Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 112 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)

[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.

____________________