[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7609-H7614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2076, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1996

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 198

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2076) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered by title rather than by 
     paragraph. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of 
     order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H 7610]]

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 198, the rule for the fiscal 
1996 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, is a ``plain 
Vanilla'' rule needing little in the way of explanation. It is an 
uncomplicated, open rule, a fair rule. Despite concerns that some 
Members have been taking a little advantage of some of the previous 
open rules, the Rules Committee has not placed limits on time, the 
number of amendments, or procedural motions. Nor will you find any 
extraordinary waivers included in the rule.
  Of course, due to the perennial problem of enacting authorizing bills 
prior to the consideration of appropriations measures, we have provided 
the standard waivers for violations of clause 2 and 6 of rule XXI 
contained within the bill. Members may be interested to know that the 
Rules Committee is actively exploring ways to avoid this problem--and 
related problems with the budget process--in the future.
  The Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process together with the 
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House are in the process 
of holding hearings to examine the 1974 Budget Act and what 
improvements can be made to it. It is my hope that future Congresses 
will be immune from routine waivers of House rules because of an 
awkward budget process.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule continues the successful practice of 
giving the Chair the right to give priority in recognition to those 
Members who have printed their amendments in the Record. This 
procedure, without infringing on the rights of any Members, has helped 
to raise the level of debate in this body by allowing Members to be 
fully prepared for amendments and issues that arise on the floor.
  So I urge Members to support this rule so we can proceed with the 
consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. This 
important legislation provides funding for three Cabinet-level 
departments--although Congress may be eliminating one of them, the 
Department of Commerce--and funding for numerous related agencies. 
Under this rule, any Member will be able to offer amendments to make 
cuts, or changes in the bill's funding priorities. For instance, I 
intend to support an amendment offered by my friends, Mr. Solomon and 
Mr. Heflin, to eliminate funding for the Economic Development 
Administration.
  The EDA is another example of a targeted Government program that over 
the years has strayed so far off-target that it's time in this 
gentleman's view to end it and begin again. Another area of special 
concern to all taxpayers, and especially those in my district of 
southwest Florida, is the money provided State Department in this bill 
for peacekeeping efforts and the United States diplomatic mission in 
Haiti. I look forward to appropriate debate on these topics.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Florida has 
described this is a simple rule to allow for the consideration of the 
State/Commerce/Justice appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. The 
rule is essentially open although it does waive clauses 2 and 6 of rule 
XXI allowing unauthorized appropriations and reappropriations in the 
bill. This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the House has not yet 
provided authorizations for most of the agencies in the bill. The rule 
also allows a motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  While I plan to support this rule, I am concerned with some of the 
provisions of this bill. In the area of crime prevention, the bill 
zeros out a number of important crime prevention programs popular with 
local policemen and our constituents. For example, the Community 
Oriented Policing Services Program, known as the COPS program, is 
eliminated. This program funds new policemen and would eventually put 
100,000 new officers on the streets. The COPS program has already 
provided funds for more than 20,000 new officers throughout the United 
States, including in my own district of Dayton, OH. It has won the 
praise of police chiefs and sheriffs from all around the country who 
contend the program is nonbureaucratic and visionary.
  This program and other prevention measures are expected to be folded 
into a $2 billion general law enforcement block grant. The problem with 
this, Mr. Speaker, is that funds could be used on anything from street 
lights to public works projects and will not necessarily have to be 
spent on crime prevention. In
 addition, the funding under this block grant is contingent upon 
another bill becoming enacted. I really do not think this is fair 
treatment to our constituents, who have heard us promise, time and time 
again, that we will help local communities fight crime.

  Another problem in the area of crime is a reduction of funds for the 
violent crime reduction trust fund and the bill's lack of support for 
crime fighting initiatives such as drug courts and violence against 
women countermeasures. While I understand the committee expects these 
programs to be picked up through the block grant, I believe that many 
of them will be shrunk and even eliminated. This is not what the 
American people want to see in the area of crime prevention.
  To its credit, the committee did retain funds in this bill for the 
Department of Commerce, although the Department's budget is greatly 
reduced. The Commerce Department is the only Cabinet-level department 
that works with American businesses and can help our companies compete 
in the global marketplace. I do not believe funding should have been 
eliminated for the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] which helps 
stimulate new technologies among U.S. companies. Therefore, I offered 
an amendment to the rule to allow Representative Mollohan to offer a 
floor amendment on this. Unfortunately, my amendment lost on a partisan 
vote.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not express my 
concern with the bill's restrictive language on the use of funds for 
peacekeeping missions. I believe we regularly need to evaluate our 
participation in peacekeeping missions, and make sure other countries 
do their part. However, language in this bill could seriously interfere 
with the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. This could hurt 
us and damage our relationships with other countries at a time in which 
we need multinational cooperation with respect to troubled spots in the 
world.
  As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will support this rule which 
was reported out of committee with no opposition. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting for it.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules met to 
consider the rule on this bill, I specifically requested that three 
amendments be made in order which otherwise would not be in order under 
the anticipated rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make the House aware of these 
amendments, and to sensitize the House to the fact that, first, the 
amendments were not made in order, and second, what I plan to do in the 
alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, each one of these amendments spoke to major policy 
issues, in my opinion, and consequently, merited a rule allowing them 
to be offered during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State 
bill. However, they were not.
  The first would have related to the COPS Program, a program which is 
now ongoing. It was authorized in last year's crime bill. There are 
approximately 20,000 police officers, or probably more like 25,000, 
approaching that anyway, officers out there on the streets across 
America under the COPS Program.
  This is a 3-year commitment that the Federal Government has made to 
these 

[[Page H 7611]]
communities, I am sure, in every single congressional district in the 
country, and it is a program that is working tremendously well. It is 
administratively very efficient, and substantively the information we 
are getting back is very useful and very well received in communities 
as a concept: community policing. It is a good program in fighting 
crime. That program is up, it is operating, those policemen are on the 
street, and the commitment is made.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in this bill before us, that program is 
not funded. Those commitments, under this bill, cannot be made. The 
program that was funded was the block grant program, which was passed 
by the majority in the first part of this year. It was anticipated by 
the majority that the block grant program would replace the COPS 
Program, even though the COPS Program is operating very well, and it is 
in midstream.
  Therefore, what we have is a program that is up and operating, doing 
well, not being funded in this bill. This new program that is not even 
authorized; it is simply somebody's legislative initiative at this 
point, being funded under the bill. That is a problem. That is a 
problem which I tried to address with an amendment that would fund 
these programs in the alternative.
  My amendment that I asked be made in order by the Committee on Rules 
would have funded the block grant program, if that became law. If the 
block grant program was not authorized, it would take that money and 
continue funding the COPS program. Unfortunately, that amendment was 
not made in order. I, therefore, am going to be forced, as we proceed, 
to make a motion to strike the block grant funding that is in the bill, 
and substitute funding for COPS. I would have preferred to proceed in 
the more bipartisan way.
  The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, relates to the Byrne Program. I 
intend to offer an amendment to take just $30 million from the total 
$50 million incarceration of illegal aliens fund, move it over to the 
very popular Byrne program; $30 million which will enhance that 
community funding, community police funding, in the very popular Byrne 
Grant Program for all of our communities. Again, I requested an 
amendment which would have enhanced the Byrne grant program 
significantly by merging it with the total amount available for the 
incarceration of illegal aliens. That amendment was not approved.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I requested authority under the rule in the 
Commerce title of the bill to restore funding to the very successful, 
and think strategically very important Advanced Technology Program. 
This program was initiated under the Republican administration, the 
Advanced Technology Program is strategic in the sense that it looks at 
emerging economies and says that the United States ought to be doing 
what its counterparts, its competitors around the world are doing: 
funding technology initiatives. That amendment was not made in order, 
and under the rule, Mr. Speaker, I can only offer an amendment which 
strikes restrictive language on ATP, which I plan on doing.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Stark].
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I have such an opportunity to thank my 
colleagues across the aisle, and particularly to congratulate the new 
leadership. Had I known what new vistas would open to us under this new 
leadership, I might have considered this much earlier.
  I received this morning, as did all of my colleagues, a nice 
communication from Mr. Livingood, our Sergeant at Arms. Mr. Livingood 
has informed me that he has taken a renewed interest in manners, or, 
excuse me, matters of protocol, and has announced that he has hired 
Pamela Gardner ``Muffy'' Ahearn as the director of protocol for the 
U.S. House of Representatives at, I would imagine, about $60,000 or 
$70,000 a year, for which we could hire a couple of policemen. She has 
extensive professional experience in dealing with foreign dignitaries. 
I do not know about us here, but with foreign dignitaries, embassies, 
and high-ranking government officials with all issues of protocol, she 
is going to help us.
  If Members have been worried about wearing white shoes after Labor 
Day, correct titles and forms of address and introductions, determining 
the order of precedence, for example, in California, illegal aliens are 
no longer eligible for medical care or education, but legal aliens may 
be, and a legal alien who served in the military might be. It is very 
important that Members know that, proper seating by rank, appropriate 
gifts and exchange thereon.
  The Speaker is going to let us vote on lobbyists giving us gifts. We 
will have a lot of gifts and we will need Ms. Ahearn to give us the 
protocol on what we do when we get these gifts from lobbyists; cultural 
traditions and taboos; dietary restrictions and preferences, I am sure 
the Speaker will be interested in that one; appropriate toasts 
following a meal; and language interpretation requirements.
  When Members are making protocol arrangements, for example, if the 
junior Senator from Oregon were worried about filling out his spousal 
identification card, he should make it out to the bearer, I would 
suppose, but Ms. Ahearn can in fact advise us on those matters. When we 
visit schools, the children who no longer get school lunches, should 
they sit at the same table with those Republican children who bring 
their lunch from the local caterer? This will be
 interesting to know, and very helpful for us, as we carry on our 
business.

  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Republicans are dealing with the 
serious matters of this House as they eliminate funding for school 
lunches, as they destroy Medicare. It will be interesting to know how 
we write those letters of condolence to the seniors who will no longer 
have Medicare available to them, and letters of congratulations to 
those rich seniors who will get the benefit of the $245 billion in tax 
cuts. We cannot write that, I am sure, looking too longingly at it. 
However, all of these things are matters which each of us here in the 
House should be concerned about.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand the 
gentleman. We just heard from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], who 
was talking about the bill, how we are doing away with the COPS 
program, we are doing away with significant funding for the Violence 
Against Women Act, we are doing away with all sorts of things in this 
bill. However, the gentleman is telling us we have now hired our own 
in-house Miss Manners?
  Mr. STARK. Yes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does the 
gentleman know, has there been a lot of misbehaving? Have people been 
dressing poorly on the floor? I notice the gentleman gave me a copy, 
and I got one in my office, too. It talks about toasts. Have people 
been giving inappropriate toasts here? What is this?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if I were this lady, I understand she makes 
$62,000 a year, she should drink a toast to the Speaker. That is a 
pretty nice salary for advising many of us who need help with our 
manners. I certainly could use some assistance in that, and the 
gentlewoman is correct.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, did this go 
to both sides of the aisle, or is it just the Democrats that are 
considered in such lack of protocol?
  Mr. STARK. I believe this letter was sent to all Members, and I am 
sure that in the most bipartisan spirit we all will have our manners 
and our protocol dressed up.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will yield further, I think it might 
be interesting. I just worry that maybe many of the interns will be out 
there creatively thinking of questions for our new ``Miss Manners'' or 
``Miss Protocol'' or whoever this is, and I would hope that maybe Roll 
Call or someone could print the questions and answers. This could be 
very interesting.
  Mr. STARK. I would think under the Freedom of Information Act.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry? I think 
this is very useful, and I think it has an appropriate time for 
discussion in the 

[[Page H 7612]]
well, but we are trying to talk about the rule on Commerce, Justice, 
State, which is the scheduled business for this moment. I do not want 
to call a point of order on the gentleman, but am I on the right track?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's point is well taken, and 
besides that, the time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 
expired.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that we will be considering amendments to 
the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill that would effectively 
abolish the Commerce Department. Only a few weeks ago the chairman of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight said proposals for the 
abolition of the Department of Commerce and other departments would be 
coordinated through the committee.
  The problem is that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
has held no hearings on any legislative proposal to abolish the 
Commerce Department, and has not voted on any such proposal.
  Regardless of whether you do, or do not, think the Department of 
Commerce should be abolished, you should vote against these amendments.
  The Appropriations Committee has already cut 20 percent from the 
Commerce Department's administrative budget. Now, Chairman Clinger 
wants to cut an additional 25 percent. A 45-percent cut would 
effectively abolish the Commerce Department.
  A cut of this magnitude would withhold funds the National Weather 
Service relies on to operate its weather satellites. Funds could be 
withheld that are needed to provide for the monitoring of textile and 
apparel imports so that our Government can tell when other countries 
are violating their textile and apparel agreements with us.
  We should not be making these kinds of decisions as a floor amendment 
to an appropriations bill. Both the Commerce Committee and the Science 
Committee--the committees of principal jurisdiction over the Commerce 
Department--have failed to act on legislation abolishing the 
Department. In fact, the Commerce Committee held its first hearing on 
the subject just this week.
  Further, business groups have expressed their opposition to 
dismantling the Department, in the manner proposed by this amendment. 
Dennis Picard, chairman and CEO of Raytheon, Michael H. Jordan, 
chairman and CEO of Westinghouse, and seven other business leaders said 
the following in a recent letter opposing abolishing the Department:

       Proposals to eliminate the Department of Commerce can only 
     appear to be inherently antibusiness at a time when our 
     industries face a global challenge as great as any time in 
     our nation's history.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. if 
we want to abolish the Commerce Department, we should take the time to 
do it the right way.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman made a very important point. 
What we are seeing happening on this floor is all sorts of legislation 
on appropriation bills where we really have not had hearings, and 
decisions are being made of such tremendous magnitude.
  I wanted to talk a bit, too, about the Violence Against Women Act. As 
Members know, we had hoped for about $120 million or more. That was 
what everybody thought was coming when we voted 421 to 0 on this bill. 
What we have seen in my area is domestic violence spilling out onto the 
street. I have all sorts of incidents where it may have started in the 
home, but what transpired was it spilled out onto the street, and many 
people were harmed.
  I also must say that the COPS program has worked very well in my 
area. We have been very, very pleased to see that working. I am very 
saddened to see that that may be cut.

                              {time}  1745

  The Commerce Department has done a tremendous job in increasing 
exports in my area. We can attribute about a 30-percent increase in 
jobs just because of Commerce's work on that. We may have an amendment 
that cuts that.
  I think that was the concern of the gentleman from California when he 
read this letter that we all got in our office today, is that the issue 
of priorities is one that troubles all of us.
  We are glad that this rule is open. I am glad that there is an 
attempt hopefully to save legal services, but maybe that will not 
happen, either.
  There are so many things happening here every day that people are not 
able to digest, that to suddenly read that we are going to have a 
protocol office that is going to talk to us about dietary restrictions 
and manners and our table menus and place cards is a little troubling. 
I think that was the perspective that we wanted to put into it. I 
understand that is not in this bill.
  We are having a rule, it is an open rule, we can offer a lot of 
amendments but we are very apt to lose them on a whole lot of things 
that have really made a difference in America. It is not like the money 
is not being spent. It is always being spent somewhere. That was our 
point. I am sorry if people got upset on that side. It is really rather 
extraordinary. I am pleased the gentleman from California brought it up 
and put this letter in the Record. I think all of us might look at that 
and scratch our head and say, ``What does this really mean?''
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Perhaps she is not 
aware that this is a position that in the sergeant at arms under her 
party as the majority was called the director of special events. There 
are no significant changes. It is simply that it was vacant when the 
leadership changed. Perhaps the gentlewoman is also not aware that her 
leadership on House Oversight, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and the other members 
of the Committee on House Oversight on her side of the aisle supported 
unanimously the continuation of this position.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing that 
out. I just want to say that, no, we did not know that and I think 
these are new duties that have been added is my understanding.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as we began the debate on this rule, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] had brought up the fact 
that his amendment to this bill was denied because he wanted to restore 
funding to the Clinton COPS Program. In this bill we are denied funding 
for the Clinton COPS Program.
  There is going to be an amendment later today offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] which will take $2 billion 
from the $3.2 billion in block grants to fund the Clinton COPS Program. 
The program to date is very efficient, it is a model of efficiency, it 
is effective, it is up, it is running and it is working. As the 
application form we can see being placed forward here, it is a two-page 
form.
  All you do, police officers around this Nation fill out this form, 
there is a fax number you can actually fax it in to the Department of 
Justice to get your grant approved. You do not need grant writers. you 
do not need consultants. It is a model of efficiency. The 
administrative cost for the COPS Program is 1.5 percent. Under the 
proposed block grants by my friends on this side of the aisle, it is 
2.5 percent. If we take a look at the Senate block grant program, it is 
15 percent for administrative costs. Here is a program that is up, it 
is running, and we have over 20,000 police officers on the street 
within the first year. The application, fill it out, fax it in.
  One of the big complaints we hear is there is no flexibility in the 
Clinton COPS Program. We are on round 2 of COPS MORE. COPS MORE stands 
for making officer redeployment effective. Today $41,700,000 was 
released for police officers to be put into civilian 

[[Page H 7613]]
help, to be put in for equipment, to be put in overtime. All the 
flexibility that local police officers say they need, you find it in 
the COPS MORE Program. We are on round 2. There will be 3 more rounds 
yet this year.
  The other problem I have with this bill is when we requested and the 
Department and the President requested over $10 million for rural law 
enforcement. This bill strikes out the $10 million for rural law 
enforcement officers. Twenty-five percent of this country lives in 
rural areas. I was a police officer, a city police officer, a State 
police officer. I worked in rural areas. I have worked in the big city. 
Crime does not respect if you live in a rural area or in a big city. If 
a criminal is going to make an attack upon you, they don't care if you 
are Democrat or Republican, if you come from a big city of a little 
city. We have money here. We need it for the COPS Program.
  Underneath the current proposal put forth by the majority, there is 
no money whatsoever to hire one police officer. There is a wish, there 
is a hope. That is why police officers around the country support the 
Clinton COPS Program.
  Earlier today we had a press conference. The Fraternal order of 
Police support it, National Association of Police Organizations, 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, International Union of 
Police Associations, Police Executive Research Forum, National 
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers, National Troopers 
Coalition, National Sheriffs Association, National Black Police 
Officers Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, 
Major Cities Chiefs, and U.S. Conference of Mayors all support the COPS 
Program. I urge Members to support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to comment that we understand the authorization-
appropriations cycle is a little bit out of whack. As I said in my 
opening remarks, we are trying to work that out so we do not have these 
problems.
  I think we have got a very fair rule here. We have heard a lot of 
discussion about issues we are going to talk about in the bill, but I 
have not heard any opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following data for the Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 24, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 38                 73
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 12                 23
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  2                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 52                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 24, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/95)
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95)               
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95)               
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95)               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95)               
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95)               
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95)               
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95)               
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95)     
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95)     
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95)               
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/11/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95)               
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/21/ 
                                                                                              95)               

[[Page H 7614]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   A: voice vote (7/24/
 95).                                                              Oil.                       95)               
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   ...................
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1995.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: H.R. 2076, the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act of 1996, contains a provision that falls 
     within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. 
     Specifically, H.R. 2076 raises the fee rate under Section 
     6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 from the authorized level 
     of 1/50th of one percent to 1/29th of one percent. Because 
     the fee is raised to a level beyond that which is authorized 
     by statute, this provision of H.R. 2076 would be in violation 
     of clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House.
       Increases in this fee, coupled with difficulty in funding 
     the SEC's operation, have been an ongoing problem, inherited 
     from past Congresses. The Commerce Committee has been 
     concerned that this situation not be allowed to continue 
     indefinitely. Chairman Rogers, Chairman Archer and I have 
     forged a permanent solution to the problem of SEC fees and 
     funding. This agreement will be codified in the statutory 
     reauthorization of the SEC; this agreement will, over a five 
     year period, step down the 6(b) fee, together with other SEC 
     fees, to a level approximately equivalent to the cost of 
     running the Agency. At that point, the SEC will be funded 
     entirely by means of an appropriation.
       Based on the agreement I have with Chairman Rogers and 
     Chairman Archer to work out this problem, I would not oppose 
     a waiver of Rule XXI clause 2, with respect to a one-year 
     extension of the 6(b) fee. This action is taken with the 
     understanding that the Commerce Committee will be treated 
     without prejudice as to its jurisdictional prerogatives 
     during further consideration of this and any similar 
     legislation.
       I would appreciate inclusion of this letter as part of the 
     Record during the consideration of this bill by the House.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter. With best 
     regards,
           Sincerely,
                                            Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________