[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6594-H6605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER 
   ASSISTANCE, FOR ANTI-TERRORISM INITIATIVES, FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE 
     RECOVERY FROM THE TRAGEDY THAT OCCURRED AT OKLAHOMA CITY, AND 
                         RESCISSIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call 

[[Page H 6595]]
up House Resolution 176 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 176

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1944) making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
     additional disaster assistance, for anti-terrorism 
     initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from the tragedy 
     that occurred at Oklahoma City, and making rescissions for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes. It shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
     contrary notwithstanding, to consider an amendment offered by 
     the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. That 
     amendment (if offered) shall be considered as read and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on that 
     amendment (if offered) and on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. 
Beilenson], and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 
1944, which largely consists of the rescission and supplemental 
appropriations contained in the conference report for H.R. 1158. The 
bill was vetoed by the President 4\1/2\ weeks ago. It was the first 
veto of his presidency. unfortunately, there remain enough defenders of 
the status quo in this House that an override of that veto would have 
been impossible.
  Facing an impasse, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
has been striving to find a compromise with the administration in order 
to provide needed disaster relief to 40 States, and to place a down 
payment on our balanced budget, which we have just been debating here 
over the past hour.
  This modified closed rule, Mr. Speaker, provides for consideration of 
the bill that can break that impasse, with 1 hour of general debate in 
the House. The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations to offer one amendment, which shall be considered as 
read and shall not be subject to amendment or division. The rule waives 
all points of order against the amendment. Finally, the rule provides 
for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Members that in California, the message 
from the President's veto of H.R. 1158 was received loudly and clearly. 
The President talked a lot last year about standing behind the 
families, rebuilding their lives after facing the worst that nature 
could possibly throw at them. The Northridge earthquake was devastating 
for southern California, and I shall never forget the President's visit 
to that region, and how moved he was by those who were victimized.
  Unfortunately, his veto pen spoke louder than those words, telling 
struggling communities that if providing assistance meant cutting his 
sacred Federal spending programs, that disaster relief really was not 
all that important.
  H.R. 1944 is the product of the tireless effort of the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations to send a compromise bill to the 
President. The bill restores funding to a number of the education, 
training, and housing programs that the President said were the basis 
for his veto.
  The language on striker replacement incorporated in H.R. 1158 was 
also dropped from this bill. As we know, the first time around the 
White House did not
 engage in negotiations on the rescission conference report until after 
the process was completed. No one in the administration was at all 
involved in the negotiating process. Instead, they waited until the 
process was completely over to issue a veto threat.

  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations reports 
that the administration has simply refused to come to closure on 
numerous provisions under endless negotiation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to stop letting perfection 
be the enemy of the good. The rescissions most objectionable to the 
President have been addressed. They have been replaced with other 
spending reductions. H.R. 1944 will provide $6.7 billion for much 
needed disaster relief in 40 States. It is not just California, this 
impacts 40 States. The bill also continues to place a $9.2 billion 
downpayment on deficit reduction, which obviously is a goal to which we 
all seem to aspire, and that was evident from the debate on both sides 
of the aisle on the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know that the very 
responsible spending reductions in this bill, which account for a 1-
percent reduction in fiscal year 1995 Federal outlays, are the product 
of a thorough, a very thorough review process conducted for months by 
members of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I have said it before and I will say it again, the criteria used by 
the committee are clear, concise, and utterly reasonable to the 
American taxpayer. Rescissions were proposed when programs were not 
authorized, were duplicative, received large funding increases in 
fiscal year 1995, had unspent funds piling up from year to year, 
exceeded spending levels in the Clinton budget, and were wasteful or 
did not work.
  Mr. Speaker, the President killed the balanced budget amendment by 
encouraging Senators in his party to flip-flop and oppose that 
amendment. The President opposed the specific balanced budget plans 
offered by the Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. The 
President vetoed H.R. 1158 that started the country down the path 
towards a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, some cynics might conclude that the President can talk 
the talk but not walk the walk when it comes to controlling Federal 
spending. Even though the original objections to the rescission bill 
have been addressed in H.R. 1944, some administration officials are 
indicating that the bill just may be vetoed once again.
  I would especially note that some in the administration consider 
minimal disagreements regarding the proper way to dispose of dead and 
rotting trees on Federal lands to be an excuse to kill this bill. Those 
people either have their priorities seriously misplaced, or this 
administration could never find a serious spending reduction plan that 
the President could possibly sign.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair and 
balanced rule for a very important bill that has come from the 
Committee on Appropriations. Once again, it will be up to the President 
to make the case that, despite all of his original concerns being met, 
that a 1-percent cut in the $1.5 trillion in Federal outlays is too 
much for him to accept in order to fund much needed disaster relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the record the following document 
regarding the amendment process and special rules.
  The document referred to is as follows:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of June 28, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 31                 71
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 12                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  1                  2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H 6596]]
                                                                                                                
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 44                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             



                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of June 28, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    0...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191; A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    ...................
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                                     
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H.Res. 176 (6/28/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose the rule, but we are troubled by the 
manner in which this bill is being brought forth for consideration by 
the House.
  We understand the majority's desire to expedite consideration of this 
new version of H.R. 1158, the emergency supplemental appropriations and 
rescissions bill. However, Members have had virtually no opportunity to 
see the revised bill that this rule makes in order.
  The bill has not been considered by, or reported from, the 
Appropriations Committee. From what we understand, no minority Members 
of the House have been involved in developing the new legislation. In 
fact, it appears that only a very few Members have had a role in 
negotiating this new bill.
  While we understand that this is not an unusual process for making 
revisions to an appropriations bill, I simply want to point out that we 
are, in fact, considering a new bill that has had very little 
consideration, by only a few Members, up to this point.
  Furthermore, the rule permits an amendment to be offered by Mr. 
Livingston, which is apparently intended to allow him to offer 
compromise language on the so-called salvage timber provision that was 
in the original bill. That allows a change to one of the most 
contentious provisions in the bill to be considered by the House with 
virtually no opportunity to review this important matter in advance.
  Beyond our concerns with this rule, many of us oppose the bill that 
it makes in order for the same reasons that we opposed the original 
version of the legislation, H.R. 1158. Although H.R. 1944 is a modest 
improvement over the first bill, it still contains large spending cuts 
in many valuable programs.
  Furthermore, like H.R. 1158, this bill continues to combine in one 
bill both emergency disaster assistance and spending cuts, which does a 
grave injustice to the victims of the Northridge earthquake and other 
federally declared disasters. It has made the provision of the relief 
they need dependent upon cutting spending for housing assistance for 
the elderly, for education and job training, for veterans, for 
environmental protection, and for a great number of other valuable 
programs which serve many of our Nation's pressing needs.
  Back in March, when the House considered the first rescissions bill, 
we predicted that pairing emergency disaster assistance with spending 
cuts--in essence, holding disaster assistance hostage to the politics 
of cutting spending--would likely delay the provision of emergency 
funds. That is exactly what has happened. It is now the end of June, 
and we still have not passed the emergency funding that is needed by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal 

[[Page H 6597]]
agencies to meet the needs of disaster victims.
  The delay in approval of this bill stands in stark contrast to 
Congress' quick response to the provision of funds for disaster 
assistance when we did not insist upon including controversial spending 
cuts--as well as controversial unrelated legislation, such as the 
salvage timber provision--in an emergency disaster assistance bill. 
Members may recall that the original $10 billion disaster-relief 
package for the Northridge earthquake was signed into law in less than 
one month after the earthquake struck on January 17 of last year. Our 
rapid response to that disaster was possible only because we 
deliberately refrained from including controversial spending cuts in 
the same legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat: we do not object to this rule, but we urge 
Members to vote ``no'' on the bill it makes in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman 
from California, that he is absolutely right. It is much, much easier 
to deal with disasters by simply adding to the deficit. It is tougher.
  However, the message that came through last November 8 was that 
business as usual has obviously got to come to an end. We had a big 
debate in the 103rd Congress on the issue of whether or not we would 
have offsets to deal with the Northridge earthquake. We lost that 
battle when it came up here.
  Now, in the 104th Congress, with this new majority, we have made the 
determination that when we deal with these very tragic situations and 
we want to provide emergency assistance, we are only going to do it if 
we find offsets, and that is what we have done here, and we have 
successfully been able to more than offset the cost of the Northridge 
quake and the disasters that have taken place in 40 other States.
  Mr. Speaker, I also should add that this bill is virtually identical 
to H.R. 1158, which has been considered by this House, exhaustive 
hearings on the issue, and we are simply making changes to try and 
address the concerns of the President, so we can get this measure 
signed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Savannah, GA [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This bill is a modest 
cut in the fiscal year 1995 budget. It reduces the budget by about 1 
percent, or $9.3 billion. It is not big money.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of important programs that have been 
reduced as a result of this. Yet, these are the tough decisions that we 
have to make, because the American people have asked us to get our 
House in order. The President, of course, vetoed the first bill. He 
vetoed it because he was not satisfied with the cuts. He felt the cuts 
were too deep in education and training programs for the elderly, and 
in environmental programs and the salvage timber provisions.

                              {time}  1645

  What we have done in this bill is we went back and addressed his 
concerns. We did not cut these programs as much as we originally did in 
the first rescission bill. Yet even doing so, there still seems to be a 
void in the debate from the White House. We do not have a clear 
indication that they are going to support this bill, nor do we have a 
clear indication that they are going to veto the bill.
  It is somewhat disappointing because my question would be to those 
who are in opposition to this bill, if not these cuts, which cuts? And 
if not now, when? That is not a profound statement, but it is something 
that we have to come around on. It is already late June. We have been 
debating this bill now for almost 6 months, and we still have yet to 
see a proposal, a concrete proposal from the White House about 
addressing these things.
  I stand in support of it. Yet I do hope, now that things are kind of 
loosening up on Pennsylvania Avenue, the President has submitted a 
balanced budget, hopefully he will come in now and enter this 
rescission debate at least by supporting this.
  The disaster money. The disaster money is necessary. We have flooding 
all over the country, particularly in Georgia, but Oklahoma City gets 
anti-terrorism measures paid for. We have already talked about the 
earthquake. These are important items.
  This bill would save more money if it was not for the disasters, but 
as we know, Mr. Speaker, these disasters happen. We do not have a 
special fund set aside for them. We probably should do that at some 
point, but right now we do not. We have to reduce the budget, the 
spending, in order to help pay for some of these disasters. Again, 
these are tough decisions, but they are decisions that have to be made.
  Let me conclude with this: It has been said that this rescission is 
too severe on the students, it is too severe on the elderly, it is too 
severe on the environment. But I would say that if you want to protect 
the environment, if you want to help out the students, if you want to 
protect the senior citizens, then you have to be sure that this country 
stays afloat.
  In order to do so, we cannot continuously have deficit spending and 
overspending and spending on unauthorized projects, and continue to 
face the children and the senior citizens and the middle class of 
America and say, ``We overspent, but we're going to get somebody else 
to pay for it.'' It is time for us to come around and say, ``You know, 
we're going to have to cut back a little bit in order to be there for 
you tomorrow.''
  I believe that this rescission bill, Mr. Speaker, is a responsible 
step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
then vote for the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I suppose that our Republican colleagues offer this bill 
in the spirit of the season. It is, of course, the season of television 
reruns, and this bill is a bit of a rerun, at least as regards the 
tactic that is employed because it has something in common with the 
approach that our colleagues have used with reference to the task force 
to cut Social Security or, rather, to cut Medicare--Social Security is 
probably next in line--the same approach that was used to prepare to 
stack the committees that will impact and implement the budget 
resolution, and now this approach.
  They all have one thing in common: They rerun stealth, they rerun 
secrecy. It was Justice Brandeis who suggested that sunlight is the 
best disinfectant, that electric light is the best policeman, but his 
wisdom seems to have been lost on our colleagues, for it is for some 
reason that they hide their light under a bushel.
  At 11 last night this bill was presented to the Committee on Rules. 
All 119 pages of this piece of legislation, which according to the bill 
as filed were apparently just introduced yesterday, were presented at 
11 last night, so that somewhere near midnight this bill was voted out 
of the Committee on Rules.
  I don't know if many Members of this House even know what is in this 
119 pages. Indeed, we have been told by the distinguished gentleman 
from California that it is virtually identical to legislation that we 
have considered in this House before. I don't know what parts are 
identical, given the short period here, but I know one part that is not 
identical.
  The vast majority of the Members of this House, when this bill was in 
front of us last time, voted to put a lock box on this piece of 
legislation to ensure that every dollar of cuts went to deficit 
reduction. I am advised, though I could not find it in the 119 pages, 
that that virtually identical provision is no longer in here. What is 
in here are contingent cuts to some of our education programs that I 
think are very vital.
  I really liked the idea on day one in this Congress that we were 
going to 

[[Page H 6598]]
shake the piece up, that there was going to be a real revolution with 
regard to change and how business is conducted here. Yet this piece of 
legislation comes out, not in the bright light of day but, rather, at 
the midnight hour, coming back to us without ever having a hearing in 
front of the substantive committee but, rather, having been considered 
here in the midst of lengthy debate last night and presented on only a 
few hours' notice, and without one of the provisions that received 
really bipartisan support when this measure was in front of the House, 
that provision being the lock box provision.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would like to ask him to turn to page 105 of the bill H.R. 1944 and 
look at section 2003. It is entitled ``Downward Adjustments in 
Discretionary Spending Limits.'' The lock box is included in this 
measure, I would say to my friend.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Let me just inquire there, because if I have misstated 
it and it includes the lock box, that would be great. So every penny 
that is saved in this bill will go to deficit reduction and only 
deficit reduction, and not to pay for a tax hike?
  Mr. DREIER. The lock box is included in this bill. If the gentleman 
would read section 2003, it is included in this measure. I would simply 
like to say that as we look at this new day, the negotiations which my 
friend says have not taken place in the light of day, we are simply 
trying to address the concerns of President Clinton, a member of your 
party. We want to work together with him so that we can get a bill that 
we can sign.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. I am glad to hear the lock box is 
in here.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, is there not a rule in the House or at least 
a practice in the House that prohibits Members from wearing pins while 
they are addressing the House from the well?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. Members should not 
wear badges or other indications of their positions on the floor.
  Mr. WALKER. So the gentleman who just spoke prior to this was in fact 
in violation of the procedures of the House when he addressed the 
House; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise all of the Members 
that Members should not wear badges or other insignia while addressing 
the House.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
friend, the gentleman from Metarie, LA [Mr. Livingston], the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my friend from California for yielding me the 
time. After listening to the debate of the last several minutes, I 
think I am watching a replay of Fantasy Island.
  The gentleman from Texas ought to know that this bill is virtually 
word-for-word the very same bill as the conference report adopted by 
the House of Representatives May 18. In fact, he says it is a replay. 
It is a replay.
  The only difference is those issues which were raised by the 
President of the United States, a member of his party, who resides over 
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which has been blocked off from traffic, 
incidentally. Perhaps that is why the gentleman did not know it. Maybe 
he could not get over there.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. The gentleman has had his chance to speak and I am 
replying to the gentleman. I will yield to him after I am done. I will 
be happy to yield to him then.
  The point is, if the gentleman would speak with the White House and 
the representatives of his party and the chief of staff of the White 
House, he would
 understand that this is virtually the same bill as the original bill, 
H.R. 1158, with the exception of those items that the White House was 
interested in changing.

  The fact is this is a good effort. We debated it at length earlier in 
the year. The effort provides for funding for the Oklahoma bombing 
disaster in supplemental funding. It provides for supplemental funding 
for flood and fire and earthquake and pestilence that hit California 
and virtually 39 other States.
  It provides for the funding that the President of the United States 
himself asked for debt relief for Jordan, in order to help resolve the 
Middle East conflict.
  It provide for the placement of tens of thousands of people in the 
Northwest back in jobs that currently are lying fallow. They are just 
not in existence right now, but they would be. Those people would be 
working if this bill would pass and get the President's signature, 
because in fact all of those forests that were burned out in the last 
year and a half would be available for lumbering. Trees that were 
burned out could be salvaged and sent to the lumber mills and people 
could go to work.
  The gentleman, if he had taken the time to examine H.R. 1158 would 
know fundamentally what is in H.R. 1944, is the same bill, except for 
the fact that there is additional money for job training, School-to-
Work, Goals 2000, Safe and Drug Free Schools, National Community 
Service, safe drinking water, community development, and so forth, 
things that the President asked for.
  There is one other major facet of H.R. 1158 that also is a replay in 
H.R. 1944. It is over $9.1 billion in net savings over and above the $7 
billion in additional supplemental spending requested by this 
President, savings to the American taxpayer in fiscal year 1995.
  Why is that significant? Because the majority in the House of 
Representatives and the majority in the Senate has said they can 
balance the budget within 7 years, even though the President in 
February gave us a budget that said he did not want to balance the 
budget between now and infinity, because he projected $200 billion in 
deficits every year from now on, has now decided that he wants to 
balance the budget within 10 years.
  If he wants to balance the budget in 10 years, guess where the best 
place to start is? Fiscal year 1995. He could have done it by signing 
H.R. 1158, which he has already vetoed, or by signing H.R. 1944, which 
does essentially the same thing.
  Here he is getting disaster funding for floods that he asked for, 
funding for earthquakes that he asked for, funding for fire that he 
asked for, funding for Jordan that he asked for, funding for Oklahoma 
that he asked for. He is getting the opportunity to send tens of 
thousands of people in the Northwest back to work in the timber mills 
that presumably he wants, I would hope that he want that, and he is 
saving the American taxpayer over $9.1 billion in unspent 1995 funds.
  If this bill does not pass, as presumably the gentleman in the well 
might favor, them those savings will not occur. That funding for flood, 
fire, earthquake, Oklahoma bombing and Jordan would not be had. Those 
tens of thousands of people would not go back to the lumber mills, and 
would not be employed, and the gentleman could sit around and smile, 
and we would probably have to cut mercilessly in the fiscal year 1996 
every one of the appropriation bills in order to meet our target to 
ultimately balance the budget by the year 2002. Just as mercilessly, 
frankly, in order to accomplish the President's goals to balance the 
budget by the year 2005.
  I suggest to the gentleman, he can continue to cry about not knowing 
what is in this bill, but if he would like to know about 99 percent of 
what is in the bill, all he has to do is look at H.R. 1158 which 
presumably he would know about, since the President has taken the time 
to veto it.
  I just am terribly concerned. This bill really should not be the 
subject of partisan politics. It should be a bipartisan effort, because 
it is not Republican people who are going to go back to the sawmills, 
or Democrat people. It is the American people. It is not Republicans or 
Democrats who are going to benefit from flood and fire and earthquake 
relief. It is the American people. It is not Republicans who were 
devastated in the Oklahoma bombing or Democrats 

[[Page H 6599]]
that were devastated. It is Oklahoma, American people that were 
devastated.
                              {time}  1700

  And they will all be assisted by this bill and, of course, it will be 
Republicans and Democrats, men, women and children throughout America 
that will benefit by the $9.2 billion in savings.
  So I would hope, I would hope the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] 
would stop posturing politically, take the time to read the bill, and 
when the gentleman does, endorse it. Endorse it. Get Members of his 
party to vote for it. Let us get it out of the House. Let us send it to 
the Senate and then let us send it to the President for his signature, 
not his veto as he did the last bill of this sort.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time briefly to say that the 
very distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has 
spoken a little longer than I had anticipated and I would hope that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] might be able to get some time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, responding to the altar call of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and agreeing with his appeal 
for bipartisanship, since last night I only got to 103, and your 
colleague pointed me to 104.
  Just tell me if on page 104, the provision to which the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier] referred me, is that the same language 
that a bipartisan majority of this House, an overwhelming majority, 
approved? The language offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster]; is that language here?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett], it is the exact language that passed in H.R. 1158. It is 
the language that was sponsored by Senator Byrd. It is not the Brewster 
language.
  Mr. DOGGETT. It is not the Brewster language. It is not the Brewster 
lockbox. That is the 1 percent that is different that some of us think 
is very important.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has 24 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to restore an atmosphere 
in which perhaps Members will absorb a little more information and a 
little less heat at the same time.
  First of all, let me say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] my good friend who is the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, that after this is over, I would suggest that we both 
go have a sedative somewhere. I think we need it.
  But let me say that I would respectively point out that the problem 
that the gentleman is having with the Clinton administration is not due 
to numbers, as he knows. The problem is because the gentleman's party 
leadership decided that they were going to use the appropriations 
process, which is supposed to be used for budget matters, they decided 
to use that process instead to bulldoze through the Congress major 
changes in environmental laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to partially favor one of those changes. But I 
do not favor disrupting the entire budget process of the United States 
in order to accomplish it. As the gentleman very well knows, that is 
the major bone of contention, or at least one of the major bones of 
contention, between the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and 
the Clinton administration right now; not their lack of desire to cut 
the deficit.
  Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think when we had the last 
election and the public decided to put our good Republican friends in 
control for the first time in a long time, I think they did that 
because out of desperation they thought that that just might force both 
parties to work together, whether they liked it or not.
  I would suggest that last night in the midst of swirling partisanship 
on other matters, this committee, the Committee on Appropriations, 
managed to work its way through a very contentious appropriation bill 
that deals with our international responsibilities in a very 
nonpartisan, bipartisan way. I wish that that were happening on the 
budget, but it is not.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is not because I think the product that is 
being produced on the budget is at great variance from that which the 
public expected when they voted in November. I think they wanted us to 
have an attack on the deficit. They wanted us to have an attack on 
waste. They wanted us to have an
 understanding that programs needed to be as well managed as they were 
well meaning. Instead, I think what they are getting is something that 
has come down to a near war on kids, on students, and on seniors.

  The fundamental problem with this bill is that it is almost the same 
bill that it was when it left the House. It has been changed by about 
$700 million from the conference report that the President vetoed; $700 
million or so out of a $16 billion bill and it is largely a bill which 
takes away from seniors and takes away from education in order to 
finance a very large tax cut for some very rich people.
  The Brewster amendment has been mentioned. The Brewster amendment was 
the effort by our party to see to it that every dollar in this bill was 
used for deficit reduction, not for tax breaks that rich people don't 
need.
  The Brewster amendment passed with less than 10 dissenting votes in 
this House and then one day after it passed, we were told by the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, that after all, that was just a game to get 
votes to pass this vehicle.
  Indeed, the language which was adopted in conference provides about 
$5 billion in deficit reduction in terms of outlays from the first 
year's savings in this bill. But it provides between $130 and $140 
billion in money to be used for that tax cut and 50 percent of that tax 
cut is going to the wealthiest people in this country, people who make 
more than $100,000 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything against rich people. I would like 
everybody to be rich. That is the American dream. But I want to tell 
you why I do not think America's No. 1 need is to feed the desires of 
rich people to make more money, as this package will.
  Workers are wondering in this country what happened to the American 
dream. They feel squeezed. They feel desperate. They do not know how 
they are going to take care of their parents and put their kids through 
an education at the same time. And I think the answer can be found in 
some Federal Reserve numbers. I do not happen to think much of Alan 
Greenspan's interest rate policy; I do think a lot of their ability to 
analyze where wealth has gone in this economy.
  And what they have pointed out is that in the 1980's, or rather 
before the 1980's, or 3 decades following World War II, when workers 
productivity increased, they got that full productivity reflected in 
increased wages.
  During the 1970's, workers got about half their productivity 
increases reflected in wages. During the 1980's and 1990's, worker 
productivity went up while wages went down. Productivity went up 18 
percent; wages fell by 7 percent in real dollar terms.
  Where did that money go? I will tell you where it went. If you 
exclude homes and cars from the net assets of households, nine-tenths 
of the increased wealth of this society in the 1980's went to the 
richest one-tenth of American families. But even more striking is the 
fact that the richest one half of 1 percent of households got 60 
percent of the increase in individually held financial assets.
  The half-million richest households increased their average net worth 
from $8.7 million to $12.7 million in those 6 years and as a group, 
their net worth increased by $2 trillion, which is more than twice the 
entire increase in the national debt during that same period.
  So that is where the American dream has gone. It has gone into the 
pockets of some of the wealthiest people in this society. And with all 
due respect, I do 

[[Page H 6600]]
not believe that this bill ought to add to their wealth at the expense 
of the middle-class and the workers in this country and that is what I 
suggest this bill is doing.
  So, my colleagues can vote for it if they want, but do not pretend 
that the Brewster language is in here. It is not. They are taking the 
money which this House voted to use for deficit reduction and they are 
using it instead to finance tax cuts.
  That is why we will use the previous question on the rule to try to 
break the stranglehold which the majority party has on this process. 
And if we are able to defeat the previous question on the rule, we will 
offer an amendment to reinstitute the Brewster amendment which will 
require that all of the dollars that are saved in this package go for 
deficit reduction. That is where you voted to put it in the first 
place, that is where we tried to put it in the first place, and that is 
where it ought to go tonight and that is where I hope you are willing 
to put it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, when my colleague discussed the movement of 
wealth to the upper income earners in the 1980's, in order to get that 
adjustment we have to include 1979 and 1980 in that equation, because 
if we take 1979 and 1980 out and use only 1981 through 1989, we do not 
get that same equation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am using the numbers in the Federal Reserve 
gathered data. They selected the breakpoints. And, I mean, you can 
define it any way you want, but does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] really deny that worker income has gone down in this country 
while corporate profits have hit record highs?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that worker income has gone 
down. Most of that has to do with the increased tax burdens, the take-
home pay is eaten up by tax burdens.
  Would the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] agree that when we talk 
about the top 20 percent or the top half, we are talking about 
different people. We may talk about averages over a period of time, but 
the same people in the richest one-half or the one-tenth in 1990 were 
not the same people in 1980. For example, the richest person in the 
United States today was poor and broke in 1980.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the gentleman can cite 
any individual anomalies he desires, but all we have to do is ask the 
average worker on the street whether they think the rich have gotten 
richer while everybody else has stood still and we know that the answer 
will be. The answer will be, ``You betcha.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California, [Mr. Dreier] 
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rescission rule 
and frankly this rule would not even be needed if the rules of the 
House were being properly followed. Obviously, the fact is that they 
are not and this process is being abused.
  The Republicans have decided to use the rescission process to make 
political points. That is what is going on here. They decided to jam 
through a number of policy changes that require the rule and need 
protection under the rule, not to go through the normal authorization 
and enactment process between the House and Senate and, further, to 
hold the disaster assistance programs hostage to a selective number of 
cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important and should be recognized by 
all concerned that most of these cuts come out of a very select group 
of programs. Most of them, in fact, were targeted at the very programs 
that the new administration put in place after a long-fought battle in 
1993 and 1994; its programs like the National Service Program and Goals 
2000 that are proposed to be cut, which has been just partially 
restored in this particular equation today.
  But the fact is that the Republicans are negotiating with themselves. 
They are going down and saying, This is the list of proposals. This is 
what we are going to do. There is no agreement. They are saying, Let us 
try it this way, if we can get by with this set of changes.
  There was no negotiation with the minority in the initial instance of 
this rescission bill and this disaster bill and there is no negotiation 
today and there is no agreement with the House minority. And, 
furthermore, some of the provisions that are being put in here are 
egregious.
  They repeal decades of law that have stood and do work. The fact is 
with regards to the harvest program, the salvage program in the Pacific 
Northwest and across the country where this applies, it applies across 
the country, the fact is that a salvage forest health program and such 
policies have been put in place by the Clinton administration and 
Forest Chief Thomas, in December of 1994, before the GOP even assumed 
power.

                              {time}  1715

  And the fact is that such forest health program will work within 
limits. But what does this particular bill do? Well, this waives all 
the environmental laws. That is essentially correct--all environmental 
laws. A specific particular provision waives the Small Business Act so 
that they do not have to observe that. A particular provision in the 
bill waives the deficit timber sale which my colleague from Wisconsin 
is concerned about.
  That fact is that this particular provision in this bill will in the 
end cost money. Timber prices are high today, but if you look at this 
in the long term view, you recognize that forest health is not what is 
being pursued here. Forest health is the excuse not the goal in this 
measure. What is being pursued is a quick harvest of some timber, 
getting in the receipts, then we have to share 25 percent of the 
receipts with the local government, which, again, costs the Federal 
Government money, plus we do not even include road construction in the 
budget analysis of what goes on.
  Many of these areas are areas today that are roadless areas. They are 
roadless areas. It does not provide the other dollars needed to deal 
with the entire forest health question in terms of watershed
 restoration or selective tree harvest or thinning or reforestation, 
prescribed burning which are most of the elements that have to be done 
as part of forest health. So the quick buck, and then we pick up a big 
deficit down the road in dollars and lost natural resources.

  Plus, of course, I think it is important to know this will destroy, 
of course, a great legacy, a great American natural resource legacy in 
this country. This is one of the many steps being taken which represent 
an assault by this new majority on the environmental laws and on the 
natural resources of this Nation, and that is not what the people voted 
for in November, Mr. Speaker. They voted, I think, I think they thought 
they were voting for some people that had still a conservation ethic, 
but we have yet to see the conservation ethic in these so-called 
conservatives.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been one assault after the other on a whole 
series of environmental laws. The whole regulatory scheme tends to be 
that. This is an outrageous proposal that is before us. It is not one 
that has received compromise in terms of the overall rescission bill, 
the overall disaster assistance bill.
  We know those funds are desperately needed for the people in 
California. We also recognize they should not be coming out of the 
backs of those others that need these programs in education and social 
areas and senior citizens' heating programs across the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the timber salvage provision in this rescission bill had 
a bad odor the first time around and does not smell any better today. 
This provision is an outright assault on our public forests and 
environmental laws. There is absolutely no legitimate or desirable 
reason to go forth with the timber salvage provision. One can only 
conclude that this Congress is prepared to sell off our national 
forests to the timber industry.

[[Page H 6601]]

  This provision should be labeled for what it is--a boon to the timber 
industry, a revenue loser for the American taxpayer, and the permanent 
destruction of more of our American landscapes, the ecosystems and 
forest legacy.
  The timber salvage provision pretends to address forest health 
problems and reduce forest fire potential. However, both arguments are 
transparent cover for exploiting our forests when held up to the light 
of day. The fig leaves used to cover up and justify such action, should 
get the authors arrested for indecent exposure.
  This timber salvage language is simply a denial of the facts 
affecting forest ecosystems and the forest industry. Such an approach 
sacrifices long term common sense resource management for instant 
gratification--savaging not salvaging our national forests and costing 
precious taxpayer dollars and the legacy of future generations.
  Perhaps the ultimate affront to the American people is the way in 
which this bill has been handled. By attaching these unacceptable 
amendments to the rescissions bill, some of our colleagues are using 
legislative extortion to lard a supposed budget cutting bill with 
budget busting programs.
  These covert assaults on environmental protection have been a wake up 
call to citizens across the country who may have voted for change but 
did not vote for the exploitation and giveaway of their natural legacy. 
Passage of this bill would signal a serious problem about how our 
Government operates.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the great natural resource 
happens to be dead trees in those surrounding communities where the 
potential for fire is very great. They do not consider it a marvelous 
resource.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Sugar Land, 
TX [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished Republican whip and a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
appreciate the work that he is doing.
  Frankly, I respect the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. He really 
believes in the world as he sees it. I just see it from a different 
pair of eyes, and I think the American people do, too, as evidenced in 
the election last November.
  The gentleman said the people, or he thought the people voted the way 
they did to make the two parties work together. I do not think that was 
it at all. I think the American people saw the party that was in power 
was driving them into such debt that they rejected everything that they 
stand for and did a historic thing and put the Republicans in power for 
the first time in 40 years.
  This whole process that we find ourselves in now is a perfect example 
of that. It is a perfect example of that. The President of the United 
States, in trying to become relevant to this process, presented to this 
body a request to pay for some disaster relief in California, and then 
the Oklahoma City disaster happened during the process, so he added 
that and other things that we desperately needed to pay for.
  This body, under a new majority, took advantage of the situation to 
take care of some rescissions and spending that needed to be corrected 
this year. A lot of the spending in these rescissions are spending that 
would never be done this year, so we took advantage of that and set 
that aside, huge accounts in the HUD account that have been building up 
over the years but not obligated; a lot of this money is funds that 
cannot be obligated by the end of September. So we took advantage of 
that.
  We sent the President a bill that got some significant real savings, 
and along with paying for, and always paying for, not adding to the 
deficit, those kinds of relief problems.
  So we got to this point, and the President vetoes the bill, not out 
of substance, out of politics, out of politics. The President wanted to 
become relevant. He knew he was irrelevant in this process because he 
has chosen to be irrelevant, because he has not been part of the 
negotiation process of this bill. They have not told us what they 
wanted except to pay for this disaster relief. So the President vetoes 
and says, ``I want all of this good spending, like adult job 
training.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have got hundreds of adult job training programs that 
are going on and were not stopped under the rescission bill, but the 
President wanted to add another $40 million. He wanted Goals 2000. Most 
of the American people are against Goals 2000. So he puts in another 
$60 million. Safe and drug-free schools, that may be okay. He tried to 
put back midnight basketball, something the American people 
overwhelmingly oppose. He wanted $10 million for that. And I could go 
on through this, safe-drinking-water money, $225 million. That cannot 
possibly be spent between now and the end of September. But he wanted 
to be the safe-drinking-water President.
  This is a headline President and the talking point President. When 
you look under what he is talking about, you see there is no substance 
there at all. It is all politics.
  Then he started pounding his chest about too much pork in this bill, 
had a bunch of Federal courthouses in here, ``and I want to eliminate 
it.'' We asked him
 where are the courthouses? He has never yet given us a list of the 
courthouses.

  Do you know what the President wanted? $348 million cut out of the 
rescission bill and hand over to give the General Services 
Administration the opportunity to pick and choose where they think the 
courthouses ought to be cut. That is not the way the process works.
  So now we find ourselves trying to pass a bill that gives us $9.2 
billion worth of real savings to the American family, plus an extra $30 
million in change and give back the President the opportunity to do 
some of his pork and his spending programs that have not proven to be 
effective, and he is still against the bill and still will not tell us 
what he is for.
  That is not relevancy, ladies and gentlemen, it is not cutting 
spending to finance tax cuts. It is cutting spending to downsize the 
size of this Government so the American family can hang on to more of 
their hard-earned dollars.
  The reason the family is having problems, Mr. Speaker, is that they 
are paying 52 percent of their income to the Government.
  Support the rule and support the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I oppose this legislation 
for a number of reasons. But I have one that is parochial to Montana, 
and maybe to any of you who have visited Montana or any of you that 
care about that place which Americans call the last best place. That 
isn't our name for Montana, by the way. We call it Big Sky country. But 
Americans have called it the last best place. When we Montanans say 
that, we say it, not only with pride, but also with some sorrow.
  One of the reasons Montana is the last best place is because we still 
have enormous wilderness areas out there, untrammeled, unroaded, with 
the great remaining wild land animals migrating and habitating through 
them and in them.
  When this bill first came through the House, I though there was 
simply an error in it, because it placed, naked to logging, a million 
acres of Montana that this House has voted to place in wilderness. We 
did so because the land had the highest characteristics of wilderness. 
Republicans and Democrats, as early as just a year ago in this House, 
voted overwhelmingly, 300 of us and more, to place 1,100,000 acres 
under protection from logging, and now this bill would open those areas 
to logging.
  I do not think you could find 2 dozen Members of this House who would 
do that. And so we went to the Republican leadership. We tried to get 
them to change it. They would not do it. We went to the White House. I 
went to the White House. The White House agreed. The administration 
thought it was just an error and asked for compromise but they were 
refused.
  Now, let me further explain. The 1,100,000 acres that this House has 
voted to protect from logging has not become law. But do we really want 
our prerogative removed to eventually declare these areas wilderness or 
otherwise protect them. The answer is ``no.'' This House does not want 
to do that.
  Yet this bill removes our prerogative by allowing logging in those 
areas. If 

[[Page H 6602]]
you came with me, I say to both sides of the aisle, and flew over or 
walked through those areas, you would come back here and say, ``This 
bill is a mistake. We should not have done it.'' And yet we are going 
to do it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. You mentioned this bill would allow us 
to log the salvage harvest in wilderness or areas designated as 
wilderness.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not say that. This is important to 
understand. I said areas this House has voted to put in wilderness but 
have not yet been signed into law.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, those 
areas would be designated areas.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Brevard, NC [Mr. Taylor], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement, 
and I do not doubt his sincerity, is wrong. I authored this bill, and 
it does not affect areas of wilderness or areas designated as 
wilderness, and the Secretary, if he has any idea that this House has 
acted on any wilderness, we cannot do salvage timber in it. Salvage can 
only be performed in that small 20 to 25 percent of the national forest 
where harvest is now allowed, and that is not allowed in areas either 
set aside as wildernesses or designated as wilderness.
  Let me go on, because I want to move on with two other particular 
points.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. If the gentleman will yield, I will just tell the 
gentleman that is not the issue. The issue is the gentleman is missing 
the point.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. First of all, the cry for the 
environment is really hollow. If you go downstairs and look at 
Brandeis's quote on stone, it says, ``The greatest threat to liberty, 
lives, and the efforts of men of zeal, well-meaning but without 
understanding,'' and I have never seen a situation as misunderstood as 
this salvage bill. We all know that we make products from wood. All 
these desks and chairs and so forth can be made from wood, plastic, or 
steel. If we do away with our forest harvest program in this country, 
that is the ultimate goal, then we must rely on finite products, and 
plastic must be oil we bring into the country, imported, we spill it 
two or three times along the way. How can that be a plus for the 
environment?
  We are now harvesting 16 billion board feet, a third of our forest 
products from sensitive environmental areas all over the world. What 
about the great hue and cry about rainforest? That is where a lot of 
our 16 billion board feet are coming from. We have no control over 
that.
  We do have substantial control in our own forest, and a great many 
environmental controls. The forest health is a third important goal 
that we are going after. North Carolina State University, a respected 
university, with the largest school of forestry, over 100 years of 
silvicultural study and the largest extension program, recently pointed 
out in a statement that this salvage amendment is absolutely for forest 
health.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from 
California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1992 and again in 1994, millions of Americans went to 
the polls and demanded fundamental change in what they called politics 
as usual. In 1992 they turned out an incumbent President, gave him only 
38 percent of their vote. In 1994, as we well know, they turned out the 
majority in the House of Representatives and gave it to the new 
majority.
  I wonder what those voters would say if they understood what was in 
this rule that is before us this afternoon. I wonder what they would 
say if they knew that their majority was about to spend $7 billion and 
cut $16 billion in a bill that was not even on this floor this morning 
when we went about our business, and many of us are reading it for the 
first time right now. I wonder what they would say if they knew that an 
important question which we just heard some debate about between the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams], about whether or not to log on federally owned 
lands, whether to permit timber practice on federally owned lands was 
not even going to be debated in this bill, that there will be one 
single up-down vote on the whole bill, and the debate that the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Taylor] had will not get a vote, because the rule does 
not permit it.
  I wonder what they would say if they knew that this bill took money 
out of the program that we used to help senior citizens pay their 
heating bill and their air-conditioning bill.
                              {time}  1730

  At the same time it forgives a $275 million loan owed to the United 
States by the Government of Jordan. I wonder what they would say if 
they heard, Mr. Speaker, that we could not debate and take a separate 
vote on that. I think they would say that that is politics as usual. I 
think they would say that is exactly what they voted against in 1992 
and 1994.
  I do not know what the right answers are to those questions, Mr. 
Speaker, but I sure do know that those questions should be debated on 
this floor and voted on this floor, and my colleagues know, and I know, 
they will not be under the terms of this rule, and that, Mr. Speaker, 
is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this suppressive and 
wrong-headed rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, Deficit hawks, if 
you were moved by the Budget Committee chairman's speech on the 
conference report on the budget resolution, as I was, you'll love this. 
We can do more to enact real and fair deficit reduction in this bill 
than we could in that one. How? By defeating the previous question so 
that the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment can be made in 
order.
  Please join our effort. Otherwise another opportunity will be missed 
to allow our colleagues to vote on spending cuts that actually reduce 
the Federal deficit.
  Let me cite an example for my colleagues. During Tuesday's 
consideration of the foreign operations appropriation bill, Mr. 
Speaker, our colleagues support cuts totaling $65.069 million. 
Regrettably not one penny went to deficit reduction. Instead, under the 
budget rules, the funds freed up by these cut amendments will be 
reallocated by the Committee on Appropriations on other spending 
programs. I say to my colleagues, When you add in the $20-plus million 
in cuts we made in the military construction appropriations bill and 
yesterday's cuts, those cuts total over a hundred million dollars that 
don't go to deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, we voted on the lockbox in March on a bill similar to 
the one we are considering now. The House vote was 418 to 5, including 
all members of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to defeat the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that makes in order the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox 
amendment in place of the weaker version contained in section 2003 and 
2004 of this bill.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. It is the only way to get a 
vote in the House on the real lockbox.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendment we 
would offer at this point:

                   amemdment to house resolution 176

       On page 2, line 8 strike ``tions. That amendment'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following: ``tions and an 
     amendment offered by Representative Brewster of Oklahoma and 
     Representative Harman of California. Those amendments''
       On page 2, line 11, strike ``that amendment'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``those amendments''.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Atlanta, GA [Mr. Linder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the problem with cutting back on spending is 


[[Page H 6603]]
nobody wants to cut. We all talk about it, but nobody wants to cut, to 
cut. The gentleman from New Jersey said, ``Just think. We're cutting 
heating oil help for the elderly to give away money to Jordan.'' The 
heating oil help for the elderly was a 1979 program for a temporary 
relief when the oil prices were way up. The oil prices are today below 
where they were then, but we cannot even cut that program out now. Now 
it is an entitlement.
  The loan foregiveness to Jordan was negotiated by the Secretary of 
State. It is part of the peace process with Israel. It was signed by 
this President. Indeed the President did not think we forgave at all, 
and he was very upset, and called Israel, and complained about the 
Republicans in Congress not doing what he wanted to keep the process 
going, and I know that the gentleman from New Jersey is in support of 
the peace process with Israel and the Middle East because I heard him 
talk about it to two Jewish groups myself.
  We simply have to get away from protecting individual programs and 
begin to cut spending for our children's future.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I really think that this is an 
historical bill. First of all, we are still trying to find out what it 
really says because it just got here. There are 119 pages. But as I 
glance through this summary, and, if it is wrong, I wish somebody would 
point it out, I must say we really need to vote down this rule and get 
to correcting it.
  No. 1, it appears from my summary that we are still taking $50 
million out of veterans' medical care, $50 million, and this is the 
week where people came to the floor and talked about the flag. This is 
the year where everybody has been celebrating World War II celebrations 
and all of these things. But as I look at this list, what we are doing 
is taking away from medical installations around this country much-
needed equipment that keeps them in the state-of-the-art health care 
for people who put their health and their lives on the line for this 
great country and this great flag.
  So, as my colleagues know, this is the substance of what this flag 
stands for, that when we tell veterans we are going to take care of 
them, we are really taking care of them, we do not get rid of it.
  Well, the first thing that jumps off the page at me is that, and I do 
not see anybody disputing that that is wrong, so I guess that is true.
  I also see us going after education big-time in here. I see that we 
are continuing to zero out the math and science training, the 
technology----
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, because at the 
request of the President actually this increases the money for adult 
job training, School to Work, Goals 2000, which is an education 
program, safe and drug-free schools, drug courts, the phases, TRIO, the 
child-care block grant program. With the Goals 2000 it is specifically 
education.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Reclaiming my time, mine shows--it says that it was 
not cut as much as it was the last time. In other words, instead of 
cutting it $92 million, it was only cut $32 million.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. This still cuts $574 million from education.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is exactly how I read it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield the 
balance of our time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Torkildsen], a very able Member of this Congress.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding this time to me and allowing me to close. I rise to 
support the rule, and do so with a perspective that might be different 
from most Republicans.
  I say to my colleagues, ``You might remember that first rescission 
package I voted against. I identified two key provisions of it, LIHEAP, 
low-income heating assistance, and summer jobs, that were important to 
my district, and after voting against that, I worked with the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations to restore those in the conference 
report. We restored those in the conference report, and so I voted for 
that compromise version.''
  But while I was willing to identify the cuts that I though we should 
make and the spending that I thought we should keep, President Clinton 
still has not signed his name to a package of spending cuts that he 
would support. He keeps saying things like, well, he likes the Senate 
version better, but he will not say what cuts he will support, what $9 
billion, or $10 billion, or whatever number he likes. So the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations has been negotiating, but not able 
to make progress.
  So, when I listen to my friend on the other side of the aisle saying, 
well, we wanted this point change and that point change, I say, ``Why 
don't you go to the President and ask him to include those in whatever 
spending-cut bill he would like to recommend, because as of this point 
in time the President has not signed onto any spending cut at all.''
  I applaud the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for going 
the extra mile, saying we will give the President some of the things he 
said he would like to increase spending on, but for our children's 
future we have to cut spending.
  So I would ask all Members to vote yes on the rule, vote yes on the 
rescission package itself, a first step to protecting our children.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman 
from California is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge the Members to vote 
against the rule and against the previous question. It is an unfair 
rule, it is a closed rule, and, if the previous question is defeated, 
we shall offer, as Members have heard, an alternative rule that makes 
in order the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote for this very fair 
and balanced rule, and the conference report, and the previous 
question, and on any other procedural vote they might request on the 
other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 194, not voting 4, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 459]

                               YEAS--236

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     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
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     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)

[[Page H 6604]]

     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
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     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
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     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
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     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)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     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
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Durbin
     Largent
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1801

  Mr. SOLOMON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote whereby the 
previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Did the 
gentleman vote on the prevailing side?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Beilenson moves to reconsider the vote on which the 
     previous question was ordered.


                 motion to table offered by mr. dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid 
on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] to lay on the table the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 193, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 460]

                               AYES--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     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
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     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)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     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
     Roemer
     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
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     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)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler

[[Page H 6605]]

     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Duncan
     Durbin
     Hastert
     Largent
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1819

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  

                          ____________________