[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6885-H6894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1977, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 185 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for
      the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill 
     for failure to comply with section 302(f), 306, or 308(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     bill shall be considered by title rather than by 
     paragraph. Each title shall be considered as read. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. The 
     amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. All points of order against the amendment 
     printed in section 3 of this resolution are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of 
     the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in 
     clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be 
     considered as read. Points of order against amendments for 
     failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole is as follows:
       Page 57, line 21, strike ``:Provided further'' and all that 
     follows through ``Act'' on page 58, line 2.
       Page 75, line 24, strike ``equivalent to'' and insert ``not 
     to exceed''.
       Sec. 3. The amendment against which all points of order are 
     waived is one offered by Representative Schaefer of Colorado 
     or Representative Tauzin of Louisiana as follows:
       Page 57, line 11, strike ``:Provided'' and all that follows 
     through ``Reserve'' on line 21.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Ms. PRYCE asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule to the floor 
of the House today. It is not an overly complex or unique rule, and I 
believe it keeps faith with the new majority's pledge to consider major 
legislation in a manner which is reasonable, open, and fair to both 
sides of the aisle.
  First, this rule is completely open. After an hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, the bill will be open to 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The rule provides that the bill shall be read by title, rather than 
by paragraph, and that each title shall be considered as read.
  Under this open rule, any Member can be heard on any germane 
amendment at the appropriate time, provided it is consistent with the 
standing rules of the House. I would point out to our colleagues that 
of the five regular appropriations bills which have come before the 
Rules Committee thus far, this is the fourth open rule granted by the 
committee.
  Second, the rule provides a limited, but necessary number of waivers 
which reflects the close cooperation between the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee and the proper authorizing committees.
  For example, since authorizing legislation for several programs 
within the bill has not yet been approved by the House, the rule 
provides the necessary waivers of clause 2 of rule XXI(21), which 
prohibits unauthorized provisions. Let me stress that this was done in 
close coordination with the will of the authorizing committees.
  The rule also waives provisions of the Budget Act against 
consideration of the bill which deals with new entitlement authority 
and with matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Budget 
Committee. To address these concerns, the rule provides for the 
automatic adoption of an amendment printed in the rule, which is 
included at the suggestion of the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Finally, the rule waives points of order against the amendment 
printed in the rule relating to the sale of oil from the strategic 
petroleum reserve, if offered by Representative Schaefer of Colorado or 
Representative Tauzin of Louisiana.
  As in previous rules this year, priority in recognition is accorded 
to Members who have printed their amendments in the Congressional 
Record prior to their consideration.
  Giving Members the option of preprinting amendments for their 
colleagues to review in advance merely enhances the deliberative 
process, Mr. Speaker, and I hope Members will continue to take 
advantage of this useful tool in the future.
  One final note on amendments, the rule waives clause 2(e) of rule 
XXI(21), relating to nonemergency amendments offered to a bill which 
contains an emergency designation.
  We have also included one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1977 is a very responsible piece of legislation, 
and I congratulate my colleague from Ohio, Chairman Ralph Regula, for 
his leadership in trying to balance the need for meaningful deficit 
reduction with the need to protect and enhance our Nation's natural and 
cultural resources.
  As we heard in the Rules Committee yesterday, this bill responds to 
the mandate of the American people to reduce the size and cost of 
Government by cutting overall spending by more than 11 percent from the 
1995 spending levels.
  To achieve these savings, the bill recommends that a number of 
existing agencies or programs be terminated, consolidated, or funded at 
significantly lower levels on the assumption that they will be phased-
out in the near term. H.R. 1977 is more than $1.5 billion below last 
year's level, and is consistent with the 7-year balanced budget 
resolution passed by the House this year.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule before us today is both 
fair and open. House Resolution 185 was reported unanimously by the 
Rules Committee yesterday, and it will allow our Members to participate 
most fully in the deliberative process.
  I urge its adoption, and encourage our colleagues to use this open 
amendment process responsibly, and productively.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following data for the Record:


[[Page H 6886]]
  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 11, 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                 32                 71
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 12                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  1                  2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 45                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 May 12, 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 (2/10/
                                                                   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. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
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/    O...................  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. 1517...........  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/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.                           

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. PRYCE. 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 oppose this rule, and we urge Members to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to make in order 
the Brewster-Harman deficit-reduction lockbox amendment.
  We do appreciate the fact that this bill is open to any amendment 
that is otherwise eligible to be offered under the standing rules of 
the House. Members should be aware that, as many previous rules this 
year have provided, this rule permits the Chair to accord priority in 
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record.
  However, House Resolution 185 is a relatively complex rule for an 
appropriations bill. It waives several House rules for provisions in 
H.R. 1977, as well as several sections of the Budget Act against 
consideration of the bill. The rule also contains a self-executing 
amendment, and it waives points of order against an amendment to be 
offered by Representative Shaefer or Tauzin, relating to the sale of 
oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The rule provides blanket waivers of clause 2 and clause 6 of rule 
XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation in an 
appropriations bill, and prohibiting reappropriations in an 
appropriations bill. We recognize that, because Congress does not 
always complete action on the relevant authorization bills in a timely 
manner, it is often necessary to waive the prohibition against 
unauthorized appropriations. In addition, there are often valid reasons 
for protecting legislative language in an appropriations bill.
  We approve of the fact that the majority is generally following the 
practice--a practice that was established when Democratic members were 
in the majority--of providing waivers for legislation or unauthorized 
appropriations only in cases where the relevant authorizing committee 
chairman agrees to those waivers. In past years, we found that this 
practice was the most fair and practicable way of moving appropriations 
bills through the House in a timely manner, while still protecting the 
prerogatives of authorizing committees. It appears that our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle--despite their past criticism of waiving 
rule XXI--have now reached the same conclusion.

[[Page H 6887]]

  Unfortunately, that same policy has not been extended to ranking 
minority members. I would note that the senior Democratic member of the 
Resources Committee, Mr. Miller of California, strongly objects to 
waiving the prohibition on legislation in an appropriations bill for 
provisions in H.R. 1977 that directly or indirectly amend laws under 
the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. He noted in a letter to 
the Rules Committee that the Resources Committee had not considered the 
impact of changes that H.R. 1977 would make on a number of major 
environmental laws.
  The rule also waives three sections of the Budget Act against 
consideration of the bill. Two of the waivers are needed to cover the 
salaries and expenses of the National Capital Planning Commission, 
which is a minuscule amount of spending. A third waiver covers a change 
in budget scorekeeping related to the sale of oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  As a matter of principle, we are normally reluctant to waive the 
Budget Act. However, because none of the provisions which require these 
waivers would have any real impact on our efforts to control spending, 
we do not consider the waivers here to be significant violations of the 
Budget Act.
  An additional budget-related waiver contained in the rule is the 
waiver of clause 2(e) of rule XXI, which prohibits the consideration of 
nonemergency amendments to be offered to a bill containing an emergency 
designation under the Budget Act against amendments to the bill. H.R. 
1977 contains at lest two such emergency designations but, without this 
waiver, no amendments to the bill could be considered.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we could have had a more evenhanded rule, and 
probably a better outcome for the bill, had the majority accepted three 
amendments we offered to the rule in the Rules Committee yesterday.
  One amendment would have allowed Representatives Rahall and Klug to 
offer an amendment to the bill that would renew the existing moratorium 
on new mining patent applications. A second amendment would have 
permitted Representatives Brewster and Harman to offer an amendment to 
apply any savings from spending cuts to a deficit-reduction lockbox. 
Both of these amendments would have required some of the same waivers 
that the rule already provides for provisions in the bill; as a matter 
of fairness, the majority should have been willing to provide waivers 
for these amendments as well, we believe.
  And, in fact, as I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, if the 
previous question is defeated, we shall amend the rule to provide for 
consideration of the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment.
  The third amendment would have removed a waiver provided by the rule 
for language relating to the use of wildlife fees under the Emergency 
Wetlands Resources Act. Objection to this waiver was made by 
Representative Young, chairman of the Resources Committee, as well as 
Representative Dingell. Normally, the Rules Committee would accede to 
such an objection if it is made by the chairman of the relevant 
authorizing committee; in this case, for reasons not well explained to 
us yesterday, the majority decided not to do so.
  Beyond our concerns about the rule itself, many of us have strong 
objections to the bill this rule makes in order, primarily because of 
the bill's deep cuts in funding for many important and useful 
programs--programs that cost very little for the immense value they add 
to the quality of the lives of tens of millions of American citizens.
  We realize that the subcommittee on Interior had an extremely 
difficult task in determining just how to cut 12 percent of the funding 
for programs under its jurisdiction, especially since many of those 
programs have already been squeezed in recent years. But the 
subcommittee was in that position only because the Republican majority 
has imposed budget priorities that do not serve the best interests of 
our Nation. Those priorities are forcing us to cut next year's funding 
for the relatively modest programs in this bill, for example, by $1\1/
2\ billion, so that we can fritter away hundreds of billions of dollars 
over the next several years on unnecessary increases in military 
spending, and on tax cuts that will mainly benefit the wealthiest among 
us.
  These program cuts will cost our Nation dearly in countless ways:
  The bill's 27-percent cut in energy conservation programs will mean a 
slowdown in the progress we have been making toward reducing our 
Nation's dependence on imported oil, as well as the cost of energy;
  The cut of all but a nominal amount of funding for land acquisition 
for national parks, and other public lands, will mean that there will 
be less opportunity in the future for Americans to enjoy the 
experiences our national parks have to offer;
  The 40-percent cut in funding for the National Endowments for the 
Arts and Humanities--the first step of a 3-year phaseout of both 
organizations--will mean that fewer Americans will be able to enjoy the 
very many cultural benefits these organizations have made possible;
  And, the elimination of funding for prelisting and listing activities 
for endangered species will greatly impair our ability to save animal 
and plant species before they reach critical levels, and the result is 
likely to be the decline, and possible extinction, of many more 
species.
  In these, and many other ways, the natural and cultural resources, 
resources of our Nation--resources that help make the United States the 
greatest nation on Earth--will be severely harmed by this bill. In this 
misguided attempt to save a modest amount of taxpayers' dollars, we 
will be robbing our Nation of some of its greatest strengths and 
assests.
  Mr. Speaker, again, we urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can amend the rule to allow consideration of the 
Brewster-Harman deficit-reduction lockbox amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Legislative and the Budget Process.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Columbus, OH [Ms. 
Pryce] for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of this remarkable open rule. I would point out to 
my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] we indeed 
are proceeding under the lockbox. Our subcommittee has already had 
hearings. We are diligently pursuing that. Things are happening. Under 
this resolution, the House will consider H.R. 1977, which is a 
remarkable open rule. The fiscal 1996 Interior appropriations bill is 
what it is about. It is under a completely open amending process.
  Now, this in itself is not remarkable, I agree, since all but one of 
the appropriations bills this year has come to the floor under an open 
rule. However, what is remarkable about this rule is it is the first 
reported by our committee since the July 4 break, and what is 
remarkable is the decision to continue granting open rules.
  We do this in good faith and with full regard to protecting the 
deliberative debate process for each and every Member despite the 
recent what I would call guerrilla campaign, to quote the newspapers, 
of dilatory tactics by some Members of this body.
  I am pleased, and I think most of our Members are pleased, that a 
sense of comity has indeed been restored to the floor, and I hope we 
continue our work on these important bills which are the vital business 
of our Nation under a workable open process.
  Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is an especially 
important bill for our Nation and for Florida as well. It includes 
vital Everglades restoration money, which will complement the State of 
Florida's efforts to protect additional lands in or near the national 
park, and funding that will allow the Park Service to fix some of the 
hydrology problems in the park, to begin to restore the natural 
historical sheet flow to the legendary river of grass.
  Also vital to Florida's economy is the annual outer continental shelf 
oil and gas exploration moratorium, which protects our fragile 
coastline from devastating oil pollution. While I recognize the early 
moratorium is not the 

[[Page H 6888]]
best way to accomplish this goal, it is necessary while we work on a 
better long-term solution.
  This year's Interior bill is not all good news. Many important 
programs have been drastically scaled back, as my friend from 
California has noted. Land and water conservation funds, for instance, 
used to fund land acquisition in our wildlife areas and elsewhere have 
been reduced by over 70 percent. This is a big hit.
  But I understand the overriding need to balance our budget, and I 
applaud the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work trying 
to craft a reasonable solution, which is this bill.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this rule, which provides for 
full debate, which is what I think the Committee on Rules should be 
proud of, and I urge the support for this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We have had quite a discussion of the need to cut, need to get the 
budget balanced, and as a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. I 
agree there. We have got to do it with a certain sense of priority.
  We have also got to realize there are two ways to get a balanced 
budget. One is to make cuts, and the other is to raise revenues.
  What this rule and consideration of this bill specifically prohibits 
is an egregious loophole which is being used by foreign corporations 
and by large corporations in America; that is, the giving away of the 
mineral lands of the western United States for $2.50 an acre.
  Just last year a Canadian corporation which pays no income taxes in 
the United States, they do pay some employee taxes, but no income 
taxes, got a $10 billion resource for $9,700. That is the return to the 
U.S. taxpayers.
  Now, if we are really serious, we would allow an amendment to this 
bill that would allow us to raise revenues to offset some of the unwise 
cuts in this budget.
  What are the unwise cuts? Well, for example, we are going to 
eliminate the Bureau of Mines of the United States of America at the 
same time that we are allowing foreign corporations to come here and 
buy our precious mineral resources at $2.50 an acre. We are eliminating 
the United States Bureau of Mines, something that has been in existence 
for more than 100 years, an agency that has already been reformed, an 
agency which has cut its budget 20 percent in the last 2 years, an 
agency which helps develop the conservative use of these mineral 
resources, the safe environmental use of these resources.

                              {time}  1915

  They provide technical expertise to our small miners and prospectors. 
They work on safe extraction techniques for the people who work in the 
mines. They have developed restoration plans for bad mining practices 
that went on earlier in this century. They have developed ways to 
classify solid waste. They have developed ways to do in situ 
purification of heavily polluted waters.
  No, we are going to eliminate them. We are going to eliminate the 
United States Bureau of Mines because we would not want to ask a 
foreign corporation like American Barrick to pay the American taxpayers 
a fair return for the extraction of those depletable mineral revenues, 
and under this bill we will not be allowed to ask those foreign 
corporations to pay, no. We will eliminate an essential agency, a vital 
function, investment of the United States Government before we will ask 
a foreign corporation to pay a penny.
  We do not get the same privilege in their country. They should not 
get it for free here.
  We are cutting other vital investments in this bill. We are cutting 
investments in State and private forestry. We are cutting investments 
in the O and C lands in the Western United States. We are cutting 
investment in the National Forest System management. We do not have 
enough money now to develop the plan proposed by the administration to 
manage the Federal forest lands in the Western United States or to 
begin a deliberate program of forest health recovery across the lands 
that are ravaged in the inner Mountain States, in eastern Oregon, and 
other States.
  We need more investment, and it is the place to get it, but it is not 
allowed under this bill.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in favor of this rule tonight. This rule is an 
open rule. It allows amendments to cut or strike any program, any 
program that someone does not like. They can feel free to offer an 
amendment to reduce the funds. They can feel free to offer an amendment 
to eliminate the funding and let the argument stand on its merits. But 
by defeating this rule, it will not allow a lot of issues to be 
debated, and the reason for this is because, as often happens, the 
authorizing process has not caught up with the appropriations process 
yet, however this bill does conform to the authorized levels as they 
are pending at this moment.
  I think that is important to stress. Regardless of anyone's views on 
different programs within this appropriations bill, I think I would 
hope that all Members would agree they should be openly debated on this 
floor and let the majority of this body work its will.
  Now there are a couple of programs that I think are very important. I 
know some Members here are planning on voting against this rule because 
they are opposed to the NEA and the NEH. I would say it would be a 
severe mistake if Members vote against this rule because they hope to 
kill those programs. Members can move to strike those programs if they 
wish; that is allowed for under this rule, but I would hope that we 
would keep the funding levels for them. As many Members would know, NEA 
and NEH have been reduced in funding under this appropriations bill. 
They are taking a substantial reduction, a reduction of a third this 
year in the case of NEH. People who want to attack those programs, if 
that is their opinion, they can do so by offering an amendment, but 
please do not try a back-door approach to this because that will 
prevent those issues from being voted on on their merits up or down.
  Again I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this rule is an open rule. It allows 
every Member the chance to offer amendments to reduce or cut. Please do 
not take a back-door approach to try to scuttle programs and prevent 
debate on their merits.
  I hope the rule is adopted.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, deficit hawks, freshman Members, lockbox 
supporters, Members of the House, this is a lockbox. It looks a lot 
like another box over there, a brown one that says Solomon on it. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is a wise man, as was King 
Solomon of ancient days, and I am sure that his box is full of many 
wise documents.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this lockbox is empty. It does not contain the 
savings that derive from the many cuts we have made to the 
appropriations bills we have already debated. Imagine this. Those cuts 
amount to so far $131.58 million. In fact just yesterday and today, Mr. 
Speaker, four amendments were adopted to the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act totaling $20.48 million. That brings the 
total to $131 million. That money will not go to deficit reduction 
because we do not have the lockbox as part of this appropriations bill 
under this rule or the three previous appropriations bills.
  In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on 
Appropriations scooped up not only the $130 million in cuts we have 
passed, but other unused 602(b) spending allocations. It gave some of 
its subcommittees increased spending allocations and put more than $805 
million in an unallocated 602(b) reserve, not a lockbox, a reserve. I 
say to my colleagues, When you add all this together, we are close to 
$1 billion in unused spending or spending cuts that will not go to 
deficit reduction. I call this hypocrisy.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield since she has 
called the appropriators hypocrites?

[[Page H 6889]]

  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, did the gentlewoman vote for the budget 
resolution?
  Ms. HARMAN. Did I vote for the budget resolution 2 days ago?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes.
  Ms. HARMAN. No.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Why not? The budget resolution calls for a decline in 
the deficit to the point that by the year 2002 the entire budget 
deficit will be eliminated.
  Now is the gentlewoman not for budget reduction?
  Ms. HARMAN. I certainly am for budget reduction, and I am a supporter 
of the balanced budget amendment and a supporter of the 7-year balanced 
budget sponsored by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I suggest, if the gentlewoman would yield, she should 
use the word ``hypocrite'' very carefully.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would agree that the gentleman has made a 
point, and, as a Member here who tries to operate on a bipartisan 
basis, I agree with that.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this:
  My point is that almost $1 billion in spending cuts and unused 
spending will not go to deficit reduction because the deficit lockbox, 
which was supported on this floor earlier this spring by 418 Members 
and only opposed by 5, cannot be offered as an amendment to this 
appropriations bill. It is precluded under this rule as it was 
precluded in the rules for the three previous appropriations bills. On 
that basis, without reference to the word hypocrisy but with reference 
to the word candor to the American people, I would urge a defeat of the 
previous question.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules and the author of this most fair and open rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I wish the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman] would not leave the floor because she 
knows I have great respect for her, and she has worked with us on a 
bipartisan basis, but I am more than a little taken aback because there 
has been a all-out effort on both sides of the aisle to really bring 
this lockbox concept into reality. We have been working together. The 
Committee on Rules and our subcommittee, the Government Operations 
Committee and the Committee on the Budget have held hearings in which 
the gentlewoman was invited to participate and to testify, and we all 
know that in the Crapo lockbox legislation, which is a Republican 
initiative, there are problems that need to be worked out so that we 
can make it work. There are problems with the Brewster-Harman approach 
which need to be worked out. We have to do it on a bipartisan basis.
  The gentlewoman knows that we now are almost to the point of coming 
up with a consensus bill which I am sure she is going to agree to, and 
I am going to agree to, and we will hold another hearing on this, we 
will bring it to the floor in the form of a bill. We will do two 
things. We will bring it to the floor as a piece of legislation so that 
that can be debated and amended, if necessary, and then given to the 
President for his signature. Now that may never get past the other body 
because there is over in the other body a bird over there, and the bird 
is going to oppose anything like this, and we all know it. So, in 
tandem approach, which we have agreed to and we have worked on a 
bipartisan basis we also want to take this finally agreed to consensus 
piece of legislation and attach it to whatever appropriation bill is on 
the floor at the time, the next one that is available. We will make it 
not only retroactive, we will make it inclusive for all of the 
appropriation bills so that any action that has been taken thus far and 
will be taken in the future on these 13 appropriation bills, all of 
those cuts will end up in that lockbox.
  Ms. HARMAN, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about what the gentleman 
is saying. It is correct that on a bipartisan basis we are working to 
deal with the remaining technical issues.
  It is the first time that I have heard that the lockbox would be 
retroactive. That is excellent. Retroactivity can deal with the issue I 
have raised today and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and I 
have raised day after day in appearing before the Rules Committee. We 
are concerned that $130 million plus $800 million might escape the 
lockbox, and what the gentleman has just said about retroactivity is 
extremely reassuring.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, it is, and just for example:
  One of the problems we have is that we end up not comparing apples to 
apples. We end up with apples and oranges, and we cannot do that, but 
what we want to work to is so that the final conference report, 
whatever that level of spending is--in other words that locks it in. We 
lower those caps. That means the money never gets spent and the savings 
are there for the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding this time to me, and I would simply like to ask 
my very good friend from the Palos Verdes Peninsula if in light of this 
strong statement that has come from the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules if she would now be inclined to support us on this 
open rule which is very fair and balanced and will, in fact, be 
inclusive of the lockbox provision once we come up with a bipartisan 
compromise.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate the request, and I will consider the 
request, and I certainly do see progress here. I am extremely 
encouraged by the statements that were just made, and I would just like 
to commend the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] since he was mentioned. 
He is a classmate of mine, and he and I and many others have worked on 
this issue for over 2\1/2\ years, through two Congresses. The lockbox 
has wide popularity in this body and enormous popularity with the 
public. I think that if we can enact a real lockbox, as you have just 
described it, we will have done a great service for the American 
people. We will be well on the way to balancing the budget which we all 
support.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, if I could, let me make an appeal to 
the gentlewoman because there is a lot riding on this.
  As my colleague knows, we only have something like 13 legislative 
days, and maybe it is even less than that now, before the August 4 
district work period break. We have to deal with these appropriation 
bills. If this Interior appropriation rule goes down tonight, I am 
going to tell the gentlewoman, it is going to jeopardize not only a 
telecommunication bill, if you are interested in that, an antiterrorism 
bill, if you are interested in that, or a banking and regulatory reform 
bill, if you are interested in that, because we are losing time that 
cannot be recovered. I even don't know how, if we pass this Interior 
rule tonight, how we are going to finish it by tomorrow night.
  So I am just going to say to the gentlewoman she knows we are sincere 
in wanting to bring a lockbox bill to this floor. I am satisfied it is 
going to meet her satisfaction, it is certainly going to meet Mr. 
Crapo's and therefore the gentlewoman ought to support this rule 
tonight, and let us have faith in each other in solving this problem.
  Ms. HARMAN. Let me just finally answer the gentleman that I may well 
do it, and let me state, further, that I am very concerned about the 
reason some others may oppose the previous question or the rule which 
is to eliminate any funding for the NEA and the NEH, actions I strongly 
oppose. So, for several reasons I will actively consider the 
gentleman's request.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I think 
everybody who is interested in this issue ought to vote for this rule. 
We ought to get on with our business, because there is no time next 
week to deal with it. We are going to try to get something up. We are 
going to consult with the 

[[Page H 6890]]
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] on your side, and the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] on ours, both of whom support the concept, 
and let us move the legislation.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, I 
would hope that we would oppose this rule tonight and vote this rule 
down. I do so because of the numerous areas in which this legislation 
seeks to legislate on an appropriations bill in violation of the rules 
of the House of Representatives.
  The rule provides for waivers so this can be done, but what in fact 
this means is that we rush to judgment in a number of areas where the 
committee of jurisdiction has not been allowed to have the debate and 
to weigh the merits of the various proposals being put forth.
  These areas affect the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the 
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, the California Desert Act, the 
American Indian Trust Fund and Management Resources Act. These are 
changes that were made in consideration with everybody on the 
committees of jurisdiction, and now they are seeking to change those 
without the debate and without the hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, I have for many years opposed legislation on 
appropriations and tried not to do it when I was chairman of the 
committee and tried not to let the Committee on Appropriations do it, 
and in the last few years we have not done it. But here we see in a 
wholesale manner this take place.
  Others, I think, should consider opposing this legislation because of 
what it does to environmental policy in this country. This is a 
dramatic step backward in time. It is a dramatic step away from 
science. It is the inhibiting of science.
  It is very interesting that people say, with regard to the Endangered 
Species Act, they want decisions made upon science. Yet when we have 
the opportunity to gather that evidence, to protect our environment, to 
make rational decisions, to allow processes to go forward, we now see 
that they restrict the ability to even gather the evidence.
  In my area, the National Biological Survey, and those kinds of 
efforts, use volunteers. They use volunteers from Chevron Corp., from 
Dow Chemical, from du Pont and others; employees who go out and do 
these counts and figure these issues out to help so we can provide for 
open space, habitat protection, and provide for economic development in 
our areas so that we can get on with home building and address those 
issues.
  This says we can no longer do that. We can no longer conduct those 
surveys if we are using volunteers and, in fact, even if we have the 
permission of the landowner. That is a step back in my area in terms of 
economic development, and I think it is wrong.
  This bill also lifts the moratorium on the leasing of Federal lands 
for mineral exploration. That means that we go back to the law of 1872. 
We continue to give away Federal resources for $2, $3, $4, $5 an acre 
and those mining companies can take hundreds of millions, and in some 
cases billions, of dollars of resources off the Federal lands and pay 
no royalties.
  On the leases that they have right next door on private lands, they 
pay royalties for the privilege of doing that. But we are going to once 
again engage in that practice, because of what the committee did in 
lifting that moratorium.
  This bill also goes in reverses: Reverses the decision made in the 
previous Congress with respect to the California Desert Wilderness bill 
and denies funding for the transfer of the East Mohave Preserve and 
does not allow us to carry out the decisions and the laws of the land 
with respect to the East Mohave, even over the objections of the local 
chambers of commerce, local supporters of that effort, newspaper 
editorials throughout the South and throughout the State of California 
asking that we go ahead with that provision to protect the East Mohave.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that what you will see if you go through this 
legislation is that we have a fit of pique here against the 
environment, against a number of programs that have been very helpful 
to the protection of the environment in this country.
  I would also say that the legislation on appropriations that is 
provided in this rule not only pertains to the Committee on Resources, 
it also pertains to the other committees, the Committee on Commerce and 
other committees where those actions have been taken.
  Mr. Speaker, we should reject this rule. We should go back and write 
a rule that complies with the House rules, and we should get on with 
the debate and let the chips fall where they may. But we should not 
write special privilege into the bill and then protect it by the rule 
for those who seek to have a vote on that matter. I urge rejection of 
this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to support this rule 
today. I have these reservations because through this rule we are 
setting two dangerous precedents.
  First, the rule waives all points of order against legislating on an 
appropriation bill and this has been done in many instances in the past 
by the authorizing committees. It has been done, but in this particular 
case, it was done despite the objection of the authorizing committee. 
Such a precedent seriously undermines the committee system.
  Second, the language which is being protected allows the sale of oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If this sale goes forward, it 
will be done without any hearing or debate on the impact of such a sale 
and how it will affect our economy, our national emergency security, or 
domestic oil markets, our ability to comply with the international 
energy agreement which we have signed or the cost-effectiveness of 
taking such a step.
  Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I plan on offering an amendment 
that was made in order by the Committee on Rules to strike the language 
authorizing the oil sale. I firmly believe that an issue as important 
as this, whether or not we should maintain a viable oil reserve to 
protect us in times of oil shortages, deserves more consideration by 
this body than it has gotten so far. We should not carelessly throw 
away a national asset as valuable as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, by my standards, the interior appropriations 
bill for this year is not a good bill.
  Our current national resources will suffer. The Indian people are 
going to take a big hit. The protection of our environment will be 
diminished. Our cultural resources will be severely ambushed. The 
program to help the needy with their weather problems has been cut most 
drastically.
  Even though I feel that the bill is a bad bill, Mr. Speaker, 
nevertheless I will vote for the rule because the rule will make in 
order the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for 
the Humanities, and the Institute for Museum Services. Were the rule 
not to protect them because they have not been authorized, they would 
be stricken when they reached the floor on a point of order.
  For that reason, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall support the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
rule. These are difficult times and there are a lot of tough decisions 
in this bill, not all of which I agree with. But it does afford us a 
thoughtful outline through which to proceed through this section of the 
appropriations bill, and the open rule allows us all to bring forth 
whatever amendments we see fit and to have this body vote on them.
  I know that there are strong feelings among some that we should 
eliminate immediately in one year NEA, NEH, organizations like that. I 
would just remind them that while we cut the TVA and the ARC, 
organizations that have a 

[[Page H 6891]]
lot of opposition in this body, we did not pull the rug out from under 
them. We cut them. We gave them time for them and the States that they 
serve to think through how best to accomplish the goals that so deeply 
affect the people that benefit from the work of the TVA and the ARC.
  The NEH does some extremely important things, as does the NEA and the 
Museum Services Administration. The NEH, for example, is sponsoring the 
brittle books program. The brittle books program will preserve valuable 
19th century works printed on acidic paper which are now crumbling at 
an alarming rate.
  Over 12 million unique items, books, maps, music scores, things that 
are critical to preserving, to tracking the historic and cultural 
heritage of this Nation, are at risk, and, frankly, only the Federal 
Government has either the expertise or the dollars to assure the 
preservation of that heritage.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is exactly right. The 
National Endowment for the Humanities is the lead organization in 
preserving the brittle books that are being consumed by the erosion of 
the pages, and at least one-third of all the great books in this 
country are being consumed by that slow-burning process. That is why, 
if there were no other reason, that is enough to support the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, having 
no further speakers at this time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio and I rise 
in strong support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge all the Members to vote for the rule. I say 
that because the rule allows ample opportunity to debate all the issues 
involved in this bill. It offers an opportunity, through amendments to 
change the dollar levels, to subtract from a program if you choose to 
do so. I know some would like to make a change in the dollars on NEA 
and NEH, and under this rule, they have every opportunity to do so.
  The rule does provide waivers for some of the legislative items in 
the bill. But I want to say to all of you that at the urging of the 
leadership, we communicated very frequently and very thoroughly with 
the authorizing committees.
  For example, on NEA, NEH and IMS, we followed the guidelines of the 
authorization bill that was passed out of the full committee of 
jurisdiction. The same thing is true on a number of other instances in 
the bill.
  So, in the process of putting this bill together, we made every 
effort to ensure that it did represent something that was approved by 
the authorizing committees, that we were not appropriating in 
opposition to the legislative intent of the committees of jurisdiction. 
And, therefore, since there are some legislative issues and programs 
for which authorizations have expired in the bill, which we have worked 
out with the authorizers, they are protected by a waiver. But that does 
not preclude anyone from offering amendments to take out money or, for 
that matter, to add money.
  We have tried in this bill, in the face of a reduction of almost $1.8 
billion in budget authority, if you include the rescission bill, and a 
reduction of almost $1 billion in outlays, from 1995, or roughly 11 
percent to help with the deficit reduction package, but nevertheless, 
to ensure that we provide ample funding to allow the people of this 
Nation to have access to the resources they enjoy.
                              {time}  1945

  I think we have, working with the subcommittee members, with the 
authorizers, with the leadership of the full Committee on 
Appropriations and others, crafted a bill that I think is responsible. 
I think it does the things that are important to the people of this 
Nation, addresses their needs while at the same time saving money.
  We also tried to eliminate things that have downstream costs, which 
is necessary if we are to leave as a legacy to our children and 
grandchildren a balanced budget, something Alan Greenspan said in 
testimony before the Committee on the Budget, would result in providing 
them an improved standard of living over ours. If that is to be our 
legacy, we have to get on a glide path that will take us to a zero 
deficit in 7 years.
  Therefore, in crafting the bill, we tried to avoid starting programs 
or funding programs or funding new construction, things that will have 
a substantial downstream cost because we recognize that in future years 
we will have even less to meet the challenges of this bill.
  Having said all those things, I would strongly urge the Members to 
support the rule so that we can get on with an open debate on the 
policy issues. I want to say there are a lot of policy issues involved 
here. I hope the Members will pay attention to the debate so that they 
can help make the decision, because as we address these policy issues 
by virtue of amendments and vote on them, we are fulfilling our role 
under the Constitution.
  We are the legislative branch. It is our role to set policy. It is 
the role of downtown, the President and his team, to execute policy. 
And there will be a number of opportunities under this rule and under 
the amendments that will be offered to make, I think, some rather 
significant policy choices.
  We have tried in crafting the bill not to put a personal spin on it 
but to, rather, bring those issues to all the Members of this body.
  So, again, I urge the Members to support the rule. You will have your 
opportunity during the open debate and the amendment process to express 
your concerns and your ideas on the policy issues embodied in this 
legislation.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Committee on 
Rules for putting together a good rule. I likewise would like to 
congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee of 
the Committee on Appropriations for putting together what I feel to be 
a good package.
  I have been trying to remember ever being in the well or at one of 
the manager's tables in a debate on a rule in which some folks felt 
that the rule should be more restrictive, that the argument, the thrust 
was that the rule is too open. But that is basically the case. I cannot 
ever remember hearing that argument.
  I had not really thought about it, but some folks believe that this 
rule should be more restrictive. The fact is, if anybody has any 
quarrel with anything in this bill, they can come to the floor of the 
House with a funds limitation amendment or move to strike anything they 
would like to zero. That is their purview under the rules of the House 
and this rule.
  Some folks would say, well, what we really would like to do is strike 
things on points of order so that we do not have to vote on them.
  Look, this is not a perfect world. Other people disagree with that. 
And I think that we ought to work our way through this bill, vote 
issues, vote issues up or down. If we have a majority on one side or 
another, let the majority prevail. Let us not deal with technicalities. 
Let us not get ourselves all tied up in knots.
  Let me say this. If this rule goes down, the next rule will probably 
also go down, and we will not end up getting a rule passed that allows 
us to consider the Interior appropriations bill on the floor, which 
means that we will tie up the business of the House, possibly risk not 
having an August break, taking the whole schedule into September with 
additional complications and causing ourselves great problems.
  Anybody that has an issue that they want debated on this floor of 
this House can bring it forward. Anybody 

[[Page H 6892]]
that wants to limit any program in the bill to zero can offer that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] sitting over here. I wish he would pay attention, too, because 
it is very important.
  Under the old majority, under the Democrat majority around here, when 
there was an issue like the Endowment for the Arts and we wanted to cut 
it, which I always wanted to do, the Democrats would gag us. They would 
not allow us to bring that amendment to the floor. We are not going 
that way this year. We are opening up these rules so that any Member of 
this body if they do not like the Endowment for the Arts, the Endowment 
for the Humanities, they have a right to bring it on this floor. Let us 
fight it out like men and let us cut it. That is what I am going to 
help them do. But to try to say that we should gag these rules like we 
were forced to accept in the old days, that is dead wrong, and we are 
not going to do it around here.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the rule, 
the aspects of the rule that I asked for. We asked for a fair debate. I 
am surprised, my good colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, one of 
the great athletes, great competitors in this Chamber, I never thought 
I would see the day when he would want to prevail on a technicality, 
would not want to come out here and get it right, talk about the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  Let us have a fair debate. Let the Congress decide this issue. I am 
surprised at my good friend. I think the chairman is right; everybody 
can offer any amendment they want. This is an open rule.
  To walk away from it because you want to win on a technicality, I 
think, is, I am surprised.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is an open 
rule. There is a fair shot at any program in the bill. It ought to be 
adopted. I hope that our membership will vote for this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out to our good 
friend, the chairman of the committee from upstate New York, that past 
bills, past appropriations bills from this subcommittee have also been 
open, have come to the floor under open rules, and one was able under 
those rules in previous years to also attack the same institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. 
Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the gentleman's last comments. I 
have been here 17 years, and without exception--I hope the Members who 
came last January are paying attention to this--without exception, in 
every one of those 17 years this bill has come to the floor with an 
open rule. So all of the posturing about how, well, we are finally 
getting an open rule, particularly from the newer people in the 
Chamber, is becoming a bit wearisome, tiresome and, worse, it is really 
inaccurate.
  Now, let me join the leadership on the new majority side in 
supporting this rule. I think that folks who are urging a ``no'' vote, 
and that is Members on both sides, including my own leadership on this 
rule, are wrong. It is a bad bill? You bet. Very bad. Do the majority 
of Members and people in this country disagree in poll after poll with 
the specifics that are in this bill? Absolutely. This is a bad bill.
  You put this bill up to a referendum with the American people, it 
could not pass. But we are not voting on the bill. We are voting on the 
rule. Do you know what the vote is on the rule, whether or not to 
protect the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for 
the Humanities.
  I urge my Democratic colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule. If you 
believe as I do that the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities are worth protecting, these are 
the agencies that nurtured Garrison Keillor in Lake Woebegon. These are 
the agencies that created that wonderful film Civil War. These are the 
agencies that created the design for the Vietnam Memorial Wall. These 
are the agencies that created the film Baseball. These are the agencies 
that allowed the author to write Driving Miss Daisy.
  These two agencies have nurtured this country, and this vote is 
whether or not to continue to support the National Endowment for the 
Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. A vote yes on this 
rule is a vote for these two very small but very important agencies to 
the cultural life of this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the rule on H.R. 1977. 
I support open rules because they afford Members the opportunity to 
bring their concerns before the whole House. It is my understanding 
that some of my colleagues are opposing the rule because they oppose 
funding for the Arts and the Humanities.
  The Interior appropriations bill funds the National Endowment for the 
Arts [NEA] and the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] at 
levels that match the recommendations of the Interior Subcommittee. 
Funding for these two agencies has been slashed by 40 percent. The Arts 
and the Humanities have absorbed their fair share of the budget cuts, 
and I want to urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts to eliminate or 
make further cuts in funding for the NEA and the NEH.
  I wholeheartedly believe that Government should support the arts. 
Americans highly value the arts and culture in their lives. Art is the 
symbolic expression of who we are. It is how we remember. Here in the 
Capitol, the history of our Nation is documented in its art and 
architecture.
  Cultural funding is a mere two one-hundreths of one percent of our 
multibillion-dollar budget. We spend 70 cents per person on the 
humanities and 64 cents per person on the arts--on history, English 
literature, foreign languages, sociology, anthropology, comparative 
religion, and other disciplines.
  Let us take a closer look at the humanities.
  Seventy cents per person buys teacher training programs. These 
programs provide professional development opportunities for our 
teachers to increase their knowledge of their field and pass it on to 
their students. It is estimated that the 1,000 teachers who participate 
each summer in NEH-funded summer institutes directly impact 85,000 
students each year.
  Seventy cents per person buys museum exhibitions throughout the 
country, both permanent and traveling, and learning experiences for 
children in museums. As a result of NEH-funded fellowships, nearly 
2,000 books have been published, many of which have received national 
awards.
  Mr. Speaker, our legislative agenda could have far-reaching 
implications for the cultural vitality of our Nation. It is important, 
even vital, that we support and encourage the promotion of the arts and 
humanities so that the rich and cultural story of our past can be made 
available to future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and oppose amendments that 
would greatly reduce or eliminate the NEA and the NEH.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to my colleagues 
on our own side of the aisle. In 4 years, I never voted in this House 
for a rule unless it was an open rule. And that is what we fought for 
your right to come here for and that is why we fought for a majority.
  In the last bill, there were some things that hurt California but it 
was an open rule. It was a fair and open debate. I did not like that. 
But that is the way that I think that we have to fight for this place.
  The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
the Humanities are in my subcommittee. You are concerned that the 
Senate 

[[Page H 6893]]
has a 7 year, we have a 3 year. I voted every single year to totally 
cut out the humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and if I 
thought it was going to go on indefinitely, I would do that again. But 
what I do want to do is allow the good programs that survive in this 
program to phase out over a 3-year period and let them establish their 
own endowment. I think that is fair, and I think that is fair under an 
open rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for this.
  If you do not, in my subcommittee, I will not authorize it at all, if 
they try and go beyond that.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a vote against this rule. There 
are a lot of things in this rule that I would like to protect. But not 
at the expense of waiving points of order so that the action that 
Congress took last year on the California Desert Act can be, by fiat of 
the Committee on Appropriations' will, reversed.
  I also do not think that we ought to reverse the Outer Banks 
Protection Act. I just do not think that we ought to be asked to pay 
the price for being asked to pay in terms of ignoring our 
responsibilities to the environment in order to pass this rule.
  I think if Members are genuinely interested in having a bipartisan 
approach and a bipartisan rule, they will quit using the appropriations 
process to accomplish an idiological agenda that would not be possible 
under normal parliamentary circumstances.
  I would urge strongly a vote against this rule. We can do better.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], vice chairman of the 
Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Columbus for yielding 
me this time. I would like to congratulate her for handling this very 
challenging rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for several 
reasons, first and foremost, because I want to have a chance to vote as 
I have in the past to zero out the National Endowment for the Arts, to 
zero out the National Endowment for the Humanities. Guess what, this 
rule is going to give me a chance to do that. There some people who 
have been claiming that we will not have a chance to do that if we pass 
this rule. That is wrong.
  I happen to be a very strong supporter of the arts. The former 
chairman of the subcommittee walking right up to the aisle there, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], knows very well that my family has 
encouraged me to be a supporter of the arts. However, I want to see us 
do it privately. That is why I am going to support the Crane amendment, 
if we can get this measure through.
  It is my belief that as we look at other way important provisions 
within this bill just discussed by the former chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, like defunding the California Desert Protection Act, 
that gives us another very important reason on our side of the aisle, 
especially, to vote in favor of this rule.
  The other reason is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] made it 
very clear. When it comes to the lockbox, we are going to proceed and 
make retroactive, retroactive, the provisions that we come to, in a 
bipartisan way. This is a rule which is balanced, fair, and it is open. 
I would not dream of voting against an open rule. I cannot imagine why 
anyone would do that. It is fair, it is balanced, it allows us to zero 
out the NEA and the NEH. I believe everyone in this House should 
support it in a bipartisan way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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. MILLER of California. 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 235, 
nays 193, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 495]

                               YEAS--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
     Dingell
     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)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     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 (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--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
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     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)
     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

[[Page H 6894]]

     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
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hall (OH)
     Hefner
     Hoke
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Stark

                              {time}  2021

  Mrs. MALONEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SHADEGG changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the resolution.
  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 192, 
noes 238, not voting 4, as follows:
                             [Roll No 496]

                               AYES--192

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stump
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burton
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Ford
     Hefner
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  2042

  Mr. HAYWORTH and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SAWYER, GIBBONS, HASTINGS of Florida, DOGGETT, and SCHUMER 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________