[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7808-H7819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2099, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS 
  AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 201 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 201

       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. 2099) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices 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, and the amendment printed in part 1 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as pending. That amendment shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, 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. If that amendment is adopted, 

[[Page H 7809]]
     the provisions of the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Further consideration of the bill for 
     amendment shall proceed 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. All points of order 
     against amendments printed in part 2 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules are waived. During further 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 CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for 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 may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 201 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2099, making appropriations for 
the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and 
various independent agencies for fiscal year 1996. The rule provides 1 
hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI--prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations and legislation in an appropriations bill--and also 
waives clause 6 of rule XXI--prohibiting reappropriations--against 
provisions of the bill.
  The rule further provides that after general debate, this bill shall 
be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule, and the amendment 
printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution shall be considered as pending. That amendment shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. The amendment 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. If the 
amendment is adopted, the provisions of the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. Further consideration of the bill for 
amendment shall proceed by title rather than by paragraph, and each 
title shall be considered as read.
  The rule also makes in order the amendments printed in part 2 of the 
report of the Committee on Rules, and waives all points of order 
against these amendments. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord 
priority in recognition of Members who have preprinted their amendments 
in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule allows one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to applaud subcommittee chairman, 
Jerry Lewis, and ranking member, Louis Stokes, along with the rest of 
the members of the Appropriations Committee for a job well done. 
They've performed miracles in meeting the needs of our country's 
veterans as well as the housing requirements of the needy and the 
elderly. The bill also funds NASA and numerous other agencies, and I am 
especially pleased to see that almost $2 billion has been allocated for 
the space station, which I strongly support.
  But there is no higher priority, Mr. Speaker, than meeting the 
Federal Government's obligation to honor the commitment made to the 
veterans of this Nation. Whether it was during World War I, World War 
II, where I proudly served, or in Korea or Vietnam, or even during more 
recent military conflicts, over 27 million men and women risked their 
lives for the United States of America. We owe it to them to ensure 
that they have an adequate standard of living, and receive the medical 
care and other benefits they earned through their service to this 
country. The committee did an excellent job in making limited funds go 
a long way in order to live up to our obligations to our veterans, and 
I commend them for their dedication and hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, this open rule will allow all Members to fully 
participate in the amendment process, and I urge its adoption. I 
include the following materials for the Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 25, 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                 39                 73
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 12                 23
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  2                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 53                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 25, 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.                              

[[Page H 7810]]
                                                                                                                
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 (7/12/
 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 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
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.   A: voice vote (7/25/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 201 (7/25/    O...................  H.R. 2099...........  VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996..  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.               


                              {time}  1040

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this rule and the bill it makes in 
order, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  This rule sanctions the most flagrant and wholesale violation in 
memory of the House rule that prohibits legislating on an 
appropriations bill. By protecting major legislative changes--policy 
changes--contained in this bill, it allows the Appropriations Committee 
to run roughshod over the authorizing committees.
  If Democrats, when we were in the majority, had ever proposed a rule 
that protected by waivers so many major changes in substantive law, our 
Republican colleagues would have protested loudly and vehemently--and 
they would have been right. This rule ought to be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, up until today, we have generally accepted the need for 
waivers of rule XXI--the prohibition on legislation in an 
appropriations bill--which have been contained in the rules for 
consideration of appropriations bills this year. We recognize, from our 
years of being in the majority, that it is extremely difficult to avoid 
all violations of rule XXI in an appropriations bill.
  There are almost always cases where it is necessary to include funds 
for programs or agencies that have not been reauthorized yet, or where 
it is necessary to provide some guidance to the agencies in the way 
moneys are spent. So we understand, and agree, that there are often 
legitimate and appropriate reasons to waive rule XXI.
  However, the waiver of rule XXI provided by this rule goes far beyond 
the bounds of what can reasonably be considered legitimate or 
appropriate. This waiver is being used to allow the Appropriations 
Committee to substantially rewrite major environmental and housing 
laws. It is being used to allow the Appropriations Committee to usurp 
the function of the authorizing committees, and to deny the House the 
opportunity to have a full debate on these policy changes. That, in our 
view, is an egregious misuse of the waiver.
  The majority defends this waiver by saying that the authorizing 
committee chairmen agreed to the Appropriations Committee's inclusion 
of legislative language in areas under their jurisdiction, which 
follows a policy that was established when the Democratic party was in 
the majority of providing rule XXI waivers only in such cases.
  However, that policy worked when we were in the majority because our 
party's authorizing committee chairmen did not agree to major revisions 
to laws under their jurisdiction in appropriations bill, as the current 
authorizing committee chairmen apparently do. These chairmen are 
evidently willing to cede their responsibilities to the Appropriations 
Committee, rather than defend the integrity of the legislative process 
by insisting on their committees' right to make major policy changes 
the way they should be made, through authorizing legislation.
  We suspect that the reason they are agreeing to this intrusion on 
their committees' rightful role and obligation is because they realize 
that these policy revisions might not withstand the scrutiny of a full-
scale debate, with possible amendments, on the House floor.
  To make matters worse, the rule denies rule XXI protection to 
amendments that would allow the House to debate these policy changes. 
It denies waivers for all but two amendments that Members sought 
protection for--amendments to be offered by Mr. Klug of Wisconsin, and
 by Mr. Davis of Virginia. No amendments sought by Member from our side 
of the aisle received the protection they need in this rule.
  During the Rules Committee consideration of this rule, our efforts to 
allow considering these amendments were rejected on a party line vote. 
As a result, the House will not have the opportunity to debate 
important amendments that were sought by Mr. Stokes of Ohio, the 
ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts, Ms. Kaptur of Ohio, Mr. Moran of Virginia, or Mrs. 
Roukema of New Jersey.
  We believe that if we are going to rewrite policy in appropriations 
bills then, in the interest of fairness, and of producing the best 
possible legislation, we ought to protect the amendments Members want 
to offer so that the House can have a full debate on these policy 
changes. That is particularly true if the House is faced with a bill, 
such as this one, that makes drastic policy changes that will 
significantly affect virtually all of our citizens.
  Consider what this bill does to the environment: It slashes funds for 
environmental protection by 32 percent, providing one-third less than 
what we are currently spending. These cuts would cripple EPA's 
enforcement efforts, seriously weakening the implementation of 
virtually every major environmental law--including the Clean Air Act, 
the Clean Water Act, the Safe 

[[Page H 7811]]
Drinking Water Act, and the law regulating the use of pesticides. It 
would prohibit EPA from initiating cleanup at new Superfund sites.
  In addition, 17 legislative provisions in the bill--language 
protected by this rule--would prohibit EPA from enforcing or 
implementing most Clean Water Act programs, including wetlands 
protection, new effluent discharge standards, new pretreatment 
standards, and new water quality standards; prohibit EPA regulatory 
actions with respect to many Clean Air Act rules; prohibit EPA actions 
on pesticides which had previously been allowed to be used on raw 
agricultural commodities; restrict the ability of EPA to issue rules 
concerning the emission of toxic substances from cement kilns and other 
industrial furnaces; prohibit EPA from implementing the Great Lakes 
Water Quality Program; prohibit EPA from taking actions against 
polluters whose violations are uncovered through state audits; and make 
numerous other changes that hamper the EPA's ability to protect the 
health and safety of our citizens.
  When the funding cuts and legislative changes contained in this bill 
are combined with the changes to environmental policy that have been 
made in other bills the House has passed this year--including the Clean 
Water Act revision, and the so-called regulatory reform bills--this 
effort amounts to nothing less than a full-scale assault on the 
environmental protection laws that have served our Nation so well 
during the past three decades.
  The other area that is cut drastically by this bill is housing, where 
funding is reduced by 25 percent from this year's level.
  Here, too, the funding cuts and the legislative changes in the bill 
amount to significant changes in housing policy. Among other 
provisions, this bill would raise the rent ceiling for families living 
in pubic housing; suspend the existing preference system for public 
housing tenants; and suspend the one-for-one replacement rule for 
public housing. It would also prohibit HUD from issuing or enforcing a 
rule to apply the Fair Housing Act to the underwriting of property 
insurance, and make numerous other policy changes.
  On top of all that, this bill also eliminates all funding for a 
number of current programs, including the AmeriCorps National Service 
Program, the Community Development Bank initiative, and the FDIC 
Affordable Housing Program. In addition, it provides for the 
termination of the Council of Environmental Quality and the Office of 
Environmental Quality within the Executive Office of the President.
  Mr. Speaker, we recognize that reason that the bill cuts spending 13 
percent below current levels is because the VA-HUD Subcommittee had a 
much smaller spending allocation to work with than in the past. 
However, I would point out that the subcommittee was in that position 
only because of the misguided budget priorities that the Republican 
majority has imposed. Those priorities are forcing Congress to make 
deep cuts in domestic programs in order to pay for unnecessary 
increases in defense spending--including more weaponry than the Defense 
Department itself has requested--and tax cuts that will mainly benefit 
the wealthiest among us.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a truly bad rule--one that would trash our most 
important procedural safeguard, that protects the most egregious 
violation of legislating on an appropriations bill in memory--and that 
does so to allow the House to make damaging changes to environmental 
and housing laws with only minimal debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let me point out that, yes, I am the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, but before that I was the senior ranking Republican on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 10 years. I was very, very proud of 
that service.
  I rise now somewhat concerned with my good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], who wants people to come over here and vote 
against this open rule. I just cannot believe what I am hearing. First 
of all, let us get the record straight once and for all. If you are 
listening back in your offices, Members, you had better listen up, 
because your political life is at stake here.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] wants you to come over 
here and vote against this rule. Behind the scenes, the reason they 
want this rule defeated is because they are concerned that there are 
cuts in such things as the Environmental Protection Agency, in housing, 
and a whole host of other things.
  What they are not telling you is that we have spent days and days and 
days on something, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery], the former chairman and the ranking Democrat on that 
committee, myself, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and 
members of his committee. We have struggled for weeks to get adequate 
funding for the other part of this veterans and housing and independent 
agencies bill, and that is the veterans' medical care delivery system.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], but let 
me digress just 1 more minute before I do that.
  If Members come over here and vote against this rule, then this bill 
does not come to the floor. And what happens? All of the issues are 
reopened. If you are going to increase funding for housing or the 
Environmental Protection Agency or all these other things, where do you 
think it is going to come from? It is going to come out of the only 
part of this bill that has an increase, and that is the veterans' 
portion of the budget. Think about that, ladies and gentleman. I want 
you to come over here and I dare you to vote against this rule.
  Let us get back to the bill itself. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] came here with me 17 years ago. He has been a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I had an opportunity to serve on that 
committee when our good friend Jack Kemp stepped down and chose not to 
seek reelection. I did not do that because I liked the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, and I liked the Committee on Rules, where I thought 
I could be of some help.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has done an outstanding 
job. When we look at the budget that we had to vote for with its 
allocation to the 13 functional areas of Government, I guess perhaps 
the gentleman from California has had the toughest job of all in trying 
to make sure that this entire portion of the budget was treated fairly.
  Let me tell you, they have treated it fairly. The Clinton 
administration had asked for an increase in the Veterans' 
Administration function, as they did with many other functions. As a 
matter of fact, they asked for so many increases that they would have 
increased the national debt by $1 trillion over the next 5 years if we 
had allowed that.
  But we did not, because we have a deeper responsibility, and that is 
to balance this budget over the next 7 years. To do that, you have to 
cut just about everything. You have to get this spending under control, 
this leviathan sea monster that is literally drowning this country in a 
sea of red ink. Members of this Congress have done it.
  In this particular bill, we have been able to scrimp and save and put 
together almost $300 million in additional spending over what was 
originally presented. In other words, we have adjusted the 602(b) 
allocation. That is inside-the-beltway talk, but what that means is, in 
other words, in the caps we have to live with, we have been able to in 
these last several weeks, after much negotiation, to raise that 602(b) 
allocation, the caps, by about $300 million, with all of it going into 
the veterans' medical care delivery system.
  In addition, we have been able to adjust other functions within the 
Veterans' Administration to make sure that we have got adequate 
funding, similar to what was asked for by Secretary Brown and President 
Bill Clinton, of almost $480 million. That is about some 80 to 85 
percent of what they were asking for.

[[Page H 7812]]

  In this particular bill, we have increases for the veterans' affairs 
and no increases for anything else.
  I just want to say this. We are going to have amendments that are 
going to be offered on this floor today, and they are going to offer to 
cut other functions and put more money into the veterans' affairs 
functions. I am going to tell you this: That after all of the 
negotiations that we have gone through, that I am going to oppose any 
of those amendments that are going to try to cut other areas and put 
more money into veterans' affairs.
  I have stood on this floor for 17 years as an advocate for the 
veterans, and I guess I have more plaques hanging on my wall than any 
other Member of this Congress, just about, for what we have tried to do 
for veterans. But I am going to tell you, the veterans that I represent 
know that we have done a good job, that it is adequately funded with 
the moneys that we have to work with this year.
  I would just hope that every Member would not only come over here and 
vote for this rule, but that then they would support the gentleman from 
California's appropriation bill because it is an outstanding job that 
he has done. And I just commend the gentleman for it.
  I will be here on this floor all day long. I will be glad to enter 
into a colloquy with anybody. I will be glad to go outside and enter 
into a colloquy and discuss what we have done. I think that the other 
Members who have worked so diligently with us to put this together will 
do the same thing.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield 
for a brief colloquy?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the pressures 
that the gentleman is under and the attitude with which he brings out 
this year's budget.
  I would just point out to the gentleman that we would have about $245 
billion more to play with if we were not involved in an enormous tax 
cut for the richest people in this country and that we could address a 
lot more of the veterans' needs, of the needs of the homeless and many 
other people in this country, the kind of capabilities they need their 
Government to be providing them. After the veterans of this country 
have served us, it seems to me that to be cutting the taxes for the 
richest people in the Nation is a very irresponsible act that is being 
undertaken at this same time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, I will be glad to continue with the 
gentleman on his time to say that the gentleman has a point, that there 
have been recommendations for tax cuts.
  I personally think that a $500 tax cut for individual families in 
this country is not too much to ask for. I do not think that a capital 
gains tax cut is too much to ask for.
  I am going to be speaking in Hyde Park, NY, Saturday morning, whether 
there is a session here or not, before many, many senior citizens who 
have worked all their lives. They have saved and they have scrimped, 
they have a little stock involved and they have held onto that stock. 
Now they want to sell it, but they do not want the Government to 
confiscate all of their profit after holding that stock for 20 or 30 
years. That to me is being compassionate, and that is what we are 
really doing.
  The gentleman's points are well taken.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield 
further?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Why do you not get your time, then I will be glad to 
answer your questions. We are running out of time over here.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer to 
spend the time debating this than anything else the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] has to say.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I have to retain my time and yield back my time. Come on 
over here and let us talk about it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. STOKES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to associate myself 
with the excellent statement of Mr. Beilenson.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that in my opinion, the bill we are 
discussing today is badly flawed. I had hoped to be able to offer 
amendments to improve this legislation somewhat, but under the unfair 
terms of this rule, I am restricted in the amendments I will be able to 
offer.
  This rule demonstrates--in the clearest manner possible--the lack of 
respect the Republican majority has for the rules of the House of 
Representatives and for the rights of the minority. The rule waives 
points of order against nearly 30 pages of pure legislative language in 
the bill. That is right. More than one-third of the total bill is 
legislation that could be struck on points of order if not protected by 
this rule. I am not talking about technical violations. And I am not 
talking about waivers for lack of authorization. What I am referring to 
are changes in substantive law--pages and pages of it.
  The rule also makes in order an amendment to be offered by the 
Republican bill manager. Although it makes 20 separate changes to the 
bill, this amendment is not subject to amendment or to a demand for a 
division. In addition, two other amendments requested by Republicans 
are protected by the rule from points or order. By way of contrast, not 
one of the nine amendments Democratic Members sought to have protected 
under the rule received protection.
  When I testified before the Rules Committee earlier in the week, I 
asked that the legislative provisions in the bill not be protected. If 
that request could not be granted, I requested waivers of certain 
Democratic amendments so at a minimum the House could have a debate on 
the merits of these very important issues. That request for fairness 
was also rejected.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I refer to a memorandum sent from the 
chairman of the Rules Committee to the Republican leadership earlier 
this month. The following statement was made:

       The more legislative policy debates that are injected into 
     the appropriations process, beyond mere cutting amendments, 
     the longer the amendment process on which 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 my opinion, it is a grave mistake that the suggestion of the Rules 
Committee chairman was not followed on this bill. The debate on 
repealing the Brooke amendment or on repealing the Delaney amendment 
should be managed by the Legislative Committees after proper hearings 
and deliberation. It should not be accomplished on this appropriations 
bill.
  I urge defeat of the rule.
                              {time}  1100

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my very 
sincere appreciation to both the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen], my colleague on the Committee on Rules, as well as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], for their courtesy during 
our effort to put this bill together and to fashion a rule that allowed 
us to go forward with the work that we had to do here. I would like 
also to express my appreciation to my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], for his very kind remarks regarding our effort on 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we will have plenty of time today to discuss the 
substance of this bill, so I do not intend to put us through any of 
that at this moment, except to mention a couple of items that may not 
come up in the debate and reference a bit of the discussion relative to 
the language that exists within this bill.
  Earlier in the year, during the rescissions process, the new majority 
made some effort to address what the House had done relating to 
spending during the 1995 fiscal year. It became very obvious to all of 
us that we were establishing spending priorities for the future of this 
country.
  The effort is an attempt to reduce the rate of growth of spending 
across 

[[Page H 7813]]
the Government. There is little doubt that all of us recognize the 
need, progressively, to try to make sense out of what we are doing with 
our budget in terms of the national debt. Whether my colleagues are 
supportive of balancing the budget by 2002, as we propose, or they 
support the idea of balancing budget in a 10-year period as the 
President has proposed, clearly, we are going to have to address the 
question of reducing spending across all those elements of Government, 
especially where there is discretionary spending.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills with the largest pools of 
discretionary spending. There is not any doubt that because the 
appropriations process is moving ahead of the authorization process, 
that there are implications between policy direction and what we ought 
to be doing with spending. Because of that, we have been working very, 
very closely with all of our authorizing committees. We are working 
with approximately six different committees, working with their 
chairmen with members, Democrat and Republican alike, attempting to 
seek new direction from those policy committees.
  That has led to the addition of a good deal of language in this bill, 
much of which has been protected. I am a Member of the House who has 
long said that the appropriations process should be as separate as 
possible from the policy work of the authorization committees, but this 
is a most unusual year.
  Post ``the revolution,'' our policy has implications relative to 
spending and the reverse is also true. So I want the House to know that 
while we have language in many instances that is designed to help us 
reduce spending, it is not the intention of this chairman to have the 
appropriations process become the authorization process in the years 
ahead. I would hope in the future that we will have very little 
language. But, indeed, the language in this bill is very important in 
terms of that overall effort to get a handle on the budget and move 
towards balancing the budget. We are at the same time, redirecting a 
long-established pattern of more spending every year by way of our 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to mention one other subject area and that deals 
with the section of this bill that involves funding for NASA. Earlier 
in the year, we had no small amount of controversy swirl around the
 recommendations of this subcommittee that related to closing down some 
centers of NASA--three of them--and also to terminate one major program 
and delay a couple of others.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the Members how we came to that 
position, for it has had a very interesting impact upon our process. 
During the rescission work that I mentioned earlier, I had the 
opportunity to work with a number of my agencies. None was more 
cooperative than NASA. NASA stepped up to the plate and Administrator 
Goldin was most helpful in helping us examine their priorities.
  Because of this, NASA did quite well in the rescissions process. We 
attempted to have the same kind of communication during the 1996 
appropriation process, and that began with meetings between myself and 
Administrator Goldin.
  We thought we were on a perfect pathway to effective cooperation, and 
then I received a phone call from the Administrator and his staff that 
indicated that somewhere on high, above the Administrator's office, the 
word had come down from the administration that they did not want 
communication with our committee about those priorities.
  They said, ``Let the committee make its cuts itself.'' Essentially, 
they were saying, ``Do not cooperate.'' I suggested to the 
Administrator, and the people at NASA, that their bill would come 
forward in much different form than it might otherwise have, because I 
felt there was a need to consider the impact of infrastructure upon 
costs. We should be willing to reexamine programs in place to see if 
they continue to work.
  It was very important that we be able to consider elements like that 
as we evaluated NASA's future. Clearly, I knew that we were not going 
to close centers, but we did need to send a message, not just to NASA 
but especially a message to this administration, that we need their 
cooperation if these bills are going to make sense for the country. 
Democrats and Republicans, we need to work together. Indeed, I was very 
disappointed in the administration's lack of willingness to cooperate.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to be a very controversial bill, 
without any question, but it does put us on a pathway that indeed gives 
us a real shot at balancing our budget by 2002.
  We treated each account as equitably as possible. VA medical care is 
a very important account and we have done very well in that connection. 
From there, the reductions in spending that are involved treat every 
other agency in an equitable fashion, one against the other.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill, in my judgment. I appreciate 
the Members' attention, I certainly appreciate their support, and I 
look forward to their vote for the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an outrage. 
This rule is an outrage. It makes a mockery of every promise made by 
the Republican leadership to run an open and democratic House.
  The bill contains page after page of far-reaching and devastating 
legislative changes that change basic housing policy of the past 20 or 
25 years.
  Whether it is the suspension of the Brooke amendment, which holds 
down rents for the poorest people in our society, or rent increases for 
families and senior citizens; the micromanagement of HUD 
administration; or the hamstringing of the Office of Fair Housing, the 
bill will create more homelessness and result in more abandonment of 
and disinvestment from our cities and sets of policies than we have 
considered in the Congress since I have served here.
  Worst of all, Mr. Speaker, these changes are being made with 
absolutely no consideration of the authorizing committees. What we have 
here is a complete abandonment of the responsibility of people that 
come here to the Congress of the United States, are assigned to the 
authorizing committees, and then back off, never hold a hearing, never 
have an up-or-down vote on policies, and cede all of their authority to 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  The appropriations, because they want to achieve not only a balanced 
budget but they want to provide a $250 billion tax cut to the richest 
Americans, not to senior citizens as was described by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, but to 
the richest people in this country. That is where those tax breaks are 
going and that is why these cuts are being made and they are made 
without ever anyone standing up and having a debate about it.
  So what happens is the authorizing committee takes a powder. We have 
a bunch of brain-dead people around here; flatliners who are not even 
taking the fundamental responsibility of holding a hearing and asking 
the real questions about how we should be making our priorities.
  So, it is ceded to the appropriators. The appropriators take that 
authority and they say, ``Let us have at it.'' They make the chops 
wherever they want and have no idea what the impacts of these cuts are 
actually going to be the poorest and most vulnerable people in the 
society.
  The Committee on Rules, which is supposed to allow any Member of this 
House the opportunity to come and offer an amendment on the floor of 
this Congress to be able to change what the appropriators have done, 
and they stifle every one of us.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. If we look at what they have done to 
this HUD administration, at what they are going to do to create 
homelessness in this country, the people that look at these issues will 
be outraged.
  If my colleagues look at the fact that we saw in this bill $5 billion 
cut overnight with the stroke of a pen, more homelessness will be 
created by the stroke of that pen than any policy in the history of 
this country.
  We see 23 percent of the budget cut. We see things like the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], who tried to offer an amendment to 
put back the 

[[Page H 7814]]
Drug Elimination Program, a program I visited twice this week in my own 
district. That program is providing tenant action groups with the 
capability of eliminating drug dealers from public housing; stricken 
from this bill without so much as a minute of debate and not even an 
attempt to be able to have that debate on the floor of the Congress of 
the United States.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], and I, have an 
alternative that would provide least-cost housing. Let us have your 
cost benefit analysis. Let us have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, we will give it to 
him.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will give it 
to us?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me point out, this is an open rule. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has been here quite a while and he knows 
what that means. First of all, this is an appropriation bill put on the 
floor under an open rule. Now, that means the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur] or the gentleman from Massachusetts or any other Member 
are treated the same. Let me explain, because the gentleman needs to 
know this. It will ensure to his benefit. This is an open rule. I am 
going to show the gentleman how to do what he wants to do.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am listening.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can offer any germane 
amendment that he wants to under the rules of the House and under this 
rule.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do 
not have that much time, but let me explain to the gentleman from New 
York the problem with what his premise is.
  The problem is because the authorizing committee has never held a 
hearing, because we never passed a bill, which is way beyond my 
capacity because the chairman is now a Republican, none of these bills, 
none of these changes, the Drug Elimination Grant Program is not 
authorized, thus, it is subject to a point of order.
  So the gentleman from New York can tell me that I can offer the 
amendment, but the first thing that happens is a Member pops up on the 
other side and say that I am out of order or the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur] is out of order because the program is not authorized.
  The gentleman says it is an open rule; we can offer any amendment 
that we want. But the gentleman knows that hidden behind that are a 
series of procedural changes that the Republicans have offered time and 
time again that knock out our capability of offering and having a 
legitimate debate on these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, is that not true?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, no, it is not true.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, can I offer the Drug 
Elimination Grant Program?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has rights to offer 
limitation amendments, cutting amendments, and transfer amendments 
under the Rules of the House. The gentleman is trying to say that we 
are trying to prevent him from doing something, and I am telling the 
gentleman that he can do anything he wants to under the rules of the 
House.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New 
York knows that is not true. The gentleman knows those are not the 
rules that we are operating under.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The Chair cautions Members to 
refrain from using first names and should refer to Members in the third 
person.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I was listening very carefully to what the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, just said. As the chairman knows, I came before the Committee on 
Rules in an attempt to get my amendment in order on this floor to have 
a full debate on the Drug Elimination Program.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates the Drug Elimination Program, which 
I think is absolutely wrong for this country. It affects the town of 
the gentleman from New York, my town, every city and town in this 
country. I was denied the ability to bring that amendment up on the 
basis that this rule waived points of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman have a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get an answer to my question. 
I listened and the gentleman from New York said the rule provides that 
we can offer amendments to cut. My amendment is not a cutting 
amendment, Mr. Speaker, my amendment is an amendment to transfer money 
from FEMA to the Drug Elimination Program.
                              {time}  1115

  But I am not made in order on this floor. I would like the chairman, 
whom I have great respect for, to please explain to me whether under 
the rule I will be allowed an opportunity to have a full debate on that 
amendment as approved by the committee.
  I have been told I cannot offer this amendment. I have a right to 
know that. He said I could offer this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentlewoman has not stated 
a parliamentary inquiry which the Chair can respond to. It is not the 
Chair's responsibility to interpret pending special orders, but to 
interpret them once adopted at the appropriate time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Now, wait a minute. I am not sitting down. I have served 
in this Chamber for 13 years. I want to know from the Chair if the rule 
provides me the right to offer my amendment to restore the funds for 
the drug elimination program.
  My amendment transfers those funds from FEMA, which is in the same 
bill, to the account at HUD for drug elimination.
  I just heard the chairman say amendments in order are cutting 
amendments. My amendment is not a cutting amendment. It is a transfer 
amendment. I have a right to know the answer to that question.
  There are lives at stake all over this country on this amendment. It 
is important for me to know the answer. That is, I would expect the 
Chair could answer that question for me, with all due respect.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot answer the gentlewoman's 
question. It is not a parliamentary inquiry the Chair can answer. The 
Chair cannot interpret the intent of the rule while pending. It can 
only rule on the enforcement of that rule.
  Ms. KAPTUR. But the Chair obviously knows what the rule is. Does the 
Chair not know?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is engaging in legitimate 
debate, but has not made a parliamentary inquiry the Chair can respond 
to.
  Ms. KAPTUR. How about if I ask the Chair under what part of the rule 
could I bring up this amendment? It is my understanding that I am 
barred from bringing up this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is something that the gentlewoman can 
direct, if the manager of the time would yield you time for a question 
or a colloquy; the gentlewoman may do that. The Chair cannot rule on 
this as a parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I ask the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], would 
he yield and answer my question, please, sir?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield time?
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have the time. I think she has been 
speaking on the rule rather than making a parliamentary inquiry, and I 
will be happy to yield her 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. QUILLEN. I am happy to yield the gentlewoman 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  It is my understanding that the amendment that I came before the 
committee to offer, which proposed 

[[Page H 7815]]
that we transfer $290 million from FEMA to the drug elimination program 
in order to restore it because it was zeroed out in the committee, 
which I think is backward policy for this country, is not in order on 
this floor.
  If the chairman could, please, explain to me, based on what you have 
just said on the floor, is my amendment now in order?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me say something to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur], for whom I have a great deal of respect. I have served on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs with her for years. We have not done 
anything to prevent you from doing anything that is allowed under the 
rules of this House.
  Now, we have allowed cutting amendments. We allow limitation 
amendments. And we allow----
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mine is not a cutting amendment, sir.
  Mr. SOLOMON. You did not let me finish. Just a moment. We allow 
cutting amendments. We allow limiting amendments, saying none of these 
funds can be used for this purpose. We allow transfer amendments. If 
your amendment is in order under the rules of the House, you can offer 
it.
  My suggestion is that you go to the Parliamentarian and let him 
advise you as to whether or not your amendment is in order.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's 
question and concern.
  Her amendment is a very special category for, as you may recall in 
the rescissions process, we eliminated the money for this program. As a 
result of that, there is nothing in the bill to transfer moneys to, and 
above and beyond that the program is not authorized by the authorizing 
committee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate and I have great respect for the chairman.
  This is exactly where the rules process fails us, simply because the 
program has been operating since 1988, but because the House in 
committee has not acted, that program is not authorized. Therefore, if 
I try to offer this amendment, even though it is operating, I will be 
called on a point of order on the floor, Mr. Speaker. This is why I 
came before the committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If I could say to the gentlewoman, this 
program has existed for some time. The people in charge of the 
authorizing committee during that time chose, for one reason or 
another, not to reauthorize it. As a result of that and because there 
is no money in the bill, it does not qualify under the rules of the 
House. It has nothing to do with this rule. It has to do with the rules 
of the House. I am sorry to say that. That is the reality we are 
dealing with.
  Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman will yield, you know, I feel sorry that 
the committee cannot conduct its business, but simply because that 
committee, under its so-called new leadership, cannot conduct its 
business, they have no right to eliminate these drug elimination 
programs around this country which are so successful.
  It would seem to me the Republican leadership of this House could 
find a way for me to offer this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I must say, indeed, the new leadership has 
had 3 months to consider these problems. They have not been able to 
change the world yet, but the gentlewoman should know we are working on 
it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished ranking member.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
H.R. 2099 is a bad bill, and since the rule protects that bill, this is 
a bad rule and should be defeated.
  H.R. 2099 is replete with legislative provisions, funding 
restrictions and riders which go to the very heart of our Nation's 
environmental protection. The bill eliminates EPA's role in the 
wetlands program, it prohibits EPA from addressing stormwater 
pollution, it stops EPA from assuring the control of raw sewage through 
combined sewers and sanitary sewers, it halts all advancement in 
controlling industrial pollution, it prohibits efforts to clean up the 
Great Lakes, and it denies badly needed funding to our cities and 
States.
  The result will be less environmental protection and increased risk 
to the health and safety of our constituents. This appropriations bill 
will single-handedly cause a major rollback of the protections of the 
Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
  What does the rule do about the underlying bill? It waives all points 
of order against the legislative provisions, funding restrictions and 
riders which gut environmental protection. This is a clear abuse of the 
legislative process, and an affront to the citizens and communities we 
represent.
  The people of this country are calling for responsive, responsible 
legislation. Yet, this rule protects provisions in H.R. 2099 which are 
totally irresponsible. H.R. 2099 rolls back environmental protection 
and denies financial assistance to communities, all in a misguided 
effort to pressure the Senate into gutting environmental laws.
  My colleagues, this is not some game of legislative poker. We should 
not be playing fast and loose with the health and safety of our 
constituents. We should not be denying desperately needed funding to 
States and cities to create leverage in securing waivers, loopholes and 
rollbacks which benefit industry's bottom line, but which cause harm to 
the general population.
  H.R. 2099 is a bad bill, and this is a bad rule. I urge a ``no'' vote 
on the rule.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to just correct some of 
the misperception that I think was left on this floor with respect to 
the authorization.
  I chair the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. Of 
course, as most people realize, for the first time in 40 years, the 
Republicans have the ability to chair and control the agenda on the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the subcommittees, 
including the subcommittee that I chair.
  For the last 7 years, there has been an opportunity certainly to 
authorize the drug elimination program, and despite the fact that the 
opposition party, the Democratic Party, controlled both the House and 
the Senate for every one of those 7 years, there is a failure to 
reauthorize.
  To suggest now that the new majority, who has been in control of that 
subcommittee for just a few months, is somehow responsible for not 
reauthorizing the program when they have had control for 40 years both 
on the House side, most of those 40 years on the Senate side, is a 
farce.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, this 
bill, and this process. In my tenure here in Congress, this is among 
the most heartless legislation I have seen.
  To begin with, the Appropriations Committee has vastly exceeded its 
legislative authority in this bill. This bill legislates across the 
board. It infringes on the Banking Committee's authority by legislating 
in the area of housing. It enters the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction 
by legislating with respect to the environment. It is bad enough that 
the actual appropriations figures contained in this bill represent a 
virtual abandonment of this country's poor and moderate-income 
families. But the overt encroachment into authorization committee 
territory compounds this disaster.
  I do not understand. We had a bipartisan effort with the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and myself where we did rent reform that 
encourages people to work so that when they go to work their earnings 
are not taken up by the housing authorities 

[[Page H 7816]]
and public housing charging them more rent, encouraging people to work. 
That is done away with.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill raises rents on poor people--it prohibits HUD 
from enforcing the Fair Housing Act with respect to property insurance. 
It prohibits HUD from implementing the final RESPA rules.
  This bill targets its deepest cuts at vulnerable populations--the 
poorest residents in public and assisted housing, the homeless, the 
poor, working families, and the elderly.
  These cuts are unwise, unworkable, and unfair. We should reject this 
rule and bring up an entirely new bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen] for yielding me time, although I did not get an answer to my 
question. I thank you for your gentlemanly comportment and also to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], our very capable Chair, who 
fully understands that I am barred under this rule from offering my 
amendment on the floor, and to my good friend, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], I will not be allowed to offer this amendment to 
continue the drug eradication programs in our public housing 
neighborhoods around this country, because I will be called on a point 
of order.
  It is not an open rule, because the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services did not complete its business, sir, and I only have 
a minute and three-quarters under the rule.
  So if you would be kind enough, I would just like to say every mayor 
in this country, every citizen in this country, every person who lives 
in and around public housing understands what it is like to have these 
projects controlled by snipers and drug lords. I was in Chicago; you 
could not even walk from building to building, because there were 
snipers on the roofs who were controlling the drug trade.
  When I am not allowed to offer my amendment, what it means is that 
this Congress is going on record as saying that hundreds and hundreds 
of communities across this country can go it alone.
                              {time}  1130

  I think it is absolutely wrong for us to return our backs on the 
scourge of the drug trade that is eating away at the hearts of our 
communities, and I think it is absolutely wrong, I think it is wrong 
from a public policy standpoint. I think it is politically wrong for me 
to be denied the ability to offer this amendment on a program that has 
worked from the time that Jack Kemp started it in 1988. The city of 
Albany will be affected. The city of Los Angeles will be affected. 
Every single major community and minor community in this country will 
be affected, and I think it is absolutely unfair, unfair that we are 
denied the opportunity to offer the amendment and the money. The proof 
in the pudding is the money that is used for this program. Rather than 
being spent on drug elimination, it is going to be bankrolled into a 
little account over in the Committee on Ways and Means to give tax 
breaks to the privileged few in this country. It is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remark that I, 
too, have been in Chicago, I, too, have visited State Street, Cabrini-
Green. I have seen the distress in that community. I want to assure the 
gentlewoman that there will be other vehicles which use the same 
concept, the drug elimination, including CDBG, which is fully funded in 
this bill, as well as modernization funds which will be, by virtue of 
some new language that is offered, will be able to be fungible, be able 
to be used.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the gentleman that 
the funds in the bill at HUD have been cut by nearly 25 percent. Every 
mayor, including my own mayors in my district, and I represent several 
of them, do not have the luxury of being able to use money for this 
because they are so stressed out in the other accounts, sir. My 
colleague is going to make a lot of seniors pay more on their section 8 
in their housing projects----
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I do want to 
reemphasize again the Community Development Block Grant Program, which 
is a very large program, is fully funded in this bill, fully funded, 
and that is well more than most other programs authorized all 
throughout the rest of this bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to a rule that is 
unfair, obviously, in its application. One-third of this bill before us 
is made up of legislative language, and then we have the sponsors and 
advocates of this rule suggesting that we are only going to play by the 
rules; that is, the rules they make. In other words, they protect their 
policy advances and from any type of debate, any application from being 
stricken in terms of points of order, but will not permit the long-term 
programs, programs that have a proven track record, to even be 
considered on this floor because of there application of technical 
points. That is what is going on here.
  But I think the effect of this is, as my colleagues know, we can wrap 
this in the virtue of deficit reduction and the new majority. The fact 
is we all know that authorization bills sometimes fall short.
  But I am not concerned about it because of myself. I am concerned 
because of people I represent, because poor people, because working 
families that I represent in my district, are going to be hurt by this 
particular program and legislation, those that are trying to strive to 
pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that are living in public 
housing, in assisted housing, that need some guidance for their kids in 
terms of drug programs. They need to have hope.
  As my colleagues knows, former Secretary Kemp, when he was Secretary, 
at least favored housing. Since then, of course, I think that that has 
changed a little bit, but the fact is he favored it, and he had 
programs called HOPE, and what my colleagues are doing is taking hope 
away from people, increasing the number of people and families that are 
vulnerable in our urban centers, in our rural areas, where they need 
help with housing.
  Look at what is happening in this country in terms of the working 
families that are getting less income, they have less ability to afford 
housing. We have more of them families that are vulnerable. They do not 
have the resources, and the fact is of course this bill, what we have 
done, and why I wrote a homeless program in the 1980's, and I thank my 
colleagues for supporting it then; even those funds are cut in this 
program by 50 percent. We had to write that program because there are 
600,000 people on the street. In other words, we are failing in terms 
of the policies we have, for housing both as Democrats and Republicans, 
and the people I represent are going to be hurt by this further 
reduction of HUD.
  I say to my colleagues, ``You cut modernization funds, Representative 
Lazio, and the fact is that the authorizing committee just didn't fail 
to get the bill through the House. We really didn't even initiate the 
process in the last 6 months. I certainly understand that we have new 
leadership here, a new majority but we have got to have elemental 
fairness, we've got to look at what the impact is, and above all we 
should support and protect the vulnerable in this society, the working 
families that are trying to make it.''
  This rule deserves to be defeated, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule, and it is a bad 
bill. Talk about an opportunity to dishonor our commitment to veterans, 
to environmental programs, to housing. This is the bill to do it. Talk 
about raising 

[[Page H 7817]]
havoc with jurisdictions in the House. I have served on the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce, all the environmental laws that for years that 
great committee worked to achieve on Superfund, on toxic pollution. 
Because of the gutting of some of the safeguards in this bill, who 
knows if we can recuperate?
  Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a bill that for veterans this rule 
is going to mean 22,000 fewer veterans in this country will have 
hospital visits, and 500,000 fewer people will receive outpatient 
treatments. Again, for the environment this rule will mean cuts of $500 
million for the safe drinking water State revolving fund and $500 
million for the clean water State revolving fund. Why have a Clean 
Water Act? Why have a Safe Drinking Water Act?
  What we have also is legislation that means that over 1,000 native-
American families will not have a home to live in this year, and, if 
this is not bad enough, this rule also supports legislation that 
slashes funding for housing, for persons with AIDS, the elderly, and 
the disabled by 46 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, AmeriCorps, the President's national service program, 
goes by the wayside in this bill. The Council on Environmental Quality, 
the enforcers, the watchdog of a lot of the Federal pollution issues in 
environment within the bureaucracy: slashed.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have is an opportunity to defeat this rule and 
allow amendments, and let us face it. There are no Democratic 
amendments allowed to protect legislation that is important and to 
change the direction of this bill. Every authorizing committee should 
rise up against this legislation.
  If you want to vote for a rule that destroys our commitments to 
veterans, housing, and environmental programs--this is it.
  For veterans this rule will mean 22,000 fewer people will have 
hospital visits and 500,000 fewer people will receive outpatient 
treatments.
  For the environment this rule will mean cuts of $500 million for the 
safe drinking water State revolving fund and $500 million for the clean 
water State revolving fund.
  Passage of this rule means we will consider a bill that cuts 
assistance for homeless programs by 50 percent.
  Supporting this rule means over 1,000 native-American families will 
not have a home to live in this year.
  And as if that's not bad enough, this rule also supports legislation 
that slashes funding for housing for persons with AIDS, the elderly and 
the disabled by 46 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we are playing politics with people's lives. Attacking 
the deficit should not be partisan and mean, but that's exactly what 
the bill we're about to consider is.
  I urge my colleagues to stop this cruel trick on the American people 
by defeating this rule.
  This rule protects a lot of bad legislation in an appropriations bill 
and denies every single Democratic amendment to change that 
legislation.
  Democrats are opposed to this Republican assault on housing and 
environmental programs that Republicans refuse to give us a chance to 
fix.
  This bill weakens environmental laws, destroys housing programs, and 
raises rents on the elderly all to pay for a Republican tax break for 
the very rich.
  Housing cuts to pay for tax breaks: The provisions in this bill will 
lead to rent increases for the elderly and the poor all to pay for a 
Republican tax break for the richest people in this country.
  Gutting environmental laws for tax breaks: This Republican attack on 
American families guts Federal safeguards that protect our air, water, 
land, and public health from toxic pollution--it also cuts Superfund by 
more than $500 million and cuts State revolving funds for clean water 
and safe drinking water by more than $1 billion below the President's 
request.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we yield our final 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy discussing rules and 
praising and saluting my dear friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], one of the finest and most able men up here. He presides over 
his committee with extraordinary grace and dignity. It is always a 
privilege for me to appear before him. He has, however, presented to 
the House a bad rule. It is a bad rule on a bad bill, and it enhances 
his reputation as ``Closed Rule Solomon.''
  What has he done? He slashes, the bill slashes, EPA funding. It is 
crammed full of legislative riders that are designed to eviscerate the 
environmental statutes that currently protect our lands, our waters, 
and air.
  It is also interesting to note that these legislative riders which 
eviscerate the environmental laws are protected by points of order. As 
I stated in my testimony before the Committee on Rules, I strongly 
object to a rollback in the Nation's environmental protections without 
public debate and without concurrence of the legislative committees.
  My good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], announced 
that he had had the concurrence of the legislative committees. I know 
of no concurrence that was given by our Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. Nor do I know of any concurrence given by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure chaired by the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now, while I do not dispute those words, 
the complete lack of even a minute of discussion of waivers provided by 
this rule of any authorizing committee leads me to question the 
process. It is at best curious, it is certainly outrageous, and it is 
very clearly antienvironment and anti-the-public interests. The rule 
allows dramatic changes in the environmental laws of the United States 
using the back door of an appropriations bill, something which is 
prohibited in the rules unless waived by the Committee on Rules. There 
has been little or no public discussion of better than two dozen riders 
that are attached. Some totally stop implementation and enforcement of 
the Clean Water Act. Others create unprecedent new privileges allowing 
States to shield companies from Federal enforcement actions and from 
criminal prosecution. Image that. Others arbitrarily create special 
exemptions from various provisions for oil and gas industries. Not only 
do these change policy, but they do it in a manner which is, frankly, 
incompetent and sloppy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the colloquy on the floor on the rule itself has been to 
ignore the veterans of this country. They have picked out items in HUD 
and others as primary. Let us not forget that this is a VA 
appropriation bill along with the problems that HUD has experienced 
over the years, along with the other independent agencies. Single out 
one thing, if my colleagues must, but do not forget that we are here to 
consider the whole picture. Look at the forest, not just a tree.
  So I urge the Members of this body to support this rule, and support 
the bill, and support the veterans of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, to close the debate I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], a very valuable member of 
the House Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 6 
minutes.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus of the 
Committee on Rules, my friend from Kingsport, TN, for yielding this 
time to me, and I rise in very strong support of this rule. I have been 
listening for the last few minutes to the statements which have been 
coming from our friends on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], 
and others who are in some way implying that this is less than an open 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], has made it very clear this is an open 
rule. Any of these Members, any of these Members who are complaining 
about this process, have an opportunity to offer striking amendments. 
They can do that under the open amendment process.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
and I look forward to his remarks.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague can the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] offer her amendment to put money 
back into the drug elimination program?

[[Page H 7818]]

  Mr. DREIER. What I said, if I can reclaim my time, what I said is 
under an open amendment process we are all allowed the chance to offer 
striking amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. She has a striking amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Yes, to transfer money into a program that does not even 
exist.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The program most certainly does exist--
--
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time--if I could reclaim my time, we had a 
very healthy exchange that took place between the chairman of the 
authorizing subcommittee that deals with this issue, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio], and it seems to me that there needs to be 
recognition that an opportunity to deal with this is on the horizon.
  Now my friend has raised the issue which I was not even going to talk 
about in my remarks, but let us look at the issue of drugs as it has 
existed over the past several years, and, as has been pointed out time 
and time again, we have seen during the Reagan and Bush administrations 
a decline in drug use in this country, but since we have seen the 
election of President Clinton there has been an increase in drug use in 
this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. If I can continue to hold onto the time----
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am just asking the gentleman to 
yield.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that we have seen that increase. We are 
working to deal with the issue of authorization. We are trying to deal 
with this question head-on.

                              {time}  1145

  But the fact of the matter is, there have been tremendous chances for 
Members of the formerly-in-the-majority-party to deal with this issue 
through authorization, and it has not been dealt with. So in any way to 
claim the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is denied her opportunity 
to offer striking language is way off base.
  Let me just say I want to compliment the gentleman from California, 
Chairman Lewis, for the superb job he has done in dealing with the 
veterans, as the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Quillen, has raised 
this, and I know the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, has, and 
also with an issue that is very important to me, and that happens to be 
the science question. I believe as we charge towards the millennium, we 
have to recognize our responsibility in further research and 
development in the area of the sciences.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has done a superb job in 
dealing with that. This is an open rule. It is one that deserves the 
support of the full membership in a bipartisan way. We complained on 
our side of the aisle in the past when we did not have an open 
amendment process. Frankly, we have brought that forward. We hope very 
much we can move ahead with this extremely important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. QUILLEN. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 189, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 586]

                               YEAS--230

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--189

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Abercrombie
     Bateman
     Brewster
     Collins (MI)
     Hall (OH)
     Hinchey
     Hunter
     Jefferson
     McDade
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1205

  Mr. PETERSON of Florida changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WALKER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. 

[[Page H 7819]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________