[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8184-H8194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2127, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 208 is an open rule. It 
provides for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2127, which is the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriation bill for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on Appropriations. However, I would hasten to add that I have 
been authorized by the Committee on Rules to offer an amendment to 
extend that general debate time from 1 hour to 2\1/2\ hours, plus 90 
minutes each on the first three titles of the bill. That will total 
about 8 hours all together.
  Mr. Speaker, the offering of that amendment was contingent on other 
arrangements being worked out between the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations. I will withhold that 
manager's amendment until the end of the rule, in hopes that we could 
get that unanimous consent worked out.
  Mr. Speaker, following general debate, the rule first makes in order 
two manager's amendments printed in part 1 of the report. The 
amendments are not subject to amendment and are debatable for 10 
minutes each. If adopted, they will become a part of the base text for 
further amendment purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for reading the bill by title rather 
than by paragraph, with each title considered as read. Members should 
go back and make sure they know where their amendments come up because 
of that.
  The provisions of clauses 2 and 6 of House rule XXI are waived 
against provisions in the bill to protect the many unauthorized and 
legislative provisions in the bill. However, those provisions are 
subject to cutting and striking amendments under this open rule.
  In addition to the regular amendment process, the rule makes in order 
three additional amendments contained in part 2 of the Committee on 
Rules report, and it waives points of order against them.
  Mr. Speaker, the first of those amendments is by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] that restores $193 million to the Title X 
Family Planning Program by transferring the funds from the maternal and 
child health block grant and migrant health centers.
  The Greenwood amendment is subject to one amendment, and that is a 
substitute amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] that 
would terminate funding for the Title X Family Planning Program and 
would transfer those funds back to the maternal and child health block 
grant and the migrant health centers.
  Both the Greenwood amendment and the Smith substitute are subject to 
30 minutes of debate each, divided equally between the proponent and 
the opponent.
  Mr. Speaker, these two amendments are the product of many, many hours 
of negotiations. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] sat through 
many of them last night between the various parties on both sides of 
this very controversial issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend our leadership, and all the 
Members who did participate in those negotiations, for their good-faith 
efforts to bring this to a successful conclusion.
  The other amendment specifically made in order in part 2 of the 
committee report is an amendment by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo], myself, and a group of others on a bipartisan basis. That 
amendment
 establishes a deficit reduction lockbox law that would apply to this 
and all future appropriation bills.

  That amendment is not subject to amendment and is debatable for 40 
minutes, equally divided between the proponent and the opponent.
  Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased with the amendment, since it is 
the product of the leadership of the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] 
and a bipartisan group of Members to develop a workable lockbox law 
that will lock in savings made in the appropriations process for 
reducing the deficit.
  Included in that group of bipartisan Members are the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman] on the Democrat side, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley], the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent], the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] on the Republican side, and 
a number of others.
  The Committee on Rules has also reported this as a separate bill, 
H.R. 1162, that we hope to take up on the floor later this fall. So, 
Mr. Speaker, we will go in a tandem route where we will have not only a 
bill working its way through Congress, but we will have this amendment 
attached to this appropriation bill working its way through Congress as 
well.

                              {time}  1100

  That was a commitment that was made to Members who support this, and 
we are fulfilling that commitment today. In the meantime, this 
amendment to the Labor-HHS bill will ensure that from now on we will 
utilize this process.
  We are especially grateful to the Committee on the Budget, the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and the Committee on 
Appropriations for all of their assistance and support in producing 
this consensus approach to the lockbox. I would be remiss if I did not 
especially single out the Committee on Rules Subcommittee on 
Legislative and Budget Process, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], 
sitting next to me over here, who was so instrumental in negotiating 
this bipartisan compromise, and finally we would commend our leadership 
on its commitment to bring this amendment forward today on this bill 
and for having an open mind on the concept while it was being 
developed.
  I think we have once again proved this Congress is a reform Congress 
and that the reform process did not end on opening day but rather is an 
ongoing process, as well it should be.
  Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS-Education bill has been a very, very 
difficult bill to fashion, given our new glide path towards a balanced 
budget in the next 7 years. The chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], are to be commended on working 
together to bring this bill to us today even though they obviously do 
not agree on all the particulars or priorities in the bill. But we do 
have the bill here on the floor.
  In conclusion, this is a good rule because it is an open and a fair 
rule that will allow a majority of this House to work its will within 
the allocations made to this bill and its subcommittee. I, therefore, 
urge my colleagues to give their strong support for this rule.
  The information referred to follows:


[[Page H8185]]
  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                             [As of August 1, 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                 41                 72
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 14                 24
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  2                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals........................                104                100                 57                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 August 1, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 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..  A: 230-189 (7/25/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 204 (7/28/    MC..................  S. 21...............  Terminating U.S. Arms      A: voice vote (8/1/
 95).                                                              Embargo on Bosnia.         95)               
H. Res. 205 (7/28/    O...................  H.R. 2126...........  Defense Approps. FY 1996.  A: 409-1 (7/31/95) 
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1555...........  Communications Act of      ...................
                                                                   1995.                                        
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 2127...........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY     ...................
                                                                   1996.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a rule for a truly terrible 
bill. The Committee on Appropriations has recommended a bill which 
decimates nearly every program that affects school children, the 
elderly poor, working men and women, and the most vulnerable in our 
society.
  The committee has sent the House a bill which repeals family planning 
programs when at the same time the Congress has under consideration 
legislation which will effectively penalize unwed teenage mothers. The 
Appropriations Committee has sent a bill to the floor which reaches so 
far into the social safety net that it even cuts the President's 
request for Head Start by $500 million. And, while all of us certainly 
agree that there are many governmental programs which may be 
duplicative or unnecessary, the Appropriations Committee--not the 
legislative committees with jurisdiction--has sent us a bill which 
terminates 270 Federal programs.
  And, Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, this appropriations bill 
can hardly stand on its own by virtue of the fact that it is so loaded 
with legislative provisions. My friends in the majority party have 
often used the name of the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 
Natcher, to make points in debate; today, let me invoke that fine 
gentleman's memory to make a point. This bill contains pages and pages 
and pages of unauthorized provisions, but worse yet, contains page 
after page of legislative matters that are in blatant violation of the 
rules of the House. Mr. 
 
[[Page H8186]]

Natcher was chairman of the Labor/HHS Subcommittee for 15 years and he 
never came to the Rules Committee to request such a waiver for one of 
his bills. Mr. Speaker, in my experience I have never seen such a mean 
spirited piece of legislation and I am sure that Mr. Natcher, were he 
with us here today, would agree wholeheartedly with me.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is so bad it cannot be fixed. I believe the 
Appropriations Committee should take this bill back, reallocate some of 
its scarce resources and preserve and protect the programs that have 
fought illiteracy, protected workers at their jobs, ensured a decent 
life for those elderly Americans who were not as fortunate as others, 
and provided opportunities for countless Americans to secure a place in 
the middle class through education and training.
  Mr. Speaker, surely this is not what the American people voted for 
last November. Surely, the goodness and generosity that characterizes 
this Nation and all Americans does not condone a bill which abandons 
those in our society who have only a small or perhaps no voice here in 
Washington. I think not, Mr. Speaker.
  I urge the Appropriations Committee to withdraw this terrible bill. 
We should not, we cannot, pass legislation that attacks children, 
women, the elderly, the disabled, and working men and women. I urge 
defeat of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman the 
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon] for yielding this time to 
me. I must commend him for his patience, persuasion, and persistence in 
seeking a reasonable compromise on the host of highly contentious 
issues that pervade the Labor-HHS and Education appropriations bill. As 
Members know, while the bats were swinging in Bowie, MD last night for 
the congressional baseball game, our Rules Committee and Members on all 
points of the political spectrum were at work in the Capitol seeking 
common ground on the terms of debate for this bill.
  Some might call this bill the ``mother of all appropriations bills'' 
since it covers a tremendous scope of topics and allocates more than 
$60 billion. The sticking points have become highly visible sore 
thumbs--including the extraordinarily difficult issue of Federal 
funding for abortion. This rule does about the best it can do to allow 
for a relatively free and fair debate on the major issues--while 
keeping within a somewhat manageable timeframe. I am particularly 
pleased that this rule makes in order a lockbox amendment offered by 
Mr. Crapo. This much-discussed and long awaited amendment commits the 
House to ensuring that savings agreed to on the floor of the House will 
indeed be used for deficit reduction and will no longer be permitted to 
be spent on other spending projects.
  We have worked hard to translate this seemingly simply concept into a 
workable procedural device--one that can accomplish its mission without 
derailing the entire appropriations process. I think we have done it--
and we did so in a bipartisan and deliberative way. Sure, many of us 
would have preferred that we reach this point sooner in the process. 
But I am convinced it was better to do lock-box right the first time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got a long debate ahead of us on a host of 
important subjects. I urge support for this rule.
  I hope to have a dialog with Chairman Bliley on the subject of local 
land use and local ability to earn revenues in the utilities area and 
some other things as we go along in this and other legislation. There 
are many things ahead of us in the days ahead.
  This is an important appropriations bill. This is a good rule. It is 
going to get the full debate it deserves. I urge support for this rule 
so we can get on with our debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I am of a split mind on this rule 
because this bill is so bad. But I guess what I would say is I would 
like us to pass this rule so that we can just as quickly as possible 
get to a vote on final passage so we can vote ``no.''
  I said earlier, when this bill came out of committee, that in my view 
this bill was the meanest and the most vicious and the most extreme 
attack on the children of this country, on the dignity and the rights 
of workers, and on many of our most vulnerable citizens that I ever 
seen produced by the Committee on Appropriations in all of the years I 
have had the privilege to serve in this House. I do not believe this 
bill is fixable.
  The basic problem with this bill is that earlier in the year the 
majority party adopted a budget. And under that budget what is called 
the 602 allocation was made by the committee, which decided how much 
would go to each department of Government, and this subcommittee is 
operating under constraints imposed by those 602 budget limitations. 
That means that even though the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
who is the subcommittee chairman, and in my view one of the finest 
Members of this House, even though I am sure he would have liked to 
have done otherwise, he could simply not, under the conditions in which 
he was operating, produce a bill which meets our national obligations 
to our children, our workers, and the most vulnerable among us.
  The bill also continues 17 major changes in authorization law, and 
each of those changes ought to be considered on their own by the 
committee of jurisdiction. They should not be slipped in as legislative 
riders in this bill so that the authorizing committees can avoid 
confronting not only the language that you have for each of these 
provisions, but also confronting rational amendments to them.
  Under the way we work, the way the House governs appropriations 
bills, or the way the House rules govern appropriation bill 
consideration, you cannot offer many rational amendments to the extreme 
language which is in this bill, and because that language makes a 
wholesale assault on the ability of workers to expect
 even a reasonable degree of protection and dignity at the bargaining 
table, because it imposes a set of values on women of this country 
rather than trying to encourage a set of values, I think that this is a 
highly illegitimate process, and so I think the bill ought to go down.

  But the rule does facilitate our ability to at least address each of 
these issues in a rational way.
  With the amended suggestions of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], it will be a rational way in which we can focus the debate on 
education, on what we are doing to workers, on what we are doing to the 
seniors, and we will have an opportunity to at least debate in some 
fashion the legislative language which has illegitimately been attached 
to this bill, in my view, so I think the rule is far more legitimate 
than the bill which has spawned it.
  So I would urge Members to vote for the rule, and I would ask the 
cooperation of Members on both sides of the aisle in helping us to 
focus the debate on each of these subjects without getting into the 
constant repetitive offering of individual amendments. This bill is so 
bad it cannot be fixed by amendment.
  The key vote on this, in the end, will be the vote that occurs on 
final passage.
  So I would urge Members of both sides of the aisle to vote for this 
rule, but when we move on to the bill itself, I would urge Members of 
both parties who recognize that this is an extreme attack on the 
education of children, the rights of workers, the rights of women, and 
the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, to join me in voting 
against the bill on final passage.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The truth of the matter is that this is a very controversial bill, 
and in the first three titles we have, at his suggestion, increased the 
general debate time for each of those three titles. As a matter of 
fact, 1\1/2\ hours each, and that does then lay the groundwork for what 
is in those titles.
  So I want to commend him for his suggestions and for helping us to 
get this rule through here today.

[[Page H8187]]

  Having said that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], the very distinguished vice-chairman of the 
Committee on Rules. He was the Chair of the task force, Speaker's task 
force, that brought about on opening day major changes in this 
institution that are now coming to fruition, and we are finally able to 
process legislation the way it should have been. We still have far to 
go.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is still concentrating on 
that, and he has been very helpful in this lockbox legislation that is 
going to be in this bill here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Glens 
Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me this time. I hope the time he 
used to introduce me does not come out of such time as I may consume.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that our former colleague, Dan Rostenkowski, 
used to always say that if everyone is unhappy with a piece of 
legislation, it is probably a pretty good bill.
  We do not always say that when we are looking at a rule, but we know 
that it took a great deal of negotiation to get to the point where we 
are today, and as the chairman of the Committee on Rules has just said, 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations did have 
input in determining the time for general debate that was added for 
these three titles, and virtually everyone has had a hand in this.
  If you look at the very beneficial aspects, I believe that it should 
lead a majority of Members of this institution to support this rule.
  Now, one of the items that has been discussed in a bipartisan way 
consistently has been the lockbox, the desire to deal with deficit 
spending, and Members on both sides of the aisle again have stepped up 
and said, ``We need to deal with the issue of the deficit.'' We have 
had very strong statements made by our colleagues, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman] consistently before our Committee on Rules on that, and, of 
course, we have had Members on our side of the aisle, the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], and others who have been dealing with the issue 
of the lockbox. This rule allows us to finally face that question.

                              {time}  1115

  Then we look at a number of the other items. Well, it has been stated 
time and time again the legislation that deals with the Departments of 
Health and Human Services, and Labor, clearly is an overwhelmingly 
large bill, and there are many items in it, but it seems to me that it 
is our responsibility to deal, as well as we can, with them, and this 
rule, while it may not be perfect, is, quite frankly, the best product 
that can be assembled.
  I am disappointed that things like the Riggs amendment were not made 
in order that would allow us to deal with the issue of illegal 
immigration, and I can point to other aspects of it that I believe 
should have been addressed. But we need to move forward.
  This is an extraordinarily important appropriations bill, and I hope 
very much that our Members will come to the conclusion that providing 
support for this rule will at least allow us to consider this very 
important legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 
for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule, although touted by the good chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, as exemplifying yet another instance of reform is 
this place, really is belied in that regard. It is yet another example 
of cover and camouflage with which we have buried in an appropriations 
bill 13 pages of the most egregious, wrong-headed legislative language 
imaginable. Why in the world, Mr. Speaker, this was protected from a 
point of order is beyond me, but it is. And it should offend everyone's 
sense of regular order around this place that without any hearings, 
without any examination in the normal order of business, we would be 
putting a bill, an entire bill, dealing with a topic as sensitive as 
Government restrictions on political activity in this country, putting 
an entire bill into this appropriations measure. If for no other 
reason, not withstanding the reasons that have been outlined by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for going ahead with this rule, we ought to 
seriously consider defeating it because of its protection of this 
provision. Nonetheless, we will have an opportunity, which I hope my 
colleagues will avail themselves of probably tomorrow, to get rid of 
this travesty, this frontal, headlong assault on first amendment 
protected activities in this country.
  In any case I wanted my colleagues to be aware of what's probably the 
singular waiver event of this Congress in protecting the nonsense in 
this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members, this rule makes it far 
too easy for the Republican majority to target children, seniors, and 
working families with these cuts. What we are seeing is a finalization, 
I guess, of the budget resolution we passed here earlier that required 
this bill to have these substantial cuts in education, senior programs, 
and for children programs and for working families.
  Let me talk about the education cuts since I serve on that committee 
here in Congress. This bill that this rule will allow us to consider 
will cut 48,000 children from Head Start programs, cut the Healthy 
Start in half, it cuts the Safe and Drug Free Schools by 59 percent, it 
cuts 1 million children that will not get extra help on their reading 
and math thanks to the 17-percent cut in chapter 1. In my State of 
Texas we will lose $66 million on summer jobs programs that we restored 
this summer, but this appropriations bill will not allow it for the 
summer of 1996, and that is what is wrong with this bill. Chapter 1 
funding; it goes to almost every elementary school in my district in 
the State of Texas, will be cut $97 million. There are school 
districts, particularly in poorer parts of Texas and all over the 
country, who depend on that to provide that extra help for these 
children who need that extra assistance.
  Senior citizens' programs are cut in this bill. The programs that we 
have to provide heating assistance in the winter and cooling assistance 
in the summer are being cut. Take, for example, what has happened in 
Chicago this last month or what was happening in Texas up until we had 
the tropical storm come through, Mr. Speaker. Twelve million meals 
served to seniors each year are eliminated by cuts in Meals on Wheels 
and meals that are served in senior citizens' centers that all of us 
have in all of our districts.
  Working families; let me talk about the cuts in just the labor side 
of it. Working families, the cuts; now we may all agree that we need to 
look at OSHA and a lot of Federal programs, but to cut 33 percent off 
of job safety is ridiculous, and cut the pension plans.
  Mr. Speaker, I could talk all day, as my colleagues know, and I 
appreciate my colleagues' courteousness, and I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] for yielding this time to me, and, as my colleagues know, in 2 
minutes I just cannot say enough bad things about this bill.
  People are wearing these shame lapels because we are really ashamed 
to be here. The ranking member said over and over again this is the 
meanest and the most extreme bill we have ever seen. We are picking on 
people that rally cannot fight back.
  I ask my colleagues, ``Are you proud today if what we will be doing 
is kicking 48,000 children out of Head Start? Does that make anybody 
proud? Is anybody proud today that we're going to cut Healthy Start for 
infants and children in half?''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not make me proud.
  Is there anybody proud that we are going to take Safe and Drug Free 
School funds and cut them by 60 percent?

[[Page H8188]]

  Or how about gutting title I, which is where we try and bring 
children's reading skills up to snuff?
  What about the whole area of protecting our workers, and their 
pension programs, and all the things that we have been doing?
  Or what about what we are doing to seniors?
  As I say, this list goes on, and on, and on, and I am ashamed because 
at the very same time we are gutting all of this we are going to be 
backing right up to this bill a Defense Department bill where we are 
going to give the Pentagon $8 billion more than they asked for, $8 
billion more than they asked for. We have never done that. We cannot 
buy enough B-2's, and apparently we cannot buy enough hardware and all 
this stuff when they do not even want it, and yet we are saying to 
little kids, 3-year-olds, out of Head Start, we do not have the money. 
We are saying to people in Healthy Start get out, we do not have the 
money for them to have a healthy start.
  Mr. Speaker, those are not the priorities for America's future.
  I am surprised that the leadership of this House who keeps talking 
about the third wave, and their vision, and all of that; if their 
vision does not include children, if their vision does not include 
middle-class families, we are in real trouble. Their vision is a horror 
show.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].


PERMISSION FOR CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO POSTPONE VOTES ON 
              AMENDMENTS DURING CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2127

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
consideration of H.R. 2127 pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 208, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone 
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
a request for a recorded vote on any amendment, and that the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the 
time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that 
immediately follows another vote by electronic device without 
intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
device on the first in any series of questions shall not be less than 
15 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
    limiting time for debate on amendments and limiting motions for 
          committee to rise during consideration of h.r. 2127

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that consideration 
of the bill H.R. 2127 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House 
Resolution 208 shall also be governed by the following order:
  The following amendments, identified by their designation in the 
Congressional Record pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, may amend 
portions of the bill not yet read for 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 offered by 
the Member designated: the amendment by Representative Obey of 
Wisconsin numbered 36; and an amendment en bloc by Representative 
Pelosi of California consisting of the amendments numbered 60, 61, and 
62.
  The time for debate on each of the following amendments to the bill, 
identified by their designation in the Congressional Record pursuant to 
clause 6 of rule XXIII, unless otherwise specified, and any amendments 
thereto shall be limited to 40 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent of the amendment to the bill and an opponent: the 
amendment by Representative Obey of Wisconsin numbered 36; the 
amendment by Representative Stokes of Ohio numbered 70; the amendment 
by Representative Lowey of New York numbered 30; the amendment by 
Representative Kolbe of Arizona proposing to strike section 509 of the 
bill; the amendment by Representative Skaggs of Colorado numbered 64; 
the amendment by Representative Sabo of Minnesota or Representative 
Obey of Wisconsin proposing to amend title VI of the bill; and the 
amendment by Representative Solomon of New York relating to the subject 
of political advocacy.
  Except as otherwise specified in House Resolution 208, the time for 
debate on each other amendment to the bill and any amendments thereto 
shall be limited to 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent of the amendment to the bill and an opponent.
  After a motion that the committee rise has been rejected on a day, 
the chairman may entertain another such motion on that day only if 
offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the 
majority leader or their designee. After a motion to strike out the 
enacting words of the bill, as described in clause 7 of rule XXIII, has 
been rejected, the chairman may not entertain another such motion 
during further consideration of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, the 
concern I have is the preclusion of Members offering a motion for the 
Committee to rise because this is one of the few opportunities where 
member of the committee, where there are time controls, have any access 
to get heard.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of controversy on this bill on both sides 
of the aisle, and I have got to tell my colleagues that if we are going 
to preclude Members like myself from moving that the Committee rise so 
that we might be heard for 5 minutes, it is something to which at this 
point I would object.
  Can we delete that section from the motion?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me point out that the language on that was specifically 
requested by the gentleman's party leadership.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. It does not get any better.
  Mr. OBEY. I was most reluctant to agree to it because I think it can 
put them procedurally in the driver's seat, but in the end I was 
persuaded to accept it on two grounds.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, my 
concern is that we are going to enter into a whole series of time 
agreements to expedite business over the next couple of days. I 
understand that, and I respect that, but, if we have time agreements, 
and the time is controlled, and we only allow one motion to rise during 
that day, then everybody else on the floor outside of the chairman and 
ranking member is precluded from getting heard if they feel strongly.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me explain the process under which we are going to 
proceed. I think it will alleviate the concerns of the gentleman.
  What we are doing is we are starting with 2\1/2\ hours of general 
debate under the proposal that is being offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon].

                              {time}  1130

  We are trying to group debate so we can have a focused discussion 
title by title on Labor, on HHS, and on Education. We will also then 
have a focused discussion on a number of the language amendments. We 
have, for instance, the Istook amendment, the rape-incest provision, we 
have a number of those.
  We have tried to structure a good deal of debate time so that Members 
on and off the committee will be able to participate. I know we 
certainly worked out a very large number of participants on this side 
of the aisle, and I would be very surprised if the gentleman from 
Illinois has not done the same thing.
  So I, speaking as a Member of the minority who used that right the 
other night in order to make a point, I am very reluctant to give that 
up. If you ask the Speaker's representative, he will tell you we had a 
quite heated discussion on it. But I think the rights of Members to be 
able to participate meaningfully are being protected by the rule.
  I do not have a dog in this fight. This is your leadership's request, 
but it is our efforts to try to accommodate them.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that I need 


[[Page H8189]]
to correct my own language. It is the motion to strike the enacting 
clause that I wanted to preserve, not the motion to rise, so everybody 
understands what I am trying to preserve here.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the motion to rise by the 
manager of the bill, the gentleman would be entitled to one motion to 
strike the enacting clause.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, is it one per Member? For example, if the 
gentlewoman from Florida wanted to move to strike the enacting clause 
and get recognized for 5 minutes and that has been done, under this 
agreement do I have the right to strike the enacting clause?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
you would only have one between the two of you. But what is allowed, so 
that the gentleman may be heard, is that you are allowed to strike the 
last word at any time when an amendment is not pending. So one cannot 
be precluded from speaking for 5 minutes or even longer on their point 
of view. The gentleman is protected under this arrangement.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is the concern. 
The gentleman knows we are going to move to rather strict time debates. 
When we have amendments thereto, such as the Greenwood amendment and 
the Smith amendment thereto, and if I have Members here who feel 
strongly about this issue, myself or others, who want to be recognized, 
and we are told you only have 30 seconds under the time agreement, that 
is not acceptable.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. That means that any 
Member can simply offer another amendment and get time under the 5-
minute rule to pursue it. I do not think anyone would be shut off from 
debate or further expressing themselves in any way they want.
  We are trying, obviously, to pack a lot of work into the last few 
days before the August district work period, and this will simply allow 
us to expedite that work. I do not think it will cut off anybody's 
rights. I urge the gentleman to withdraw his reservation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman under all circumstances would be allowed 5 minutes by 
striking the last word. He might be precluded from an additional 2 or 3 
or 5 minutes if someone objected to a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that people 
understand that members of the committee get recognized before anybody 
else. Second, we are doing things in this bill that do not belong in 
the Committee on Appropriations or the appropriations bill. Third, we 
are going by strict time controls on the debate on most of these 
amendments.
  What the gentleman is telling a Member like me, who is a member of 
the authorizing committee, who sees all of these things done that we 
have had no input on, who feels very strongly about the question of 
human investment, is that I am going to be controlled by somebody 
else's time agreement and whether they yield me time, and now the 
gentleman is going to take away from me the one opportunity I have 
during the course of that debate to make points I feel strongly about, 
which is the motion to strike the enacting clause.
  I would plead with the gentleman, delete that, so I do not have to 
object. I would not get recognized. One would not be able to get 
recognized to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, under protocol and precedents of the House, 
the Speaker would recognize members of the committee first. Certainly 
in this case, with the authorizing committee being involved, I am sure 
that the gentleman's committee would come second in the eyes of the 
Speaker. The gentleman is protected.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, if we 
were to remove that last sentence of the request, would the gentleman 
then not object?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. That is right.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
sentence of my earlier unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
want to make sure that is the sentence regarding striking the enacting 
clause?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
modifies his request. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
intend to object, I just wanted to pose a question to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. The gentleman listed several amendments on 
which there would be a 40-minute limitation on debate, including, I 
believe, one attributed to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] on 
political advocacy.
  My review of what is preprinted did not show such an amendment. Is 
this one that is yet to be drafted?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, apparently it 
is not preprinted. It was printed this morning.
  Mr. SKAGGS. So it has been submitted and is available for review. It 
is that amendment that is contemplated by that 40-minute restriction?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply want 
to make sure I understand what has been suggested by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Is the gentleman in fact simply removing the 
last sentence?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, yes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if that is satisfactory to the majority, we 
have no objection.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request 
of the gentleman from Illinois, as modified?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today 
in strong opposition to this rule.
  This rule does not make in order an amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe, 
Ms. Pryce, and myself, which would have provided a commonsense solution 
to the issue of Medicaid-funded abortions in the cases of rape and 
incest.
  In 1993, the Hyde amendment, which was overwhelmingly supported by 
pro-life Members, included language allowing Medicaid-funded abortions 
in the cases of rape and incest. As we all know, Medicaid is funded 
jointly by the States and the Federal Government. Because some States 
prohibit funds from being used for rape and incest abortions, many 
States' laws are in conflict with the current Hyde language.
  This bill includes a provision which attempts to remedy that 
situation by allowing States the option of not funding such abortions. 
While the bill protects States' rights, it would result in instances 
where a young woman who has become pregnant from rape or incest would 
have to travel across State lines to get a Medicaid-funded abortion.
  The Kolbe amendment would solve the dilemma by maintaining States' 
rights not to fund such abortions, but would have the Federal 
Government cover the entire cost. Last year, there where only two--let 
me repeat that--only two Medicaid abortions because of rape or incest.
  I do not support Federal funding of abortions except in the cases of 
rape, incest, or life of the mother. But I feel very strongly about 
those exceptions. As the mother of two daughters, it is horrifying to 
me to think of anyone's 

[[Page H8190]]
daughter having to suffer the consequences of rape or incest without 
recourse. The Kolbe amendment was not radical and it was not about 
funding abortion on demand. It was a commonsense solution. But it was 
not made in order by the Rules Committee.
  Under this rule, we have two choices: either we accept the bill 
language, or we move to strike the provision. While I do not support 
the current bill language, the motion to strike fails to address the 
problem of States' rights.
  It is beyond me to understand why our leadership has a problem with 
an open debate on this issue and an up or down vote on the Kolbe-Pryce-
Fowler amendment. I am extremely disappointed that our leadership has 
ignored Members' concerns and I am voting against this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, I rise in opposition to this bill. I 
think if we want to get a clear view of the new priorities in 
Washington, we need to take a close look at this bill.
  First of all, it is antieducation. Our educational system, which is 
the truest test of what we are and where we are going, is going to be 
cut nearly 20 percent in this bill. These cuts affect 14,000 school 
districts, and are going to deny 1 million children the help they need 
in reading and math.
  Vocational programs, which are key to ensuring that young adults and 
children keep step with a rapidly changing economy, are cut by one-
third. Apparently, we are willing to tell children who simply must have 
vocational programs to rise above the poverty line that they are 
expendable.
  Head Start, one of the Nation's most successful preschool programs 
for 700,000 disadvantaged and disabled children, is a target for cuts. 
At least 48,000 children will no longer get the community-based health 
and education programs they need to do well in school.
  Programs for the mentally ill, which are already underfunded, take a 
20 percent cut. In this country, 63 million children suffer from mental 
disorders. Severe mental illness is more prevalent than cancer, 
diabetes, or heart disease, yet this vulnerable population is 
apparently not a priority.
  Rural health programs that assist doctors, local hospitals, and 
migrant workers are no longer necessary or important by the cuts of 
this bill. Protection for workers, decimated. Each year, 55,000 people 
die and another 60,000 are permanently disabled on the job, but OSHA, 
the agency responsible for dramatically reducing worker injuries in the 
last 20 years, has been slashed rather drastically.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a need to read between the lines with this 
appropriations bill. However, many of my constituents and working 
families all over the country seem to be less of a priority now.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we also recognize the 
damage to seniors. The low income energy assistance which provides heat 
in the winter and cooling in the summer for thousands of low income 
elderly people is totally eliminated. Twelve million meals served to 
seniors each year are eliminated by cuts in Meals on Wheels and meals 
served to senior centers.
  I have already talked about Head Start. Healthy Start cut in half; 
safe and drug-free schools cut by 59 percent; 48,000 children 
eliminated from Head Start; 1 million children will not get the extra 
help they need in reading and math thanks to the 17 percent cut in 
title I education.
  Again, as I mentioned, enforcement of health and safety protections 
in the workplace for working families is cut by 33 percent. Pension 
protection is cut. Enforcement of the minimum wage law, child labor 
laws, and the 40-hour week, is cut by 12 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill, and it should be defeated.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Fullerton, CA [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the Labor-
HHS bill. In particular, I support the provision in the rule which 
permits the offering of an amendment by my colleague, Mr. Crapo and 
myself, requiring that any savings realized in the bill from amendments 
either in committee or on the floor below the 602(b) budget allocation, 
be specifically earmarked for deficit reduction.
  This is the so-called deficit reduction lockbox provision, which Mr. 
Crapo, Mr. Solomon, and others, myself included, have supported and 
worked for in the past. The Speaker, our majority leader, Mr. Armey, 
and many of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, especially 
Mr. Brewster, all support this provision, which will insure that any 
savings we make below the budget allocation for this bill will go 
directly to debt reduction, rather than for other programs.
  I think this amendment is also supported by the American people, who 
deserve to know that we are working to reduce the national debt while 
still providing essential services. A child born today faces a tax bill 
of $187,000 over his or her lifetime just to pay their share of 
interest on the national debt. I urge adoption of this rule, which will 
allow us to make sure our votes go to deficit reduction.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise because of the statement just made by 
the last speaker to simply point out that the lockbox provision being 
attached to this bill is a king-size joke.
  All year we have tried to defend the right of Members to offer an 
amendment on lockbox which essentially would save any money that is cut 
during floor consideration of a bill and use that for deficit 
reduction. We objected to the rescissions bill earlier in the year 
because lockbox was blocked. But now cynically the lockbox provision is 
provided on this bill at the end of the process; the only problem is 
that there is not going to be any money to put in the box because this 
bill is already so decimated that I doubt seriously that the House is 
going to make any significant reductions in the bill.
  All the lockbox amendment is is a cover-your-tail amendment that 
allows politicians to pretend that they are setting up a system to save 
money when, in fact, there will be no money to be saved the way this 
bill is being handled.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would also point out on the same subject of lockbox that in the 
Committee on Rules last night I offered an amendment to make lockbox 
provisions retroactive so in fact we could cover all the appropriation 
bills that have already been considered, but that was rejected by the 
committee. So the gentleman from Wisconsin is entirely right. This is a 
meaningless provision as it is currently offered.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are considering a rule 
that is nothing more than a dastardly act perpetrated on the American 
people by the Republican Party, a bill so bad that it cannot be fixed 
by any number of amendments offered here in the next several hours.
  The gaping wounds slashed into the heart of the programs by the Grand 
Old Party on our children's education, on our senior citizens, on 
training and protecting America's work force into the 21st century, and 
health programs cannot be healed by the Band-Aid approach that is 
taking place here.
  Let us just let this bill bleed to death on the House floor. Make no 
mistake about it, the bill is a head-on assault on our future. It 
fundamentally goes in the opposition direction that our country needs 
to take. It targets the most vulnerable people in our society, and it 
yanks the safety net away from our seniors, rolls back protections for 
our workers and take away the opportunity for our children to learn.
  It ends the fuel assistance program so key to the needs of our 
seniors and poor people in the middle of winter that ended up providing 
the assistance that was necessary right here in the summer where 700 
people were killed in the last couple of weeks because of the heat 
wave. The Republicans want to cut it.
  It kills the summer job programs for our Nation's youth, a program 
that is vital if we are going to end the kind of 

[[Page H8191]]
violence that we see, the kind of despair that so many young people 
feel in our inner cities today. It cuts backs on the Drug-free Schools 
Program by 60 percent.
  It cuts $1 billion out of the job training programs for our country. 
It cuts 50 percent out of the Healthy Start Program. There are parts of 
this country, parts of my district where we have worse infant mortality 
rates than the poorest countries in our hemisphere. The one program 
that works, it works, is Health Start, which dramatically brings down 
the infant mortality rates; the Republicans are going to cut it. It 
cuts back the opportunities for college education. It undermines the 
bargaining rights for the working people of our country.
  It undermines the bargaining rights of working people. Somehow we are 
told that the Republicans, again, are not trying to enforce an 
authorizing provision in an appropriations bill. That is a lot of 
jargon around here, but basically what it means is they write laws when 
they are supposed to be appropriating money. It eliminates the striker 
replacement bill in this legislation.
  What we have here is an attempt by Republicans to go about their 
business of trying to balance the budget, at the same time providing an 
enormous tax cut and going through the back door of undercutting and 
slashing the most vulnerable people in this country. I do not 
understand it. If we are really, truly considering the future needs of 
Americans, why go and hurt the most vulnerable people in this country? 
Why go after our children? Why go after our senior citizens? It just is 
not right.
  Find some heart, find some conscience in what you are doing. Do not 
just be mean-spirited to line your pockets and the pockets of wealthy 
contributors today. Go after a more balanced approach in terms of 
finding the ways to balance the budget of this country. We can do it, 
but not in this mean-spirited way.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to just propound a question to everyone: What 
is compassionate about running up a huge Federal deficit that is 
literally going to rob my children, my grandchildren, my great-
grandchildren and yours and everybody's in this room?
  We have a Federal deficit today that is approaching $5 trillion. When 
you look at the pie that makes up the Federal budget, about 16 percent 
of that pie goes to pay the interest, each year, on that Federal 
deficit that has now reached $5 trillion.
  If we continue down the path that was presented by the President, we 
would have added another trillion dollars to that. In other words, at 
the end of 5 years we would then have a $6 trillion debt.
  Do you know how much the interest is that we pay to foreign countries 
who own the Treasury notes that go to finance that debt? Now it is only 
$250 billion, which is almost equal to what we spend on the first 
priority of our budget, national defense. The interest alone each year 
almost equals that national defense budget. If we continue down that 
path, then it will not be just $250 billion that we pay out; it will be 
$350 billion. That is an additional $100 billion that has to be taken 
from the rest of the pie, which is national defense, which is 
discretionary programs, which is entitlement programs. You then have to 
deduct another $100 billion from the money you currently spend on the 
truly needy in this country.
  What is compassionate about that?
  Now, we are not going to raise taxes another dollar. We are not going 
to do it. Because young people today, including my five children, find 
it difficult to save enough money for a downpayment on something that 
the gentleman spends so much fighting for on this floor, and that is 
the right for decent human beings to own their own home, not a public 
home, but their own home.
  My children have difficulty saving enough money for that downpayment.
  They would have more difficulty even if they did save that money to 
make the mortgage payments because interest rates are so high. We 
cannot let this deficit continue to burgeon, to continue to go up and 
up and up. Those interest rates go up and up and up, and young people 
today are not going to have the ability to do what we all wanted to do 
so much 45 years ago.
  When I first got married, we scrimped and we saved and we had enough 
money because the Federal Government did not take that much out of our 
take-home pay. We were able to save a little bit. We were able to make 
those mortgage payments, and we suffered, but we did it. We cannot 
continue to be noncompassionate on those people today.
  That is what we are talking about in this debate. Sure, it is tough. 
You have got to have cuts. But you have got to cut someplace. We have 
cut everywhere and it has been fair.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I stand second to no one 
in terms of being willing to cut the Federal budget. We have different 
priorities.
  The fact of the matter is that when you say you cut everywhere, you 
put $7.6 billion more into the equipment account of the military than 
they even asked for. You have lined the pockets of corporate America 
through the use of corporate welfare in this country, the likes of 
which we have never seen before in the Congress of the United States.
  We have done things over the course of this budget by providing 
people with incomes above $200,000 a year with a $20,000-a-year tax 
break. I appreciate the gentleman talking about the fact that he is 
interested in having his kids own a home. I wonder whether or not the 
gentleman might have taken advantage of the VA loan program when he got 
out of the military. I know that he served the country very well, but 
the fact is that he probably got some Government help and assistance 
when he needed to buy a home.
  I do not know that for sure, but there is certainly a large number of 
veterans that have. All that I am trying to suggest is that there are 
ways to invest in our country's future, and there are ways to 
frivolously throw money around today. This bill cuts the very heart out 
of the poorest people, the senior citizens, fuel assistance, summer 
jobs for our kids, protections in our work force, which I think are a 
shortsighted way of going.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my 
good friend, we can argue about the national defense budget. I recall 
when Captain O'Grady was shot down, and I recall how we were able to 
detect where he was and then go in there, stealthily, without a loss of 
one single American life, and bring him out. Do you know why? Because 
we have been able to maintain, since Ronald Reagan came in here in 
1981, a decent research and development program in our military budget 
that allowed us to do that.
  It allowed us to go into a place called Iraq with the fewest possible 
casualties. We were able to give the young men and women we put into 
the military the finest equipment in the world. And by God, if we ever 
put them in there again, and I hope it is not in Bosnia, they are going 
to go in with the very best.
  Sure we increased procurement by 11 percent. We increased research 
and development by 5 percent, operation and maintenance by 3 percent to 
give them a decent place to live in the military. I could go on and on 
and on.
  Minimal increases in the defense budget are necessary to guarantee 
that our military is going to be able to defend America's strategic 
interests around the world. That is what this debate is all about here, 
priorities and fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the chair the time 
remaining on each side.
  Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 8 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the last interchange between 
my colleague from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New York 
indicates the problem that now faces the House. We are about to make 
the most important decisions a civilized democracy can make in about 2 
days. We are 

[[Page H8192]]
being told that we will appropriate the two largest amounts, the 
Defense Department appropriations bill and the Labor-Health and Human 
Services appropriations bill, totaling more than $500 billion, more 
than $300 billion discretionary, more than half of the discretionary 
account. Plus we will deal with the telecommunications future of this 
country in about 2 days. Nothing better illustrates the absolute 
incompetence with which the majority is now running the House.
  This is not the fault of the Committee on Rules. They have been given 
an impossible job. We have heard Members on the other side, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentlewoman from Florida, objecting at 
the constricted nature of the debate that faces them. It happens 
because we have a Republican leadership that has so mishandled things 
that we come to 2 days before a recess, having taken time out for 
Republican fund raisers and other things, and we are told that we will 
go all night, if necessary, we will do the most fundamental decisions.

                              {time}  1200

  Yes, we will take money away from the poor and the needy and the 
elderly and give it to the B-2 bomber, and give it to defense. We will 
make all these decisions on American telecommunications.
  There is a kind of a book that comes to mind. When the Mets played 
their first year, somebody wrote a book about the Mets and they quoted 
Casey Stengel as having said, as he looked at his team, ``Can't anybody 
here play this game?'' This is not a game, this is more serious; but 
can not anybody on this side run this House?
  Mr. Speaker, to come to this late date, we have 2 days and 3 hours, 
51 hours, 2 days and 3 hours to do the telecommunications bill, the 
Labor-HHS appropriation, and the Defense Department. This is not just 
incompetence, it becomes an abuse of democracy. If we were not cramming 
all this in so quickly we would have time to debate it adequately.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], he should have included the Democrat 
leadership in the incompetency that he mentioned, because they have 
conspired to limit the time for consideration of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that last year we 
did Labor-HHS, DOD, and VA-HUD in 2 days. That was under the Democratic 
leadership of the Congress. That was a far bigger bite to take off than 
what the gentleman suggested that the Republican leadership has given. 
I just thought we ought to correct the record.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho Falls, ID [Mr. Crapo], a distinguished Member of this Congress. 
He is the father of lockbox, and boy, we are going to get this deficit 
spending under control because of people like him.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, before we talk about lockbox, I have to respond also. As 
a freshman last year, I remember many times when we wanted to have a 
lot of time when we wanted to debate a lot of bills pushed through here 
in a short time, sometimes in a matter of hours. For the arguments to 
be made here, I think we should look back and see what the practice has 
been in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to talk about a very critical issue, and I want 
to thank the Committee on Rules for making this in order, the lockbox 
amendment. We have been fighting now for close to 2 years to make one 
of the most important reforms in our budget process that we will 
address in this Congress. That is the lockbox.
  I can still remember as a freshman in this Congress when I found that 
after we had fought on bill after bill, motion after motion, to reduce 
spending here and to pare spending down there and to try to bring 
control to our budget, all we had been doing was eliminating various 
programs or projects; but the money was still getting spent.
  Why? Because we were just cutting the programs or projects, and what 
was happening to the money is it was simply unallocated. When it went 
into the conference committee, those in the conference committee sat 
down, pulled out special projects of their own interest or concern, put 
them back into the bill and used the unallocated money on those 
projects.
  The reason it happens, Mr. Speaker, is because our budget system does 
not mandate that when we vote on this floor to cut budgets, that the 
cuts go to deficit reduction. That is what the lockbox will do. It will 
create a special deficit reduction lockbox account. When we in the 
House and Senate vote to reduce spending, the spending reductions, the 
money, in addition to the projects, the money will go into these 
lockbox accounts, and there will then be a corresponding reduction in 
our Federal deficit spending, as we end each bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a critical reform of our budget process, and I 
again thank our Committee on Rules for making it in order. I look 
forward to this evening's debate on this critical issue.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the charade being engaged in by the other side on the 
lockbox provision is really quite extraordinary. As a member of the 
Committee on Rules, I have offered an amendment in the Committee on 
Rules to every single appropriation bill up to this point, trying to 
get the lockbox provision added so we could vote on it, so we could 
have some savings.
  The majority members of the Committee on Rules, day after day, bill 
after bill, rejected my amendment in the Committee on Rules, and only 
at this late date, with the final appropriation bill working its way 
through, did they deign to add the lockbox provision.
  Mr. Speaker, the charade they are engaging in is extraordinary: 
crocodile tears. If they wanted this lockbox provision all they had to 
do was make it in order a month ago when I offered it to one of the 
other appropriation bills; but every time they rejected it, so we 
cannot take them seriously on this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying 
bill. I would like to respond to my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from New York, and agree with him on one point: that this 
bill is about priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by my colleagues earlier, this body 
voted for $8 billion, roughly $8 billion in additional spending to the 
defense budget that the President did not want, the Vice President did 
not want, the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not want, and the Pentagon said 
it did not need. However, in this budget we are slashing programs that 
are important to this Nation's children, seniors, and workers. We are 
slashing, really, programs that assist and help this Nation's cities.
  Education cuts make up half of the cuts in the bill. Title I, which 
provides the extra support that millions of disadvantaged children need 
to get off to a good start, is slashed to ribbons. I represent portions 
of Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn. These counties will lose $48 
million in title I funding alone.
  These are not just numbers, these cuts have real consequences. This 
bill will force thousands of New York City children, and children 
across this Nation who receive the extra push in reading and math that 
they need this year, to go it alone next year. That is not fair. 
Neither is the 60-percent cut in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, 
nor are the cuts that will eliminate thousands of Head Start slots 
across the Nation; the healthy start program; the job training and 
seniors programs. And the bill eliminates the summer jobs program. We 
are blocking young children from the path to learning, and young adults 
from the path to opportunity.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot abide the outrageous assaults on a 
woman's constitutional right to reproductive freedom that are contained 
in this bill.
  The Istook amendment, which would prevent States from using Medicaid 
funds to provide abortions in the case of rape and incest, 

[[Page H8193]]
represents the rankest attack on or most vulnerable citizens.
  This provision renders the right to choose meaningless since it 
denies women the means to choose. It must be stricken from the bill.
  I also oppose the assault on title X funds. It is hard to understand 
why the new majority wants to cut a program that saves the Government 
$5 for every dollar invested and that prevents half a million abortions 
each year.
  Finally, the egregious language on accreditation standards for 
graduate medical education is an unwarranted back door attempt to 
advance the anti-choice agenda.
  There is no place in this funding bill for wanton Government 
interference in residency requirements for obstetrics and gynecology.
  The bill undermines the constitutional rights of women.
  The bill will make it harder for women to stay healthy.
  The bill decimates the programs that have proven most successful in 
educating our children.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, one reason Congress is held in such low esteem by the 
American people is because some politicians have a tendency to say one 
thing back home and then come down here and vote a different way. I 
would just ask the viewers of C-SPAN, maybe they want to write in for 
the National Taxpayers Union's list of big spenders. I have it here in 
front of me.
  I hate to even bring this up with my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost], but he says he has fought for this lockbox time in 
and time out. We have to live by our voting record. The name of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] appears here as one of the biggest 
spenders in the Congress, year in and year out. People ought to pay 
attention to this when they hear people on the floor get up and pretend 
to be fiscal conservatives. This will clarify the matter for the 
American people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to the gentleman on the other 
side that I have offered this amendment on every single appropriation 
bill, and the gentleman who holds himself out as the defender of the 
taxpayers has led the fight to prevent this amendment from being 
offered on every single appropriation bill up until this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, previously Members on the other side said, ``We did 
three appropriations bills in 2 days last year.'' There is a 
difference. Last year we did not have the systematic abuse of 
authorizing process. We did not have appropriations bills that 
preempted totally the authorizing process. We had a senior Republican 
from one of the authorizing committees today complaining about this.
  Those three bills that only took 2 days last year all had completely 
open rules with no restriction, and they were done easily because they 
were appropriations bills, and they only dealt with the money. They did 
not, as this side did in VA-HUD this year. Try to rewrite and cripple 
EPA. They did not rewrite the legislation. What they have done is they 
have been unable to have the authorizing committees function. The 
Republicans control the authorizing committees, but they have not been 
able to get them to function. They have not been able to get them to 
function. They have, therefore, used the appropriations bills to a 
degree unprecedented in my experience as legislative vehicles, and then 
we run into this terrible problem. It is one thing to deal simply with 
the money. It is another to get into the degree of legislating that 
they have gotten into.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an absolutely terrible piece of legislation. 
This is a piece of legislation that the other side should be ashamed 
of. Quite the contrary, they seem to take great pride in cutting 
programs that affect women, cutting programs that affect children, 
cutting programs that affect the neediest in our society. This bill 
should be defeated, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have here the committee report on this bill. I would 
just point out to the previous speaker, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], and to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost], that in all of the bills that were brought before 
this House last year, all of the appropriation bills, all of them 
contained unauthorized and legislative language. All of them contained 
unauthorized programs.
  As a matter of fact, let me just point out what will happen if this 
rule goes down. In this bill are literally dozens and dozens of 
programs, like the Older Americans Act, that have not been 
reauthorized. If we let this rule go down, there is going to be a 
heyday on this floor when we bring the bill back without a rule, and 
any Member can stand up, if you are a conservative you can stand up and 
wipe out all of these programs that the moderates in the House strongly 
support. It would be a field day.
  By the same token, we have moderates who do not like a lot of the 
legislative language that is in here. They can stand up and, one by one 
by one, they can knock them all out on a point of order. We will end up 
with practically nothing in this bill, and we will not have taken care 
of those programs that truly help the needy. I do not think we want to 
do that. That would be terribly embarrassing to both sides of the aisle 
if we let that fiasco take place.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a rule that has been negotiated for hours with 
moderates and conservatives by the droves, sometimes 35 or 40 of each, 
sitting down and working out the rule. It was an agreed-to rule. 
Everybody was in agreement. Then suddenly, because somebody smells 
blood, we are going to have a vote on this rule, and some are going to 
try to defeat the rule. I think that the American people would not like 
that to happen.
                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment suggested by my good 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], where we are going to 
extend the debate time on general debate from 1 hour to 2\1/2\ hours. 
We are then going to set up general debate time on the first three 
titles, so we can actually have good give and take. We are going to 
give 90 minutes on each of those titles of general debate before we get 
into the amendment process. This was suggested by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. We are going to go along with it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 2, line 6, strike 
     ``one hour'' and insert `'two and one-half hours''.
       Page 3, beginning on line 5, strike ``It shall be in order 
     at any time to consider'' and insert ``Consideration of each 
     of the first three titles of the bill shall begin with an 
     additional period of general debate, which shall be confined 
     to the pending title and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. It shall be in 
     order at any time during the reading of the bill for 
     amendment to consider''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has 10 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 323, 
nays 104, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 610]

                               YEAS--323

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci

[[Page H8194]]

     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--104

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Boehlert
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Crane
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mineta
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Studds
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bateman
     Jacobs
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Tucker
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1235

  Messrs. STARK, OLVER, GORDON, SERRANO, GILMAN, Ms. DeLAURO, Mrs. 
COLLINS of Illinois, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WATERS, and Ms. McKINNEY 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COSTELLO and Mr. WISE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________