are functionally illiterate become productive and self-sufficient 
citizens.
  Literacy programs aren't a drain on Federal and State treasuries. 
Illiteracy is.
  According to the Ohio Literacy Resource Center, low literacy levels 
cost $224 billion a year in lost productivity, welfare payments, and 
crime-related costs.
  The proponents of this bill have said that we are eliminating 
programs that don't work. I submit unequivocally that these literacy 
programs do work.
  This bill eliminates all funding for State Literacy Resource Centers.
  These centers provide ``one-stop shopping'' for State and Federal 
literacy services needing assistance with research and curriculum 
development. They eliminate the need for overlapping functions at the 
State level. They promote public/private partnerships by linking 
educational institutions with information about improved literacy 
techniques developed by private organizations and researchers.
  This bill eliminates all funding for the National Institute for 
Literacy.
  The Institute coordinates efforts to reach the sixth national 
education goal: that all Americans will be literate by the year 2000. 
It also provides technical assistance to literacy providers.
  The Institute is in its 2nd year of operation. It has launched 
important new initiatives to promote adult literacy across the country. 
This is a service that works. It's not broke. It doesn't need to be 
fixed. So for goodness' sake, let's not break it!
  I had hoped to offer an amendment to restore the funding for literacy 
programs.
  But under the current rule, the only way to do that would be to take 
more money from: educationally disadvantaged children; or from programs 
that help teachers improve their skills; or from job training programs 
for young people.
  That's not a rational choice at all.
  That's not just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's robbing our Nation of 
its future.
  Perhaps we should heed the words of a prominent and much-admired 
American: ``Parents with literacy problems are more likely to raise 
children who will have problems themselves.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, Barbara Bush is right. The greatest predictor 
of a child's future academic success is the literacy level of the 
child's mother.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude with a disturbing observation.
  The Republican leadership is trying to amend the Constitution of the 
United States for the 2nd time in 100 days.
  Experts say that it takes an 11th grade education to read and 
understand the Constitution. Yet, 60 million American adults can't read 
or write beyond the eighth grade level.
  I am appalled that we would try to amend the fundamental document of 
our system of governance, yet deny all funding to programs that help 
millions of Americans fulfill the promise of that democracy.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, the action proposed by the House 
Appropriations Committee would completely eliminate funding for: 
library literacy grants--$8 million; the National Institute for 
Literacy--$4.9 million; State literacy resource centers--$7.8 million; 
workplace literacy partnership grants--$18.7 million; literacy training 
for homeless adults)--$9.5 million; and literacy programs for 
prisoners--$5.1 million. A total of $54 million in cuts. Of that 
amount, $35 million is direct services to students.
  Current funding levels--prerescission fiscal year 1995--provide $4 
per eligible person per year. The proposed cuts would mean 600,000 
individuals will be cut from individual instruction and classes.
  While it is true the President's fiscal year 1996 budget also 
proposes to eliminate all these programs as line items in the budget, 
his plan shifts current spending for them to basic State grants and to 
National Programs in the case of the National Institute for Literacy.
  Savings from this rescission may help pay for a middle class tax cut. 
Estimates suggest that the tax cut being considered would add 
approximately $4 a week to the paycheck of an individual earning 
$40,000. Is such a tax cut really cost effective when compared against 
corresponding cuts in adult education which helps those who are most 
educationally disadvantaged to get jobs, pay taxes and get off public 
assistance.
  The Republican Contract With America claims to be about personal 
responsibility. These programs are the very vehicles by which many 
Americans are attempting to take personal responsibility for their 
lives and for their families.
  An individual attempting to improve their life and increase the 
opportunities for their family who doesn't have basic reading skills is 
up against insurmountable odds. He/she can't read the want ads. They 
can't fill out a job application. They can't pass a basic skills test 
required by potential employers. They can't, for that matter, help 
their children with their homework, read them a bedtime story, or even 
interpret the instructions on a bottle of medicine. How does cutting 
off educational opportunities to these people increase their ability to 
assume personal responsibility?
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, this rescissions package is more of the same 
old story. Let's steal from the poor to give to the rich.
  These cuts will hit some of the most vulnerable people in our 
society--our children, seniors, veterans, and the poor--to pay for 
their contract on America which is nothing more than a contract for big 
business and the wealthy in this country.
  We are all in agreement that we must cut wasteful and unnecessary 
spending. However, this bill takes a meat ax to some of this country's 
most successful programs including the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, veterans assistance, summer jobs, WIC, and a host 
of others that benefit the needy.
  The total elimination of LIHEAP is a particularly unfair hit on 
Illinois and entire Northeast/Midwest regions of our country where 
winters are particularly severe. Just last year, President Clinton was 
faced with declaring a natural disaster in these regions due to the 
dangerously low temperatures. LIHEAP was able to rescue millions of 
families from last year's unbearable harsh weather.
  This rescission package also says to our country's veterans that we 
don't appreciate their years of dedicated service. This package 
rescinds $206 million from the already beleaguered veterans budget. It 
axes out funds intended for much-needed medical equipment, and 
ambulatory care facilities.
  Finally, the majority continues with its unjust assault on our 
children by slashing moneys for Women, Infants, and Children Program, 
education programs for disadvantaged youth, drug-free school zones, and 
children and family services programs.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to assist the helpless and the 
needy in our society. Let's not abandon them to provide unjustifiable 
tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations in this country.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  This House has been filed with misstatements, insupportable 
allegations, and outright fabrications about OSHA and the worker safety 
laws which have saved millions of workers lives and billions of dollars 
for employers throughout the United States.
  Now we find proposals that are designed to defeat rules and 
regulations that major industry groups, including the poultry, health 
care, and auto industries, among others, are looking forward to.
  It is said that OSHA does not know how much this new rule will cost 
industry, or whether those costs will outweigh the benefits that might 
accrue from this rule.
  One thing that we all know is that muscle and skeletal injuries 
resulting in loss work, workmen's compensation, increased health care 
costs, and so forth. Are the most significant and fastest growing work-
related problems industry and commerce currently face, 
[[Page H3299]] totaling perhaps 60 percent of the new occupational 
illness reported.
  Studies also show that, very frequently, the specific causes of those 
injuries, once isolated, can be cured by very inexpensive changes in 
the work site.
  For instance, in some food processing plants, merely increasing the 
height of the table on which the product was prepared resulted in a 
dramatic lessening of incidence of worker complaint, and savings--
direct savings--to the employer of more than enough money to refit the 
entire processing line.
  As the saying goes: You can pay me now or pay me later.
  Employers can continue to ignore the pleas of their workers, continue 
to see their workmen's compensation and health care costs rise, 
continue to see their taxes rise to pay unemployment and disability 
benefits or they can work within the OSHA ergonomic rules and make the 
adjustments to the work station or other changes, make the investment 
and reap the rewards of a more productive and healthier work force.
  To deny the businesses in the United States the guidance that these 
regulations will provide may make the Republicans feel good, but, in 
the long run they will simply continue the increasing costs our 
businesses are now faced with.
  Do the right thing for American business.
  Do the right thing for American workers.
  Defeat the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Over the last 7 weeks, in fact over the last 7 years, I have traveled 
thousands of miles across my district explaining, as best I can, why we 
need to stop deficit spending and why we need to balance the budget. 
Let me state again for the record; deficit spending is the biggest 
threat to our veterans' health care, education loans, child care, 
transportation improvements, or any other public need which we must 
attempt to meet.
  If we do not slow the growth in spending and operate on a pay-as-you-
go basis, we will soon have no money for anything but paying interest 
on the debt and perhaps some basic entitlement programs.
  I have a strong record on voting to control spending. I have twice 
made the Concorn Coalition Honor Roll, and have been cited by groups 
such as the Citizens Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers 
Union for my willingness to make the tough choices on spending. I have 
voted for the Penny-Kasich amendment to cut over $90 billion in Federal 
spending, and have supported the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  Having said all of that, I will vote against this bill. It is 
seriously flawed in a number of specific instances.
  This rescission bill is attempting to cut Federal spending in a very 
unfair, unbalanced way. These cuts are in fiscal year 1995 
appropriations. These are moneys that have already been guaranteed to 
veterans, children, the elderly, and other people who are the most 
vulnerable in our society. Not one big ticket item in the budget, 
including defense, is cut at all. I will vote at any time to restrict 
the growth of Federal spending as long as all programs are subject to 
the same considerations, not just subjecting some programs to deep cuts 
and leaving others entirely alone or even increasing them, because the 
opposition party doesn't agree philosophically with the program.
  Only at the 11th hour have we been told the cuts contained within 
this package will go to deficit reduction. That is something which I 
have supported and which I encouraged the committee to adopt. But I am 
not convinced that the $12 billion or so in this package will in fact 
be put against the deficit.
  There are major tax cut proposals being advanced in this Congress 
which may do more harm than good to our efforts to balance the budget. 
Proponents of tax cuts will have to find a way to pay for those cuts, 
and even as we debate this bill, we are told that the really big cuts 
are still to come.
  Supporters of the bill we consider today were originally considering 
using these savings as a downpayment on those tax cuts. Now we are told 
it will be put in a deficit-reduction lock box. Even if they siphon off 
$12 billion in spending and supposedly put it toward deficit reduction, 
it will still be necessary to find nearly $200 billion to finance those 
tax cuts.
  What we should be doing is making the tough choices on spending and 
putting all of it toward deficit reduction. Anything less, and I will 
be obligated to vote ``no.''
  Deficit reduction is not going to be easy. I am prepared to make the 
tough choices. But I am not going to cut today simply to make it easier 
for others to borrow tomorrow.
  Let me also indicate another strong objection to this bill. I 
represent Decatur, IL, the Pride of the Prairie, a good town with good 
people. Right now, Decatur is weathering a tremendous storm of labor-
management conflict. At three major industries we have disputes which 
have thousands of people off the production lines. More to the point of 
this debate, at the Bridgestone-Firestone plant, members of the United 
Rubber Workers union are being permanently replaced.
  This bill includes a ban on the President's executive order to deny 
Federal contracts to companies hiring permanent replacements for 
striking employees. I support the President and oppose the ban. I do 
not take sides in any of the three labor situations. I urge everyone to 
use the collective-bargaining process to reach agreements which put 
people back to work. But I do support the right of workers to strike 
without being permanently replaced.
  For these reasons I cannot support the bill and urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I stand before the 
American people and this body in absolute shock at this bill. The 
attack on the poor, the old, our children, our cities, and working 
families continues and intensifies today.
  It is hard to exaggerate just how serious this is.
  Let us start with housing. This bill is an attack on homeless 
children; 12,000 children living on America's streets or in its 
shelters would have gotten real housing this year. They are being cut.
  In Massachusetts, funding for the homeless is so tight that the State 
is going to start sheltering the homeless in mental hospitals. Yet, the 
Republicans stand ready to add to the homeless population.
  Five thousand drug addicted or mentally disturbed residents of 
supposedly senior-only public housing could have been moved out so that 
our seniors could once again feel safe in their elevators and hallways, 
and secure in their apartments.
  This bill kills that funding.
  Fourteen thousand elderly households would have been able to stay in 
the apartments they have lived in for years through the Affordable 
Housing Preservation Program.
  This bill will put them on the streets because their landlords will 
turn these buildings into luxury condos, and the Republicans are 
cutting every new dollar for assistance to help them find affordable 
alternatives.
  Two thousand young people would have been able to earn their high 
school degrees while apprenticing in the building trades--these are 
innercity kids who could have straightened out their lives and become 
working, productive members of our society through an innovative 
program called Youthbuild.
  This bill closes the door to the economic mainstream for these young 
men and women.
  Six hundred thirty thousand children and 530,000 seniors will be 
forced to live in public housing that is substandard, unsafe, and 
falling apart because of this bill.
  The Republicans roll out Nancy Reagan to complain about the fight the 
Democrats are waging against drugs. But it is the Republicans that are 
cutting $32 million from drug elimination grants that could prevent 
innocent children from being gunned down in their homes or on their 
playgrounds.
  Republicans talk about economic opportunity, yet they decimate the 
summer jobs program.
  They want to cut Healthy Start, a successful program that reduces 
infant mortality in our innercities, where a higher percentage of 
babies die than in many Third World nations.
  The Republicans are eliminating the entire Energy Assistance Program. 
This will force our senior citizens to choose between buying the 
prescription drugs they need and heating their homes. It will mean tens 
of thousands of children around the country will suffer from 
malnutrition because their parents cannot both buy enough food and keep 
their homes warm.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans are sentencing 3,000 homeless 
people with AIDS to an early death by denying them the housing aid they 
would have otherwise qualified for. With stable homes, many AIDS 
victims could expect to live 10 more years. But on the streets, they 
are more likely to die within 6 months. Another 50,000 people with AIDS 
will never be assured of housing because this bill completely 
eliminates the housing for people with AIDS funding.
  By any measure of good policy, by any measure of decency, this bill 
is a bad bill. We must balance our budget, and we can balance our 
budget, but we must not and need not balance it on the backs of 
children and old people.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support 
for the rescissions bill before us today.
  There is nothing like a rescission bill to get the Washington special 
interest lobbying machine cranking.
  I have a stack of letters and faxes in my office from people who are 
opposed to this bill. They all say something like this: ``I know we 
have to cut spending, but please save this or that program because it 
costs so little and helps so many people.''
  [[Page H3300]] I also have a pile of very serious-looking analyses 
from the Clinton administration which say that children will starve--
senior citizens will be thrown out on the streets--and businesses will 
cease to be competitive if we cut this or that program.
  But you know what? I have yet to receive a letter from someone who 
says, ``I don't have any ties to these programs. I do not receive my 
salary from them. I do not receive other monetary benefit from them, 
but I think you should continue to fund them anyway.''--not a single 
one.
  Folks, the American people are not buying into the ratings of 
Washington's spendoholics.
  They know that a nation's compassion is not measured by the amount of 
money it spends.
  They know that the effectiveness of government programs cannot be 
judged solely by the goodness of their names or their intentions.
  Above all, they know that the most compassionate thing this Congress 
can do is lift the heavy burden of government debt off the back of 
their kids and grandkids.
  So Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues: Listen closely to the 
arguments against this bill. You will find the pleadings for compassion 
have the hollow ring of self-interest.
  Then, remember the silent majority. Remember the Americans who pay 
the bills and their children and grandchildren who will pay them for 
decades to come.
  And cast your votes for them.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Linder] 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, pursuant to House Resolution 115, 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1158, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back 
     the same to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       1. Disaster Assistance: On page 2 line 15, strike 
     ``$5,360,000,000'' and insert ``$536,000,000''.
       2. WIC, Women, Infants and Children: On page 6, strike 
     lines 17 through 22.
       3. Training & Employment Services: On page 23 line 10, 
     strike ``$1,601,850,000'' and insert ``$939,350,000''. On 
     page 23 lines 13 & 14, strike ``$12,500,000 for the School-
     to-Work Opportunities Act,''. On page 23, strike lines 23 
     through 25.
       4. Community Services Employment for Older Americans: On 
     page 24 strike lines 1 through 9.
       5. Health Resources and Services: On page 25 line 12, 
     strike ``$53,925,000'' and insert ``$43,925,000''.
       6. Low Income Energy Assistance: On page 27, strike lines 2 
     through 6.
       7. Education Reform: On page 28 line 14, strike 
     ``$186,030,000'' and insert ``$103,530,000''. On page 28 line 
     15, strike ``$142,000,000'' and insert ``$83,000,000''. On 
     page 28 line 16, strike ``$21,530,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,530,000''. On page 28 line 19 after the word ``Act'' 
     strike all through the word ``partnerships'' on line 23.
       8. Education for the Disadvantaged: On page 29 line 4 
     strike all after ``103-333,'' through line 7 and insert 
     ``$8,270,000 from part E, section 1501 are rescinded.''
       9. School Improvement: On page 29 line 16, strike 
     ``$747,021,000'' and insert ``$327,021,000''. On page 29 line 
     18, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$80,000,000''. On 
     page 29 line 18, strike ``$471,962,000'' and insert 
     ``$71,962,000''.
       10. Student Financial Assistance: On page 31 line 6, strike 
     ``$187,475,000'' and insert ``$124,100,000''. On page 31 line 
     7 & 8, strike ``part A-4 and''.
       11. Corporation for Public Broadcasting: On page 33 line 
     20, strike ``$47,000,000'' and insert ``$31,000,000''. On 
     page 33 line 22, strike ``$94,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$34,000,000''.
       12. Assisted Housing: On page 49 line 14, strike 
     ``$5,733,400,000'' and insert ``$5,018,400,000''. On page 49 
     line 17, strike ``$1,157,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$467,000,000''. On page 50 line 4, strike ``$90,000,000'' 
     and insert ``$65,000,000''. On page 50, strike lines 22 
     through 26.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill unfairly and without precedent 
ties disaster assistance for California's flood and earthquake victims 
to cuts in programs for low-income seniors and children. Because of 
that--in spite of how the Northridge Earthquake pounded my 
congressional district--I must oppose this bill.
  But I also oppose the motion to recommit.
  FEMA needs this money to repair earthquake damage to over 200 public 
schools, to libraries and hospitals, to police stations, museums, and 
homeless shelters.
  More victims applied for Federal assistance from the Northridge 
Earthquake than from Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew, and the floods in the 
Midwest, Georgia, and Texas combined.
  After the fact, it is wrong to shift funding from grants to loan 
guarantees, and shift the entire responsibility onto California's back 
without regard to its ability to pay. This is the mother of all 
unfunded mandates.
  Do not take out--on my constituents and those of Representatives 
McKeon, Beilenson, Farr, Woolsey, Riggs, and others--your anger at Pete 
Wilson's failure to do what he should have done for disaster victims--
and your anger at watching the Governor try to launch his Presidential 
campaign by blasting Washington while shirking his own responsibility 
to the victims of earthquakes and floods. Being victimized by Mother 
Nature is bad enough. We should not be victimized anew by Congress.
  That is why I oppose the motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is simple. This House 
can choose to provide 100 percent of the aid to disaster victims 
contained in this bill and still at the same time reduce by about one-
third the hit that most State and local governments will take as a 
result of the rescissions proposed in this bill. We can do that and at 
the same time increase the total savings contained in the bill.
  You ask how. You simply ask California and other States receiving 
disaster aid to assume the paper in the transaction instead of the 
Federal Government. Somebody has to borrow money to pay the victims of 
disasters. The committee is proposing that the Federal Government do 
it. We are proposing that the State governments do it.
  As those on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying, we are in 
a new era. The old system of disaster aid is no longer viable. We 
cannot provide the aid outside of the budget targets, and we cannot 
have Uncle Sam picking up 98 percent of the tab.
  What this motion would mean is that a lot of victims of other things 
in this society, namely, a lot of children and old people who live at 
the margins throughout the United States, will not have to pay for the 
California disaster.
  This recommittal motion means big bucks for kids and seniors. It 
means big bucks for your Governor, your mayor, your local schools. We 
can restore Healthy Start and WIC, PBS for preschoolers, half a billion 
to help protect quality in elementary and secondary schools, we can 
restore drug-free schools, we can restore job training and school-to-
work and the summer jobs programs. For the elderly we can restore fuel 
assistance, housing programs, and older-worker programs.
  This motion will mean $400 million to the State of New York, $80 
million for 
[[Page H3301]] Wisconsin, $85 million for North Carolina, it means $200 
million for Ohio, $240 million for Pennsylvania, $87 million for 
Tennessee, $130 million for Texas, $180 million for Illinois, about $80 
million for Indiana, et cetera, et cetera. This can happen. You can 
make it happen. You can take this money and put it back in your home 
States.
  It is up to you. All it takes is a decision on your part to put your 
State ahead of national politics, a decision to put your standing with 
your constituents ahead of your standing with the Republican caucus, I 
would say to my friends on this
 side of the aisle. In fact, this amendment saves $200 million more 
than the committee bill.

  You can take that money and totally eliminate the cut made in the 
next fiscal year by the Human Resources Committee in the school lunch 
program and still have the same amount of money left to pay down the 
deficit. It is up to you.

                              {time}  1245

  It is up to you. I would ask you to make war on the status quo rather 
than making war on kids and old folks. This simply sets up a loan 
guarantee system under which States will finance disaster programs. It 
fully assures that every victim of disasters will get the full amount 
due to them, but it shares that burden much more equitably. It is an 
idea whose time has come.
  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] himself, as the Speaker, 
indicates there will have to be offsets in the future. This creates a 
way to provide those offsets in a much more humane way than the bill. 
It helps you to help your own States.
  I understand some Members from California may be opposed to it. But 
if you are from any other State, you are cutting off your own State's 
interest if you vote against the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the gentleman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
motion to recommit?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, 
and Independent Agencies Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say that FEMA comes under our 
responsibility in my subcommittee. We look closely at all of those 
agencies in the committee process. Halfway through the process, there 
came forward a request from FEMA for a supplemental to meet the 
disasters across the country in which some 40 States are effected, 
California indeed being among them.
  The request was originally for $6.7 billion. We examined it and 
trimmed it back 20 percent. Indeed, having done that, I now see my 
State, essentially, under water one more time and I wonder about the 
rescission we made.
  The fact is, however, that this country, for years, has reflected the 
best of the work of the House by standing together in support of the 
regions of the country which have faced disaster. This is such a time, 
and we urge the House to stand together one more time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. It is 
similar to, but different from, that offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] in committee, which lost 20 to 35 in the 
committee. It eliminates $4.8 billion of emergency funding which we 
have paid for in this bill, the first time an emergency supplemental 
has ever been paid for in history.
  This amendment redistributes $4.6 billion back into programs which we 
decided were low priority, duplicative, unnecessary from excessive 
growth in 1995 and 1994, and which were flushed in the pipeline from 
unobligated balances. It is based on the assumption that the 
authorizing committees will create a loan guarantee trust fund for 
disasters.
  What happens if they do not? The fact is we will have redistributed 
$4.6 billion in emergency funds, the money will be gone, the FEMA money 
will not get to California and the other 40 States that need money now. 
This is a gutting amendment. It upsets the balance that is carefully 
crafted in this whole bill. It denies money promised to those people 
most in distress, as exemplified by the floods in California this year. 
And finally, I would only say to my friends that this shortens the 
first major step toward our reformation and reliance on common sense.
  I urge all of the body, for the future of America's children and 
their prosperity, vote ``no'' to the motion to recommit. Vote ``aye'' 
on this first significant step to a balanced budget on the largest 
rescission in history. Vote ``aye'' on the bill and final passage.
  We have heard a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and seen much 
beating of breasts by drug store liberals who never saw a program they 
did not like, or a victim they did not wish to champion.
  For 63 years, since the inception of the New Deal, they have 
bombasted their way through history, bleating for the poor, the hungry, 
the infirm, the elderly, the afflicted, the impaired, and the 
disadvantaged, as well as the obnoxious, the loud, the boisterous, the 
most obtrusive, and the most squaking of wheels.
  In the beginning, they had a strong case that life had overwhelmed 
the ability of the truly deserving to help themselves, but as time 
passed their case became weaker, less convincing, and more 
disingenuous.
  Government became larger, more encompassing, more costly, less 
efficient, more demanding and intrusive, and yes, even less 
compassionate.
  Redundancy of programs, waste, inefficiency, abusiveness, and even 
symptoms of totalitarian intolerance became the order of the day as we 
woke to the news of an energy shortage which was fabricated, endangered 
species which were not really endangered, environmental and tax cases 
which bankrupted good hard-working families for failure of technical 
fulfillment, and atrocities like the Weaver case and Waco.
  Under the so called liberal Democrat domination of the House of 
Representatives, we saw Government move from the role of servant of the 
people, to become a master, which often dictates without recourse or 
recompense.
  Those liberal Members of Congress, who so badly ran their own 
affairs, witnessed by the restaurant, post office and bank scandals, 
became arrogant and insensitive in 63 years of almost unfettered 
domination of the political scene, and they lost sight of the real 
victims of today's society.
  The poor, average, working stiff, the 9 to 5'er who often has to 
moonlight to supplement his or her income; whose spouse so often has to 
work one or two jobs as well to help raise their kids, to pay tuition, 
and medical bills; who support their parents, or their church, their 
Scout troop, or their favorite charity.
  Where is the liberal bleating for the honest, hard working, law 
abiding, uncomplaining, struggling average person, in whose pockets, 
wallets, and purses dig the liberal who wears his compassion on his 
sleeve as long as he can take someone else's money to buy a few extra 
votes to remain in power? Where is the compassion for that most 
deserving of people who asks for nothing but to be left to raise his 
family without a Government handout, subsidy, or enticement?
  When will we in Congress have the guts to admit to the American 
citizens that ``We have `helped' you enough and now it is time for us 
to help you help yourselves?''
  We should stop increasing Governments' role, raising taxes, 
increasing regulations, and reducing freedom and liberty, and start 
doing that which at the very least we should have done in all common 
sense long ago. We should rein in our uncontrolled spending, reduce our 
deficit, balance our budget, stop borrowing against the future of our 
children and grandchildren, and bring an end to the modern tyranny of 
the do-gooders.
  We can indeed help those who are truly in need by maintaining a 
slimmer, more efficient, less redundant, more effective safety net. We 
can have a Government which is leaner, not meaner, but we must do so in 
a smarter, more thoughtful fashion than merely throwing taxpayers 
dollars at every cause.
  Compassion has become a weapon in the hands of the obtuse and 
uninformed, and its victims are the people whom we should most wish to 
help--the average American working citizen and his or her family.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  [[Page H3302]] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion 
to recommit.
  The question was taken and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage.
  This is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185, 
nays 242, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 250]

                               YEAS--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--242

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Collins (IL)
     Cubin
     Franks (CT)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Lewis (GA)
     Tucker

                              {time}  1312

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mrs. Cubin against.

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. MINETA, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. LANTOS 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TORRICELLI and Mr. WILSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order 
for 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 1 minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the Members of the House ought to know 
before the vote that we have just been informed that the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, has 
indicated that, despite the passage of the Brewster amendment 
yesterday, that he intends to use the savings in this bill in his 
assumptions for the tax cut that he has presented to the Committee on 
the Budget. It seems to me Members ought to know that before they vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Chair reminds Members that this is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 200, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               YEAS--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     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
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     [[Page H3303]] McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lipinski
     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
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Cubin
     Johnson, E.B.
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Myers

                              {time}  1323

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Cubin for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to recommit was laid on the table.
                          personal explanation

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote 251 on H.R. 1158, the 
rescission bill, I was unavoidably detained during that 5-minute vote. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the rescission 
package.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the Record 
will be corrected to indicate that the vote on final passage was 
automatically and a yea and nay vote under the new rule XV, clause 7.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________