[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 115 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7021-H7029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1977, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 189
Resolved, That during further consideration of H.R. 1977
pursuant to House Resolution 187, further consideration of
the bill for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union shall proceed without intervening
motion except: (1) amendments printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6
of rule XXIII before July 14, 1995; (2) motions that the
Committee rise offered by the majority leader or his
designee; and (3) motions that the Committee rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted offered as preferential under clause 2(d) of rule
XXI. Each further amendment to the bill may be offered only
by the Member who caused it to be printed, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for ten minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole
[[Page H 7022]]
may postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee
of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment
made in order by this resolution. The Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by
electronic device without intervening business: Provided,
That the time for voting by electronic device on the first in
any series of questions shall be not less than fifteen
minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee brings to the floor of
the House today the third rule providing for the consideration of H.R.
1977, legislation making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies in fiscal year 1996.
The rule which the House passed last week for this legislation was a
very straightforward and balanced rule. It was open, it was fair, and
it was reasonable given the importance of moving ahead with this year's
appropriations process. Unfortunately, despite the wide open amendment
process called for in that rule, we saw the bill become needlessly
bogged down in partisan politics, and we witnessed the deliberative
process being taken hostage by dilatory tactics.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the time has now come to rescue this
bill, and the deliberative process, from the clutches of partisan delay
and obstruction. This additional rule is offered simply as a
precaution, to enable the House to move this critical funding
legislation forward, but in a manner which is fair and reasonable to
both sides of the aisle.
First, the rule provides for the further consideration of H.R. 1977
for amendment without any intervening motions, except for: amendments
which have been printed in the Congressional Record prior to July 14,
1995; motions that the Committee rise if offered by the Majority Leader
or his designee; and motions that the Committee rise and report with
bill back to the House with any amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole, as a preferential motion pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule
XXI.
Second, under the rule, amendments which have been printed in the
Record may be offered only by the Members who submitted them to be
printed. Such amendments shall be considered as read, and are debatable
for a period not to exceed 10 minutes each, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Moreover, such amendments
are not amendable, and are not subject to a demand for a division of
the question either in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Furthermore, the rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole to postpone any request for a recorded vote on an amendment to a
later time. Finally, the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the time for a
vote on any amendment in a series of amendments, provided that the time
for voting on the first in any such series of amendments is not less
than 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee recognizes that there are a number
of amendments on issues important to both sides of the aisle, such as
funding for the arts and humanities, which merit additional debate time
beyond the 10 minutes allowed under this new rule. Accordingly, I
intend to offer an amendment to the rule which would permit the House
to debate nine specific amendments already printed in the Record, each
for a period not to exceed 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent. The amendment is the result of close
cooperation and consultation with the minority, and in light of our
cooperation with the minority on this amendment, I hope very much we
will be able to maintain strong bipartisan support for it.
Mr. Speaker, in recent months the House has made remarkable progress
toward fulfilling its legislative agenda. On the very first day of this
session, the House passed a sweeping set of congressional reforms.
Within the first 100 days we completed the historic Contract With
America, often with bipartisan support. Just last month we passed an
equally historic plan to balance the Federal budget in 7 years.
Now we have the obligation and the responsibility to move ahead with
the annual appropriations process. I do not have to remind our
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, just how important these funding bills are.
Without prompt passage of these bills by both Chambers, the continued
operations of the Federal Government would most certainly be in
jeopardy. The August district work period is just 3 short weeks, I hope
they are short weeks away, and the end of the fiscal year itself is
just over the horizon. Clearly, time is of the essence, and our work is
cut out for us.
While the Rules Committee continues to support a generally open
amendment process, as much as possible, when considering appropriations
bills, I believe we owe it to our constituents, whom we are elected to
serve, to legislate in a responsible and efficient manner. These are
not mutually exclusive goals, Mr. Speaker, and that is the principle
underlying the rule which we consider this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1645
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 189 reflects an agreement between the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Appropriations
Committee for completing consideration of amendments to the Interior
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. Although we have some
concerns about this rule, we urge Members to support it.
This new rule would limit the offering of all further amendments to
the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 to those that
were printed in the Congressional Record prior to July 14. No
amendments printed on July 14 or later, including secondary amendments,
would be in order.
Debate time on each of those amendments would be restricted to 10
minutes, although under the amendment to the rule to be offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], nine specified amendments would
be debatable for 20 minutes each, rather than 10 minutes. Those
amendments are ones that Democratic Members, particularly, believe
require more than 10 minutes to adequately debate, and we appreciate
the fact that time for their consideration will be extended.
In addition, this new rule would restrict all other motions, except a
motion to rise if offered by the majority leader or his designee, and a
motion to rise and report with adopted amendments as a preferential
motion pursuant to rule XXI, clause 2(d), which is a prerogative of the
majority leader or his designee. Thus, no other Member would have the
right to make a motion to rise, or a motion to strike the enacting
clause, or any other motion that, under normal procedure, any Member is
allowed to make.
Finally, the new rule gives the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole the authority to postpone recorded votes, and to reduce to 5
minutes a recorded vote on any amendment in a series of amendments that
follow an initial 15-minute vote. By enabling the chairman to cluster
and reduce the allotted time for recorded votes, the House will be able
to save a great deal of time that would otherwise be spent voting.
Mr. Speaker, this new rule will help assure that consideration of the
Interior appropriations bill will come to a close in a matter of hours,
rather than be prolonged for several more days. Both the chairman and
the ranking minority member of the Appropriations, and our respective
leaders, in the interest of moving appropriations bills through the
House more expeditiously, agreed last Thursday night to limit debate on
all the remaining amendments following completion of title I of H.R.
1977.
Because the rule reflects the concurrence of the two parties, we are
supporting it. However, I do want to mention the concerns that many
Members
[[Page H 7023]]
on this side of the aisle have about this rule.
First, the fact that the rule will not allow second-degree amendments
means that there will be less flexibility in the amending process. For
example, in a case where a last-minute change to an amendment could
produce a compromise that would be supported by a majority of Members,
that change will be prohibited unless unanimous consent is obtained.
Second, although leaders on both sides support limiting time on the
remaining amendments to 10 or 20 minutes apiece, these limits mean that
many Members who wish to participate in debate on particular amendments
will not have that opportunity, and that some very important issues
will not be aired nearly to the extent that they deserve to be aired
before we cast votes on them. We hope that on future appropriations
bills, it will not be necessary to curtail debate on amendments to the
extent provided for here.
Third, and most importantly, fundamental rights of Members in floor
procedure--which are particularly important to Members of the
minority--would be waived by this rule. As I mentioned earlier, no
Member other than the majority leader or his designee would have the
right to offer motions to rise or other motions that are the
prerogative of any Member under the standing Rules of the House.
Although we understand the reason the majority has written into the
rule the denial of that right, I would like to point out that it is
highly unusual for the House to waive or limit that right. In fact, to
the best of our knowledge, it is unprecedented for that right to be
waived in a rule. We raise this matter in the hope that it will not be
included in future rules.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, beyond our concerns about the rule itself, as I
have said in previous statements, many of us have strong objections to
the bill this rule makes in order.
We do not believe that the majority of Americans support the bill's
deep cuts in the many important and useful programs it funds--programs
that cost very little for the immense value they add to the quality of
our lives.
We are dismayed that the bill cuts funding for these programs by 12
percent, especially since many of them have already been reduced in
recent years. What we find particularly troubling is the fact that the
reason the bill cuts so deeply is because those spending reductions are
needed to help pay for an unnecessary increase in defense spending, and
a tax cut that will mainly benefit the wealthiest among us. We think
that those budget priorities are wrong.
We are further dismayed that many sensible amendments that have been
offered since debate began on H.R. 1977--amendments that would have
improved the bill's protection of our natural and cultural resources--
have not been accepted by a majority of Members. We hope that pattern
will change with some of the remaining amendments to be considered,
particularly the amendments that would help protect our Nation's
forests.
We also hope that the membership will not agree to amendments that
would provide less protection for some of these programs. In
particular, we hope that the amendments which would cut or eliminate
funding for the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts, will be
rejected.
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, despite our concerns about the rule, we do
support it, and we urge Members to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members, the press, and the
public should understand the cynical and dangerous strategy being
pursued by the Republican majority on this bill. The Republican plan,
like this legislation, is not designed to improve management of the
Department of the interior, or even the laws and policies administered
by that Department.
Instead, it is intended to wreak havoc with the environmental laws,
the resource management laws, the species protection laws that we have
implemented over the past quarter century to protect the land, the
health and the safety of the American people.
The Republican majority offers up a new rule, a more restrictive
rule, to cut off debate and limit our ability to learn what is in this
bill or to offer alternatives to it. The Republican majority claims
this new rule is designed to make the House proceed more efficiently.
That is untrue. It is designed to allow them to undermine, subvert,
and repeal basic environmental, management and safety laws without
giving dissenting Members--and the public--a reasonable opportunity to
learn what their legislation would do.
The cynicism of this approach can be demonstrated by reading a memo,
dated July 6, 1995, from the chairman of the Rules Committee to the
Republican leadership. In this memo, which I move be placed in the
Record, Chairman Solomon discussed several different ``alternatives to
restrict rules on appropriations bills.'' The memo identifies several
procedural ways for the majority to curtail the debate and prevent a
full airing of the issues and policies they are attempting to impose.
I find it especially intriguing that one of the Republican strategies
is to ``Limit Legislative Amendments.'' Chairman Solomon notes that,
``The more legislative policy debates that are injected into the
appropriations process, beyond mere cutting amendments, the longer the
amendment process on each bill will take.''
That is, of course, true, because appropriations bills are not
supposed to contain authorizing language under the rules. This sweeping
authorizing language is contained in these bills only because the
Republican majority has waived points of order against them, and
because Republican majorities have voted to include them in the bills
in the first place. It goes without saying that Democrats lack the
votes to include authorizing language, to delete authorizing language,
or do much of anything else in these bills.
They are slashing away at the scientific knowledge on which we base
sensitive resource decisions, placing in jeopardy our ability to plan
management practices to minimize the impact on communities.
They are compromising law enforcement capability even as over 20,000
crimes from murder to resource violations occurred on Fish and Wildlife
Service lands last year.
They have crippled the ability of the Park Service to enforce the law
creating the Mojave National Preserve, which passed this Congress by
overwhelming margins last year.
They have handicapped the effective implementation of the Endangered
Species Act by depriving the EPA of funds needed for prelisting actions
that could minimize more drastic action down the road.
They have killed the Urban Parks Program that serves dozens of needy
communities and was expanded by last year's crime bill.
They have dissolved critical assistance to both Indian children and
adults to assist their education in public schools.
This bill undoes major changes enacted just last year to improve self
governance by Indian tribes.
It crippled the Land and Water Conservation Fund by slashing funds
for acquiring lands by nearly 80 percent.
Altogether, this bill makes over 70 substantive changes in law, most
without a day of hearings by the authorizing committees to see what
impact those devastating cuts and changes would have on the ability of
agencies to do the jobs they are charged with doing for the American
people. This is not rational law-making; this is slash and burn, shoot-
from-the-hip legislating and it is bad for America.
I know Republican Members will say that Democrats included
authorizing language when we were in the majority, and they are right.
The difference is that the authorizing committees regularly objected
to such practices. As an authorizing chairman, I vigorously objected to
that misuse of the legislative process, as did other authorizing
chairman. We changed the rules to limit authorization law changes in
appropriations bills.
By contrast, the new Republican majority came into office in January
having denounced the so-called tyranny of Democratic rules, only to
issue restrictive rule after restrictive rule. They have made a mockery
of their pledge of open debate and open rules. Indeed, Republican
authorizing chairmen are co-
[[Page H 7024]]
complicitous in this backdoor strategy for changing the law, and the
Republican rules are preventing us from using the House Rules they
wrote to block this unconscionable practice.
Now, as if this is not cynical enough, let me quote from Chairman
Solomon's memo again. He writes that if his various schemes for
limiting amendments and debates on these terrible bills are ``not
sufficient,'' ``the leadership can always seek a second rule''--as they
are doing today--``to further restrict amendments (as was done on the
foreign ops bill) and blame Democrats for the need to do so.''
``And blame Democrats for the need to do so.''
What a cynical and deceitful strategy.
Let us remember, first of all, that many of the amendments that are
delaying this process are being offered by Republicans, not Democrats,
including the one by Mr. Gilchrest concerning the use of volunteers--an
amendment that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support because the
original restrictions voted by the Republican majority were so punitive
and counter-productive. Other Republican amendments, like that by Mr.
Neumann, are so terrible that they prompt extended debate, including
the opposition of the Speaker himself.
Second, let me note that the reason so many amendments are needed is
that these bills are bad legislation, written with a hand on the bible
of right wing extremism and an eye on the calendar, noting how late we
are in the legislative year without a single appropriations bill
through the process--not because of Democratic obstructionism, but
purely because of the mismanagement of the process by the Republican
majority.
So now, the Republicans who castigated Democrats for allegedly
restrictive rules and who promised open rules, are not only bringing
initially restricted rules to the floor, but are plotting even more
restrictive rules on sweeping legislation.
And no one should be confused as to why the Republican majority seeks
these new rules: it is because they want these sweeping changes to
fundamental laws to take place without public scrutiny and without full
debate.
They do not want the press, or the American people, to know what is
in this legislation. They want to proceed with the fiction that this is
a dry bill of numbers that appropriates money for fiscal year 1996
when, in fact, it is anything but; it is an insidious and extremist
bill that rips up the ability of this government to continue to manage
our resources, waste taxpayer money, or protect our citizens.
And it is for that reason that we oppose this legislation and seek to
modify it through the regular amendment process. And because the
Republicans are embarrassed to have their handiwork found out, and
because they want to prevent good faith efforts to change their flawed
product--by Democrats and Republicans alike--that they come forward
with this rule to clamp down on the debate and steamroll their flawed
product through the House.
The memorandum referred to follows:
[Memorandum--July 6, 1995]
Re alternatives to restrictive rules on appropriations bills
To: The Republican Leadership.
From: Jerry Solomon.
So far, the majority leadership and Appropriations
Committee have not taken advantage of existing House rules to
manage and control the amendment process, even though the
Rules Committee has followed the Majority Leader's guidelines
on appropriations rules to allow for a greater management and
control. These include opening appropriations bills to
amendment by title instead of by paragraph, and by
encouraging Members to pre-print their amendments in the
Record to receive priority in recognition. This should have
paved the way for unanimous consent agreements and motions,
if necessary, to limit debate on particular amendments and
amendments thereto, and even to limit debate on further
amendments to a particular title. Under House Rules, once
such a motion has been agreed to, only pre-printed amendments
are allowed upon the expiration of the time limit, and such
amendments may only be debated for 10 minutes--5 minutes for
and 5 minutes against. In addition, the Leadership has not
exercised the Majority Leader's new prerogative under the
Rules to offer the motion to rise once House is considering
limitation amendments at the end of the process. This could
be done, for instance, after allowing two limitation
amendments per side, with time agreements on each.
Below is a listing of suggestions for alternative
approaches to restrictive rules:
Time Limit Agreements--The majority managers of
appropriations bills should make a greater effort to seek
unanimous consent to limit time on amendments, including
amendments thereto.
Time Limit Motions--The majority managers should take
greater advantage of moving reasonable time limits on
amendments, and, if necessary, on further amendments to a
title. None has been moved to date as far as we know. Such
motions on titles would still allow for ten minute debates on
pre-printed amendments after the time has expired for
debating priority amendments offered by both sides to the
title.
Limiting Legislative Amendments--The more legislative
policy debates that are injected into the appropriations
process, beyond mere cutting amendments, the longer the
amendment process on each bill will take. A greater effort
could be made by the Leadership to limit legislative
provisions and amendments on appropriations bills in favor of
debating and voting on these through the regular
authorization process. In this way, the Leadership could
reserve such debates in the appropriations process to only
those major issues which the Leadership strongly feels must
be attached to appropriations bills.
Limit Dilatory Motions--Special rules could confine the
minority to not more than one motion to strike the enacting
clause per bill and also authorize not more than one motion
to rise per day by anyone other than the majority manager or
the majority leader. At present, motions to strike the
enacting clause are in order at any time there has been a
change in the bill, i.e., an amendment adopted; and motions
to rise are in order at any time after there has been only
one intervening speech since the last such motion.
Second Rule--If the above suggestions are still not
sufficient in expediting action, the Leadership can always
seek a second rule to further restrict amendments (as was
done on the foreign ops bill), and blame Democrats for the
need to do so.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
express my very deep appreciation to my friend, the gentleman from
Martinez, CA, the former chairman of the authorizing committee, for his
very kind words in support of our efforts to proceed with the open
amendment process.
He has described us as being both cynical and deceitful. The fact of
the matter is when we began this appropriating process, we had a wide-
open rule that had the goal of allowing every Member to participate in
this process.
{time} 1700
Only when we had to stay in session very, very late at night and deal
with this process of delay did it lead us to conclude that this was
necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the subcommittee.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we set the
record straight here. We have had some allegations here about what is
in this bill. I noted with interest that among the things that were
mentioned that the bill does, it was not mentioned that it saves the
taxpayers $1.5 billion dollars.
There was an election on November 8, 1994, and the message was clear:
We want deficit reduction. We do not want to leave our children and our
grandchildren with a continuing legacy of big debt.
When we put this bill together, we looked at all the functions and
said, ``Where can we effectively get the job done and save money?'' And
as a result of this approach, we have a savings in here, as I mentioned
before, of $1.5 billion. Now, if that includes interest, in 20 years it
is probably $4 or $5 billion, and on, and on, and on.
So, I think it is important that we note that.
Also, as I said when the bill was introduced, we really dealt with
three categories of functions:
The must-dos. The must-dos are keeping the parks open, keep the
forests open for the visitors, recreation users, keep the Fish and
Wildlife facilities open for the visitors, keep the BLM lands open for
the visitors, keep the Smithsonian open for the visitors, keep the
National Gallery open, keep the Kennedy Center open for those who want
to visit--this is one of our memorials--and we did that job.
These are must-dos. The must-dos are pretty much flat-funded in spite
of the fact that we were faced with a 10-percent-plus reduction in the
amount of money available.
[[Page H 7025]]
The second category was the need-to-dos, and the need-to-dos are to
finish buildings that are under construction. They include health and
safety in our parks, and forests, and public lands generally. So we
took care of those projects that were under way or that affected the
health and safety of those that would visit our public facilities.
We took care of basic science. We recognized that, if we are to go
into the next century with a nation that is on it toes, that if we are
to leave a legacy of a highly developed economy in these United States,
we have to continue a program of science.
So the United States Geologic Survey was kept pretty much at their
1995 levels. Again they deal with earthquakes, they did the mapping
that was used in Desert Storm, they deal with water quality, the things
that are important as a legacy to the future.
What we are really talking about in this bill is what kind of a world
we are going to leave for future generations. Are we going to preserve
the crown jewels of the national parks and forests? Are we going to
leave a legacy of good science? Are we going to leave a legacy of good
management? Because we do not want to burden future generations with an
inordinate amount of debt to achieve our goals.
We put a freeze on land acquisition. Let us not buy more land until
we take care of what we have. Let us not start new programs or new
construction until we take care of what is already on the books.
The third category is the nice-to-dos, and there are a lot of nice
things that we could do, but we do not have the money to do it, and we
have that in our own lives. There are many things that people would
like to do in their own personal lives, if they had a lot of money, but
what we feel is important is to apply common sense, to apply balance.
Therefore, on some of the things that would be nice to do we had to cut
back severely, such as land acquisition.
We had over 400 letters from Members requesting some kind of a
project or some kind of a program, many of those nice to do, but we had
to say, ``No, we can't afford it if we are going to get a responsible
budget in the future,'' and one of the things we did was try to avoid
programs or construction that would have large downstream costs. It is
a goal, as outlined in the budget adopted by the House and the other
body, the budget of the Congress, if my colleagues will, to achieve
balance by the year 2002; that is only 7 years away. To do that we have
to start on a glide path to achieve savings, and that means not
starting new programs that would be expensive, not starting new
construction that would be expensive, not acquiring land that would
cost big dollars to manage.
So that is the commonsense, that is the responsible, approach, and
that is what we attempted to do in this bill, and I think we did it
with fairness, without partisanship, and I certainly believe the bill
and the rule deserve support.
I had to smile a little bit when there was some mention of the
endangered species issue and the fact that this does not provide for
listing or prelisting. The reason is that there is no authorization.
The authorization expired a couple of years ago when this body was in
the control of what is now the minority
party, and that party chose to not reauthorize the Endangered Species
Act. I do not know why, because I just heard comments that this is very
important, and yet for a period of approximately 2 years nothing was
done to enact a reauthorization. Therefore, under the rules of this
House, we are not in a position to appropriate money because there is
no authorization.
Now I have to say that the Committee on Resources is working on an
authorization bill, and we have funding in there, in this bill, subject
to authorization. That is the proper way to do it, and that is what we
have tried to do throughout this bill, and I certainly urge the Members
to support the rule and support the bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to our next speaker, may
I just say very briefly I think it is fair to say that there is no
finer or respected Member than the distinguished member from Ohio who
just spoke, but I would say to our friend from Ohio that the reason the
gentleman has been forced to make such large cuts in so many programs
that are, in fact, not only nice to do, but many of us think are
important to do, is because his party adopted a budget resolution which
requires us over the next 7 years to spend an additional $77 billion on
defense which I think perhaps the majority of us would like to argue
against and because they are setting aside $245 billion for tax cuts,
the benefits of which, the majority of benefits of which, go to the
wealthiest among us. If we were not having to pay for those $350
billion worth of cuts and raises in spending for defense and tax cuts,
the gentleman would have had available to him and to his committee an
additional several billions of dollars which would have made his job,
and our job, a good deal less difficult and painful.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that, because the gentleman
from California has indicated accurately this is a rule which has been
worked out between both sides, I certainly have absolutely no objection
to the rule. I certainly have misgivings about the process by which we
have gotten here, but I certainly do not have any objection to the
specific rule and will, in fact, support the rule.
Let me simply say, having done that, however, that I would like to
respond to some of the thoughts that we heard from the gentleman from
California earlier with respect to the need to finish the
appropriations process by August. I certainly want to see that happen,
too. I know of no one on this side of the aisle who does not feel a
strong degree of responsibility to try to finish the appropriation
bills in the House by the time we leave here for the scheduled August
recess, and I want to say that I fully intend to provide whatever
cooperation is required to get that done. What I do not want to see in
the process, however, is to see policy issues buried and budget issues
buried so we do not have
adequate ability to discuss them in a manner which will make those
issues most understandable to the general public who will be affected
by our decisions on those issues. I think the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] indicated earlier his concerns about what is happening,
and frankly, Mr. Speaker, there are some of us who feel what is
happening is this:
We feel that after the original news stories came out about the kind
of meetings with lobbyists that led to the deregulation bill that
passed this House and was then turned down in the Senate 100 to nothing
because it was looked at as simply being a lobbyists' dream list, we
feel that people who are pushing those kinds of changes in regulatory
practices which are desired by special interests and are not desired by
the general public, we feel that there is a very high potential for the
appropriations process being abused by bringing those issues into the
appropriations process, burying them in an appropriations bill debate
strong policy issues that have to do with the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, the food inspection, basic labor law, basic rights of
working people under that law, basic law with respect to housing. And
we do not believe that those issues ought to be slipped into the
appropriations process, debated for 5 or 10 minutes a side, and in
essence have this House make major policy decisions with absolutely no
ability to really discuss those issues, absolutely no ability to amend
the amendments that are being offered, and no ability for the people on
the committees who know the most about those issues, the policy
committees, the authorizing committees, to actually participate in that
discussion so that Members of this House know what they are doing when
they do it.
I do not want to wake up after we have walked out of here in August
and discover that only then is the press able to find out what has been
slipped through here on appropriation bill after appropriation bill--
something which we would not have had the ability to debate and which
the press would not have had the ability to cover until after we are
out of here in August. So I want to repeat: I am very willing to
cooperate to see to it that we meet our responsibilities to get the
budget issues through. That is the job of the Committee on
Appropriations, to
[[Page H 7026]]
help see to it we get the budget issues through by the time we get out
of here. But I do not want that cooperation to be abused by then also
bringing into the mix a huge number of policy issues which on their
merits deserve to be discussed in full public view, in the light of
day, not at 10, 11, or 12 o'clock at night on the floor, or as was the
case last week, not in subcommittee at 1, 2, 3, and 4 o'clock in the
morning when certainly there is no member of the public attending, no
members of the press, and the message about what has been done to
people never gets out.
So if we could accommodate that distinction, I think we could get
along here a whole lot better than was the case Thursday night, and the
public we are supposed to serve will have been served much better in
the process.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Regula].
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear that this
is a bill to appropriate money, and every dollar in this bill was
subject to amendment. There is no restriction on the ability of Members
to add or subtract the amount of money. So I think there has to be an
understanding, while there are some policy questions involved in the
bill, that basically the money issues are open for amendment in every
dimension.
{time} 1715
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am sure the
gentleman understands, however, that is these language amendments are
protected by the rule, we are operating outside of the normal confines
of the House rules, and that has very serious implications for some
laws that are very important to the consuming public.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates] the ranking member.
(Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about family values briefly
tonight, because we are going to vote on them later in the evening.
Love of family, respect for our fellow man, a well-educated and
ethically minded people is our ideal and our goal for all Americans.
You know how important education is in attaining these goals. To that
end, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for
the Humanities, and the Institute for Museum Services are three of the
most powerful educational forces in existence.
Mr. Speaker, we now fund the National Science Foundation at nearly $3
billion, and we do not cut that foundation, and we should not cut that
foundation, because it fosters the development of science and
mathematics, which is very important. But the National Science
Foundation does not provide funds to foster education in history, in
languages, in philosophy, in ethics, in religion, in literature, in the
arts. In other words, the National Science Foundation does not
contribute to the disciplines that will educate our children in the
ways of peace in communities at home and in nations abroad.
Do you believe that education in science and math is enough without
education in the other disciplines? Of course you do not. If you do
not, then why should you attack the Endowments and the Institute of
Museum Services which contribute to fostering those important
educational subjects. These are very powerful educational agencies, and
I do hope that the attacks against them tonight will be thwarted.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record a letter which I have
received, dated July 10, from Dr. Norman Rice, Mayor of Seattle, who is
also president of the United States Conference of Mayors.
The United States
Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, July 10, 1995.
Hon. Sidney Yates,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Yates: At our 63rd Annual Conference of Mayors,
held June 16-20, in Miami, the mayors passed a strong
resolution in support of the National Endowments for the Arts
and Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services.
As you begin your final deliberations over the future of
these three federal agencies, I strongly urge you to take
into consideration the support the arts and humanities have
at the local level and the vital role they play in improving
the lives of all Americans, especially our young children.
We are all aware of the budget constraints and the need to
work towards a balanced budget, but we feel Congress would be
making a grave error to eliminate, or drastically reduce,
federal support for the arts which, in turn, leverages
critical private support for the arts. Every mayor has
witnessed how federal leadership in the arts and humanities
has benefited his or her community in the creation of jobs,
businesses, tourism, and overall quality of life.
I have enclosed a copy of our Arts and Humanities
resolution that was passed unanimously by the mayors.
We urge you to support continued federal involvement in the
arts and humanities.
Sincerely,
Norman Rice,
Mayor of Seattle, President.
Arts, Humanities and Museums Funding and Reauthorization
Whereas, the arts, humanities and museums are critical to
the quality of life and livability of America's cities; and
Whereas, the National Endowment for the Arts' and the
National Endowment for the Humanities' thirty years of
promoting cultural heritage and vitality throughout the
nation has built a cultural infrastructure in this nation of
arts and humanities agencies in every state and 3,800 local
arts agencies throughout the country; and
Whereas, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA),
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), Institute of
Museum Services (IMS) are the primary federal agencies that
provide federal funding for the arts, humanities and museum
programs, activities, and efforts in the cities and states of
America; and
Whereas, federal funding serves as a catalyst to leverage
additional dollars for cultural activity--the $373 million
invested in these three agencies by the federal government
leverages up to 12 times that amount from state and local
governments, private foundations, corporations and
individuals in communities across the nation to support the
highest quality cultural programs in the world; and
Whereas, federal funding for cultural activities stimulates
local economies and improves the quality of civic life
throughout the country--the NEA, NEH and IMS support programs
that enhance community development, promote cultural
planning, stimulate business development, spur urban renewal,
attract new businesses, draw significant tourism dollars, and
improve the overall quality of life in our cities and towns;
and
Whereas, the nonprofit arts industry generates $36.8
billion annually in economic activity and supports 1.3
million jobs--from large urban to small rural communities,
the nonprofit arts industry annually returns $3.4 billion in
federal income taxes; $1.2 billion in state government
revenue and $790 million in local government revenue; and
Whereas, federal arts funding to cities, towns and states
has helped stimulate the growth of 3,800 local arts agencies
in America's cities and counties and $650 million annually in
local government funding to the arts and humanities; and
Whereas, federal funding for cultural activities is
essential to promote full access to and participation in
exhibits, performances, arts education and other cultural
events regardless of geography and family income; and
Whereas, federal funding for cultural activities is
essential to maintaining the delicate balance in shared
responsibility and partnership for public funding of the arts
and humanities at the federal, state and local government
levels; and
Whereas, the NEA and NEH have been placed in a precarious
position because of difficult economic times; and
Whereas, draconian cuts to the NEA's and NEH's budget would
have a disastrous effect on the survival of arts and
humanities institutions, arts organizations, artists, and
cultural programming at the national, state and local level;
and
Whereas, the NEA's budget has already incurred repeated
funding cuts for several consecutive years and currently
operates at its 1984 funding level,
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the U.S. Conference of
Mayors calls upon the President and Congress to reauthorize
the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for
the Humanities and the Institute of Museum Services for five
years at a funding level that enables the agencies to
exercise a strong national leadership role to invest in the
social, economic and cultural well-being of the American
public.
Be it further resolved, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors
calls upon the President and Congress to oppose eliminating
or phasing-out our federal cultural agencies; to oppose
reducing their budgets; and to oppose mandating all funds be
blockgranted to the states, which would eliminate the
national leadership role of these federal agencies.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] the ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
[[Page H 7027]]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am hard put to explain why such a
punitive and harsh rule is before this body at this time.
This is a bad rule for a bad piece of legislation. It establishes bad
precedence. It curtails the rights of the Members to adequately debate
the measure before us, and it confines Members to a straitjacket with
regard to the amendment process, the opportunity to speak and to
explain these amendments.
It is, all in all, a bad rule, and it should be rejected by the
House. It permits only Members on the Republican side to offer a motion
to rise, it permits only Members on the Republican side to have a
motion which would require the House to rise and report the bill back
to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. It requires
that amendments which are offered may be only debatable for 10 minutes,
5 minutes for the proponents, 5 minutes for the opponents.
Legislative amendments which would deal with fuel efficiency
standards for appliances and buildings would get 5 minutes on each
side. Those are important matters and they were debated in this House
for a number of hours at an earlier time. The action which is being
taken here is not being taken by a legislative committee, but rather by
the Committee on Appropriations.
I would make the observation to this body that fuel efficiency and
energy efficiency standards for appliances are something which are of
importance to American industry, and the standards which are now on the
books with regard to energy efficiency for appliances was adopted as a
result of the solicitation of American industry.
This is something which is probably not known to my Republican
colleagues, because most of those who are pushing this kind of change
were not present in the House at the time it was adopted. The reason
industry wanted those standards was so that they would not confront the
certain probability of every State in the Union coming forward with
different energy efficiency standards for appliances. Why? Because they
could not have meaningful interstate commerce in appliances when they
have to have standards which are enacted in 50 different ways, in 50
different sets of language, by 50 different States.
Five minutes on each side is going to be afforded to this body to
discuss a proposal of that importance.
Let me make another observation. The language of the rule prohibits
division of the question. It sets up the curious situation where we may
find that two amendments will be adopted, after no reading and after no
debate. Members who might wish to amend an amendment to perfect it are
now precluded by this rule. For example, if a member of the legislative
committee desires to offer an amendment which would perfect a rule,
perhaps the one offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]
or perhaps by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], he will not
be permitted to do so.
Why? Because of the rule. That is the amendment under the rules,
which is a normal action which is taken by this body, to perfect
amendments and to make the legislation more meaningful, more correct,
and more in the broad, overall public interest.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 2 minutes
to my very good friend from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, pending which I hope
he will yield to me just a moment so that I might clarify some of the
things the gentleman has said.
Mr. DINGELL. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman
from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to clarify a statement
made. In my opening statement, I said that at the end of this rule
debate, I will, having a request that came from Members on my friend's
side of the aisle, ask for a doubling of the amount of time for debate
on nine amendments, including amendments that were raised. If I could
continue, I say that because we did have an agreement of 10 minutes per
side, a total of 10 minutes. Now we have doubled that, because Members
on your side made that request of us.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is a little like
rape. The issue here is not how much force is used, but just that force
is used. The hard fact is 10 minutes to discuss a matter on one side,
to discuss a matter of this importance, is not an adequate amount of
time in which to engage in responsible debate. The gentleman has not
corrected any of the concerns, and I thank the gentleman for yielding,
I have enormous respect for him, but he has not corrected nor has he
proposed to correct the fact that the amendments may not be amended.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we
simply did that at the request of the minority.
Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman's kindness is extraordinary, but it is not
adequate, nor does it do the things that have to be done to make this
rule the kind that a responsible legislator may support.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
restrictive rule which does not allow us to consider fully the
magnitude of the changing proposes in this bill. To limit debate on
whether to eliminate all support of the arts, the soul of America, to
10 minutes, is outrageous.
Those supporting eliminating funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts argue that it is too costly. If given more than a minute, I
could argue, with verity, that cutting the National Endowment for the
Arts would in actuality do damage to our national economy.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like
to clarify one more time the time for debating the amendment to which
my friend is referring has been doubled, or will be when I offer an
amendment at the end of the debate. We are doubling the amount of time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, for a relatively small
Federal investment, millions of dollars are generated each year in our
communities as a result of NEA funding. In 1992, the $166 million
invested by the National Endowment for the Arts is estimated to have
generated local economic activity throughout the country totalling
$1.68 billion. In fact, the Federal Government received an average of
$3.4 billion in income tax revenue from nonprofit arts organizations,
according to a recent study. To cut this funding would be fiscally
imprudent.
But there is much more than money at stake here. What is at stake is
the soul of America--the richness, the texture, the intangible verve
which courses through our daily existence in ways that we do not always
recognize in the short run.
To argue that we must sell our soul to pay our bills is downright
irresponsible. Some might argue that the work spurred by NEA funding is
not a worthwhile investment of our federal tax dollars. Yes, it is
difficult to quantify the noneconomic benefits we gain from our Federal
commitment to the arts. But what of our grandfather's pocketwatch that
we keep always, for which we invest in repairs, which has no real value
in an economic sense? We cannot describe why it is valuable to us, but
it is part of who we are--it feeds our soul in an intangible way.
Similarly, it is difficult to quantify the smile on a child's face when
she sees her first play at a children's theater, or the self-
exploration we may experience when we look at a painting. These are
things on which we cannot put a price, but are made possible through
our Federal commitment to the arts and humanities.
Some may argue that they support the arts--but taxpayers should not
be forced to finance the NEA. But without NEA support, many of the
smaller, community based arts organizations would perish. Private funds
are stimulated by the NEA imprimatur and matching requirements.
When this body established the NEA, we said, ``The Congress hereby
finds and declares * * * that it is necessary and appropriate for the
Federal Government to help create and sustain not only a climate
encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the
material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.''
This remains an important goal. Let us
[[Page H 7028]]
not act rashly and put in jeopardy the future of America's soul with
only 10 minutes of debate.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to support this rule.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material in the Record.)
The material referred to follows:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*................ Compliance............. H. Res. 6 Closed...................... None.
H. Res. 6.............. Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a closed None.
Package. rule on H.R. 1 within the
closed rule.
H.R. 5*................ Unfunded Mandates...... H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion adopted N/A.
over Democratic objection
in the Committee of the
Whole to limit debate on
section 4; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.J. Res. 2*........... Balanced Budget........ H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only certain 2R; 4D.
substitutes.
H. Res. 43............. Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; considered in N/A.
Scheduling. House no amendments.
H.R. 2*................ Line Item Veto......... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
preference.
H.R. 665*.............. Victim Restitution Act H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
of 1995. preference.
H.R. 666*.............. Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Reform Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 667*.............. Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Incarceration Act of on amendments.
1995.
H.R. 668*.............. The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Deportation preference; Contains self-
Improvement Act. executing provision.
H.R. 728*.............. Local Government Law H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Enforcement Block on amendments; Pre-printing
Grants. gets preference.
H.R. 7*................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Revitalization Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 729*.............. Death Penalty/Habeas... N/A Restrictive; brought up N/A.
under UC with a 6 hr. time
cap on amendments.
S. 2................... Senate Compliance...... N/A Closed; Put on Suspension None.
Calendar over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831............... To Permanently Extend H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
the Health Insurance only the Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Self- Waives all points of order;
Employed. Contains self-executing
provision.
H.R. 830*.............. The Paperwork Reduction H. Res. 91 Open........................ N/A.
Act.
H.R. 889............... Emergency Supplemental/ H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
Rescinding Certain only the Obey substitute.
Budget Authority.
H.R. 450*.............. Regulatory Moratorium.. H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 1022*............. Risk Assessment........ H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments.
H.R. 926*.............. Regulatory Flexibility. H. Res. 100 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 925*.............. Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap 1D.
Protection Act. on amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print their
amendments in the Record
prior to the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and budget act
points of order as well as
points of order concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill against
the committee substitute
used as base text.
H.R. 1058*............. Securities Litigation H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap 1D.
Reform Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference; Makes in
order the Wyden amendment
and waives germaneness
against it.
H.R. 988*.............. The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap N/A.
Accountability Act of on amendments; Pre-printing
1995. gets preference.
H.R. 956*.............. Product Liability and H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in order 8D; 7R.
Legal Reform Act. only 15 germane amendments
and denies 64 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 1158.............. Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations and nonemergency 1159 and
Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in order
only pre-printed amendments
that include offsets within
the same chapter (deeper
cuts in programs already
cut); waives points of
order against three
amendments; waives cl 2 of
rule XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule
XVI against the substitute;
waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI
against the amendments in
the Record; 10 hr time cap
on amendments. 30 minutes
debate on each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.......... Term Limits............ H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in order 1D; 3R
only 4 amendments
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure and
denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*................ Welfare Reform......... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in order 5D; 26R
only 31 perfecting
amendments and two
substitutes; Denies 130
germane amendments from
being considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a ``Queen
of the Hill'' procedure;
All points of order are
waived against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*............. Family Privacy Act..... H. Res. 125 Open........................ N/A
H.R. 660*.............. Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open........................ N/A
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*............. The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self Executes 1D
America Tax Relief Act language that makes tax
of 1995. cuts contingent on the
adoption of a balanced
budget plan and strikes
section 3006. Makes in
order only one substitute.
Waives all points of order
against the bill,
substitute made in order as
original text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483............... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI against
the bill; makes H.R. 1391
in order as original text;
makes in order only the
Dingell substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to file
a report on the bill at any
time.
H.R. 655............... Hydrogen Future Act.... H. Res. 136 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 1361.............. Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections 302(f) N/A.
Authorization. and 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI
against the committee
substitute.
H.R. 961............... Clean Water Act........ H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing gets N/A.
preference; waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of the
Budget Act against the
bill's consideration;
waives cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against the
committee substitute. Makes
in order Shuster substitute
as first order of business.
H.R. 535............... Corning National Fish H. Res. 144 Open........................ N/A.
Hatchery Conveyance
Act.
H.R. 584............... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open........................ N/A.
Fairport National Fish
Hatchery to the State
of Iowa.
H.R. 614............... Conveyance of the New H. Res. 146 Open........................ N/A
London National Fish
Hatchery Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67........ Budget Resolution...... H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in order 3D; 1R
4 substitutes under regular
order; Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on 5/17/
95; waives all points of
order against substitutes
and concurrent resolution;
suspends application of
Rule XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language.
H.R. 1561.............. American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A
Interests Act of 1995. amendments to be printed in
the Record prior to their
consideration; 10 hr. time
cap; waives cl 2(1)(6) of
rule XI against the bill's
consideration; Also waives
sections 302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a) against
the bill's consideration
and the committee amendment
in order as original text;
waives cl 5(a) of rule XXI
against the amendment;
amendment consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m. on May
25, 1995. Self-executes
provision which removes
section 2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530.............. National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in order 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act FY only the amendments printed Bipartisan
1996. in the report; waives all
points of order against the
bill, substitute and
amendments printed in the
report. Gives the Chairman
en bloc authority. Self-
executes a provision which
strikes section 807 of the
bill; provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr. Clinger
to offer a modification of
his amendment with the
concurrence of Ms. Collins.
H.R. 1817.............. Military Construction H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 ..............
Appropriations; FY of rule XXI against the
1996. bill; 1 hr. general debate;
Uses House passed budget
numbers as threshold for
spending amounts pending
passage of Budget.
H.R. 1854.............. Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in order 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. only 11 amendments; waives Bipartisan
sections 302(f) and 308(a)
of the Budget Act against
the bill and cl. 2 and cl.
6 of rule XXI against the
bill. All points of order
are waived against the
amendments.
H.R. 1868.............. Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, cl. N/A
Appropriations. 5(b), and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill; makes in
order the Gilman amendments
as first order of business;
waives all points of order
against the amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as original
text; waives cl. 2 of rule
XXI against the amendments
printed in the report. Pre-
printing gets priority
(Hall) (Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ).
H.R. 1905.............. Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and cl. 6 N/A
Appropriations. of rule XXI against the
bill; makes in order the
Shuster amendment as the
first order of business;
waives all points of order
against the amendment; if
adopted it will be
considered as original
text. Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79........... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one hour of N/A
Amendment to Permit general debate and one
Congress and States to motion to recommit with or
Prohibit the Physical without instructions; if
Desecration of the there are instructions, the
American Flag. MO is debatable for 1 hr.
H.R. 1944.............. Recissions Bill........ H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides for N/A
consideration of the bill
in the House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee to
offer one amendment which
is unamendable; waives all
points of order against the
amendment.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides for ..............
Appropriations. further consideration of
the bill; makes in order
only the four amendments
printed in the rules report
(20 min each). Waives all
points of order against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions in the
Committee of the Whole;
Provides for an automatic
rise and report following
the disposition of the
amendments.
[[Page H 7029]]
H.R. 1977 *Rule Interior Appropriations H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections 302(f) N/A
Defeated*. and 308(a) of the Budget
Act and cl 2 and cl 6 of
rule XXI; provides that the
bill be read by title;
waives all points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-executes
Budget Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of rule XXI
against amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1977.............. Interior Appropriations H.Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A
302(f), 306 and 308(e) of
the Budget Act; waives
clauses 2 and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in the
bill; waives all points of
order against the Tauzin
amendment; provides that
the bill be read by title;
self-executes Budget
Committee amendment and
makes NEA funding subject
to House passed
authorization; waives cl
2(e) of rule XXI against
the amendments to the bill;
Pre-printing gets priority.
H.R. 1976.............. Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 and 6 N/A
Appropriations. of rule XXI against
provisions in the bill;
provides that the bill be
read by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order of
business, if adopted the
amendment will be
considered as base text (10
min.); Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)... Interior Appropriations H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides for ..............
the further consideration
of the bill; allows only
amendments pre-printed
before July 14th to be
considered; limits motions
to rise.
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation, 62% restrictive; 38% open. *** Restrictive
rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open
and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the
House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the
Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. **** Not included in
this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R.
440.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose this rule. It was
said by the gentleman from California in his opening statement that
this rule was here to rescue this important bill from Democratic
tactics. Let me just say on last Thursday we had 14 amendments offered
on the floor of the House, 8 of which were Republican amendments. The
total time for Democratic debate on those amendments was 3\1/2\ hours.
We spent over 2 hours just on the Gilchrest amendment alone, the
Gilchrest amendment, which was to remove legislation from this
appropriations bill dealing with the use of volunteers in the
environmental field by the National Biological Survey.
So most of the time was in fact spent trying to figure out how to
remove legislation that was unacceptable both to Republicans and to
Democrats. But because of that debate, we now see that all of a sudden
debate on this bill, on issues ranging from endangered species to the
National Endowment for the Arts, are now collapsed into 20 minutes or
10 minutes on these most important issues.
This is clearly a gift to those who do not want to take the heat for
the policy considerations that they want to have this bill enact. They
do not want to take the heat for the changes in the law. If you can get
this down so later tonight at 10 or 11 o'clock at night we are spending
10 minutes a side to debate these issues, then you can go on about your
business.
It is the wrong way to legislate. The House deserves better, the
members of the authorizing committees who are disenfranchised by this
effort deserve better, and the American people deserve better about
these kinds of major changes being presented to us now, in as
restrictive a rule essentially as you can have, which is to offer you
the minimum time per side as opposed to the minimum time you have under
the 5-minute rule for the Members of the House, which is 5 minutes per
Member who can stand up and argue these debates.
{time} 1730
That is open and free debate. This rule is not about open and free
debate. This rule is about closing down debate so you do not have to
answer the hard questions.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we did hear from my friend from Woodland Hills that
there is support of this rule. I guess I am speaking for the leadership
on both sides of the aisle in stating that there is strong support for
this rule.
I hope that we can pass it.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier:
Page 2, line 13, insert the following after the period:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the following
amendments (identified by numerical designation pursuant to
clause 5 of rule XXIII) shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent: the amendments numbered 11, 31, 40, 41, 57, 61, 65,
66, and 72. The amendment numbered 57 is hereby modified to
insert on page 94 after line 24.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] has 15 minutes remaining on the amendment and the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening statement and in response
to statements from the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], this amendment would simply
permit the House to debate a specific group of 9 amendments for up to
20 minutes each, rather than the 10 minutes provided for under the
pending rule.
Debate time on these amendments shall be equally divided and
controlled between the proponent and an opponent. As the new rule
already stipulates, the amendments shall be considered as read, are not
subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, we are offering this amendment
in a spirit of bipartisanship, recognizing that certain issues that are
associated with this bill, such as funding for the arts and humanities,
deserve additional time on the floor for debate. As I have said, we
have doubled the amount of time on that. This amendment was developed
in close consultation and cooperation with the minority and I urge my
colleagues to support this fair and straightforward amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no time over here. If we did, I
would have recognized myself and would have joined in support of the
amendment which we are pleased that the gentleman is offering. We ask
for its support.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is the reason that I was very careful
in maintaining time over here so that I would get those wonderful words
from the distinguished minority manager of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the amendment and on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
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. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed until 6 p.m.
The point of no quorum is considered as withdrawn.
____________________