[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.
____________________