[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.

                          ____________________