[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6767-H6797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H6767]]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3666, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 456 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H.Res. 456
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3666) making appropriations for the Department
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause
2(l)(6) of rule XI, clause 7 of rule XXI, or section 302(f)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill (other than sections 204 and 205) for
failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived.
The amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution shall
be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. 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. The Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than
five minutes the time for voting by electronic device on
any postponed question that immediately follows another
vote by electronic device without intervening business,
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on
the first in any series of questions shall be not less
than fifteen minutes. After the reading of the final lines
of the bill, a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to
amend. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendment considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole is as follows:
Page 68, line 23, strike ``future legislation'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``future appropriations legislation''.
{time} 1345
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 456 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 3666, making appropriations for
the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and
independent agencies for fiscal year 1997.
The rule waives points of order against the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and clause 7 of rule XXI, which
require the 3-day availability of the printed hearings and committee
reports on appropriations bills. However, I'd like to inform Members
that the committee report has been available since last Wednesday.
The rule additionally waives clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting
unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bill,
and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting transfers of unobligated
balances, against the bill with the exception of sections 204 and 205.
These two sections pertain to housing matters, and have been left
unprotected at the request of the chairman of the authorizing
committee, Mr. Leach.
Section 302(F) of the Budget Act is waived against consideration of
the bill, and the rule provides for adoption of the amendment printed
in section 2 of this resolution to remedy the Budget Act violation.
The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate, and provides priority
in recognition to those amendments that are preprinted in the
Congressional Record. Under the rule, the Chair may postpone and
cluster rollcall votes, and may reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a
postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
This rule allows the majority leader or his designee to offer a
motion to rise and report the bill after the final lines of the bill
have been read.
Finally, the rule allows one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, once again, Chairman Jerry Lewis and Ranking Minority
Member Lou Stokes have done an outstanding job of addressing the needs
of our country's veterans by ensuring
[[Page H6768]]
adequate funding to provide compensation and pension benefits,
educational and vocational training, housing credit assistance, and
medical care for over 70 million recipients of veterans benefits. There
is a VA medical center located in my district in Johnson City, TN, and
I've seen first hand the critical medical needs of our veterans and I'm
proud of the excellent medical care provided by all of the VA medical
centers across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that this bill provides an increase
in spending for veterans programs--these funds are desperately needed
to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they deserve for their
unselfish devotion and sacrifice to their country.
H.R. 3666 also provides funding to meet the housing needs of the
poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the homeless. Additionally, the
bill funds various independent agencies, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, NASA, FEMA, and others.
The Appropriations Committee did a remarkable job at funding all of
these important programs at sufficient levels while still contributing
toward the ultimate goal of achieving a balanced budget. I applaud
their bipartisan spirit and I urge my colleagues to support this open
rule and this important appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of June 19, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\.............. 46 44 75 60
Structured/Modified Closed \3\...... 49 47 33 26
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 17 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 125 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 structured or 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 June 19, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 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/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
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 A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-199; A:
Revitalization. 227-197 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 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 A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
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 A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
[[Page H6769]]
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 249-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands..... PQ: 221-197 A:
voice vote (5/15/
96).
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H. Con. Res. 122. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... C................ H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/19/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96).
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96).
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act A: voice vote (4/
17/96).
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 2715........ Paperwork Elimination A: voice vote (4/
Act. 24/96).
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 1675........ Natl. Wildlife Refuge. A: voice vote (4/
24/96).
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 175.... Further Cont. Approps. A: voice vote (4/
FY 1996. 24/96).
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2641........ U.S. Marshals Service. PQ: 219-203 A:
voice vote (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2149........ Ocean Shipping Reform. A: 422-0 (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 2974........ Crimes Against A: voice vote (5/
Children & Elderly. 7/96).
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 3120........ Witness & Jury A: voice vote (5/
Tampering. 7/96).
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 2406........ U.S. Housing Act of PQ: 218-208 A:
1996. voice vote (5/8/
96).
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 3322........ Omnibus Civilian A: voice vote (5/
Science Auth. 9/96).
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3286........ Adoption Promotion & A: voice vote (5/
Stability. 9/96).
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)........... S................ H.R. 3230........ DoD Auth. FY 1997..... A: 235-149 (5/10/
96).
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 178. Con. Res. on the PQ: 227-196 A:
Budget, 1997. voice vote (5/16/
96).
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96).......... C................ H.R. 3415........ Repeal 4.3 cent fuel PQ: 221-181 A:
tax. voice vote (5/21/
96).
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96).......... MO............... H.R. 3259........ Intell. Auth. FY 1997. A: voice vote (5/
21/96).
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3144........ Defend America Act.... .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3448........ Small Bus. Job A: 219-211 (5/22/
Protection. 96).
MC............... H.R. 1227........ Employee Commuting .................
Flexibility.
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 3517........ Mil. Const. Approps. A: voice vote (5/
FY 1997. 30/96).
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 3540........ For. Ops. Approps. FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 5/96).
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3562........ WI Works Waiver A: 363-59 (6/6/
Approval. 96).
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 2754........ Shipbuilding Trade A: voice vote (6/
Agreement. 12/96).
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96).......... O................ H.R. 3603........ Agriculture A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 11/96).
1997.
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96).......... O................ H.R. 3610........ Defense A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 13/96).
1997.
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96).......... O................ H.R. 3662........ Interior Approps, FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 19/96).
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96).......... O................ H.R. 3666........ VA/HUD Approps........ .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. This is an open rule
which will allow for amendment and ample debate on the important issues
related to funding for the Veterans' Administration and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. However, many of my colleagues will
oppose this rule and during the debate, it is my intention to yield to
opponents in order to allow them the opportunity to explain their
position.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 3666. This bill reflects
a spirit of cooperation between the majority and minority to craft an
appropriation for these agencies that was not present in the last
funding cycle. I commend the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, for
working closely with his ranking minority member, Mr. Stokes, to create
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the programs funded by this appropriation affect a wide
range of essential Government services and projects--everything from
low-income housing, to health care for our Nation's veterans, to our
space program. Reconciling the funding needs of all these programs
within the limits established by the budget resolution is no easy task.
While this bill is not perfect and many Members may disagree with the
priorities it establishes, this bill does reflect an honest attempt to
fashion a bipartisan agreement.
I would also like to thank the Appropriations Committee for providing
the funds necessary to begin construction of a new national veterans
cemetery for the Dallas/Fort Worth area. For nearly 10 years I have
worked closely with north Texas veterans to establish this cemetery.
The Dallas/Fort Worth area is home to one of the most concentrated
veterans' populations in the country--more than 1 million people
eligible for burial in a veterans cemetery live within 100 miles of the
site of this new cometary, yet there are currently no burial facilities
for eligible veterans in this area. The Veterans' Administration has
cited the North Texas region as one of the top 10 areas in the Nation
most in need of additional burial space.
This funding, a total of $16.2 million, will change this situation
and will enable this facility to open by the spring of 1999. For the
veterans of the north Texas region who have worked so diligently on
this project, the inclusion of these funds is the culmination of years
of work. I want to thank them for all of their assistance in seeing
this project through, from start to finish. I also want to especially
thank Chairman Lewis and Mr. Stokes for ensuring that this project was
included in this appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill does not adequately fund many programs
that are of vital importance to many Americans, we all understand that
funding levels for domestic programs are rapidly shrinking. Given that
fact, this bill represents an honest effort to fund the programs
encompassed by the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and I urge support of
this rule so that the House may move on to the consideration of this
appropriation.
[[Page H6770]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus,
Mr. Quillen, for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this open
rule. I'd like to commend Chairman Lewis and ranking member Stokes for
demonstrating that, even in this charged partisan environment,
Republicans and Democrats can work together for the good of our
citizens. The bipartisan cooperation that is evident in this VA-HUD
appropriations bill is certainly a welcome breath of fresh air in
Washington.
I am pleased to point out that this legislation provides funding for
some of this Nation's highest priority commitments--those that we have
made to our veterans. For too many years we have seen precious
veterans' dollars parceled out to support projects in areas of the
country where veterans' populations are declining, while those regions
with growing populations of veterans made do on shoestring budgets. I
am pleased to note that we have reversed that trend, and this
legislation continues the effort to send the dollars where the veterans
are. Veterans in southwest Florida know that we spent years seeking the
modest funding needed to expand our dreadfully overworked and under-
resourced Fort Myers Outpatient Veterans Clinic. This year, as part of
the omnibus spending bill we passed a few months ago, we finally got
the funding secured and the leasing effort is currently underway--so
that in short order we will be able to provide more services to more
people in our area. I wish to once again thank Chairman Lewis and
Ranking Member Stokes, as well as Chairman Stump and Chairman
Livingston for their assistance in making that a promise kept--at long
last--to our more than 150,000 southwest Florida veterans.
Mr. Speaker, there is a ``Dear Colleague'' going around that talks
about some turf fight going on with regard to this matter. I would
suggest that the rule we have is a good, open rule and will get the job
done, and I urge support for this rule from all colleagues.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because
the rule contains language that would amend the appropriation
legislation to make $861 million of Superfund money contingent upon a
future appropriation.
Mr. Speaker, basically what happened is about a week ago, many of the
Republicans involved in this legislation and some of the projects
announced that they were going to provide significant funds for the
Superfund program in this appropriations bill. But what we found out is
that a significant part of that money, as I said, $861 million, is
essentially not real. It was put in with a contingency that the
Superfund bill would be reauthorized. Apparently the parliamentarian
correctly ruled that that would have to be scored as an allocation
under the appropriation which would raise the appropriation to a level
that was unacceptable based on the allocations that had been provided
by the Republican leadership. And so now in the rule the language is
changed to say that this money is contingent upon a future
appropriation. Well, when an appropriation is contingent upon a future
appropriation, essentially there is no appropriation at all. What that
means is that in a sense we are being told that money for the Superfund
program will be made available that is not going to be made available.
The level of funding for the Superfund program is actually about $50
million less than what the administration proposed.
In addition to that, there is every reason to believe that the idea
behind this $860 million is to ultimately give it back to polluters in
the forms of rebates, because the Superfund reauthorization bill that
has been proposed by the Republican leadership would require the
Federal Government to rebate to the polluters for moneys that they have
already spent in cleaning up Superfund programs. That is not the way to
go. The principle of the Superfund program is that the polluter pays,
not the taxpayer. It would be wrong to sneak into this bill this kind
of contingency that would suggest that that money would be going back
to the polluters.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to have some amendments later with the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] to address these problems, and I would hope
that I could get support from my colleagues.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I do wish to point out to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] that the retroactive liability discount
that concerned him also concerned me. That is off the table. That is
not part of our proposal. That is history, as it should be.
Mr. Speaker, I do want my colleagues to know that I rise in support
of the rule and in support of H.R. 3666. This bill increases the
funding for the Environmental Protection Agency over the fiscal year
1996 spending levels. This is a good bill for the environment, and I
urge Members to support it.
I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and Chairman Livingston for
providing $1.339 billion in funding for the current Superfund Program.
I appreciate the constraints we face in this era of declining Federal
spending. However, the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites is
very important and it must continue even though the statute that
governs those programs is in desperate need of a major overhaul.
{time} 1400
I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we could get
together and have that meeting for Superfund reform. What our Committee
on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations have done is provide
a mechanism that will allow increased funding for Superfund when we get
a bill. Let me stress that: when we get a bill that overhauls Superfund
in a way that requires additional funding and when the Superfund taxes
go back into effect.
In the budget resolution, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Kasich]
provided a Superfund reserve account that allows him to increase the
allocations of spending authority when new money is brought into the
Treasury through the extension of those business taxes that fund the
Superfund Programs. This reserve account will allow Chairman Lewis and
Chairman Livingston to appropriate $2.2 billion, $861 million more than
the current funding level for Superfund, without busting the budget.
That is a responsible way to proceed.
What the VA-HUD appropriations bill before us does is make the firm
commitment that our Committee on Appropriations will appropriate that
additional money after all the conditions are met. We are all
committed to fully funding any reforms we make to the Superfund
Program, and this bill demonstrates that we are ready, willing, and
able to make good on those promises.
Now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], and I love them dearly, we work so well
together, would like to call this promise smoke and mirrors. Well, it
is not. The commitment to provide additional funding for a reformed
Superfund is right there in black and white in the bill. All we need to
do is agree on a Superfund reform package and reauthorize the Superfund
taxes. So what are we waiting for? We are waiting for the
administration and the leadership of the Democrat Party and the
leadership of the Committee on Commerce from the Democrat side and the
Democrat leadership of the Committee on Transportation to make good on
their promises to work with us to achieve a fair and a responsible and
fully funded reform of Superfund.
Last year I was very hopeful that we could achieve a bipartisan
agreement. I really felt good about it. As a matter of fact, in July
1995, I issued a proposal to reform Superfund liability by allowing the
most complex sites to proceed to clean up directly without waiting for
years of litigation and negotiation among hundreds of parties. I wanted
to
[[Page H6771]]
get out of the courts and get in the field and clean up these toxic
waste sites. As a matter of fact, the EPA Administrator, Carol Browner,
and I would love to call her Madam Secretary because I think that
agency should be at Cabinet level, she called this proposal a very
attractive proposal. Those are her words, not mine, but I was
flattered. I agreed with her, as a matter of fact. She said it was one
that the Clinton administration would feel very, very comfortable with,
but the Administrator was pulled back by the political types at the
White House.
Quite frankly, I think somebody is whispering in the President's ear,
shhh, do not do it. Do not do that Superfund reform. If you dare do it,
then the Republicans will claim credit because they are in charge and
they are the one that proposed it. Do not do it, Mr. President.
Now, I am not one to question motivation, and I am not sure I have
the inside track to the inside of the White House, but I think that is
probably what happened.
Now, if I were cynical, I would say there is a conscious effort to
deny the Republicans, which are trying to go forward with responsible
Superfund reform, with an opportunity to claim that we have done
something meaningful in this very sensitive area. I would like to see
us move ahead with Superfund reform. I think we are, I know we are very
serious about it. We have been working very hard, long and hard, people
like my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski, and I, have had
hearings on this subject, extensive discussions. I know my friend, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who represents the southern part
of the downriver area of Detroit is interested. We all are. Why are we
not moving ahead with Superfund reform? We should be. Now is the
opportunity. Let us do it, but this bill has the money to fund the
program if we have the get up and go to do it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my friend, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Boehlert], has left the floor, because the remarks I am
about to make would have been of some use to him.
This is a wonderful day for scams and shams, and we are seeing them
hard at work. I would like to first begin by telling the gentleman that
they have the votes on that side. You want a Superfund bill? Report it
out. If you want Democratic cooperation on a Superfund bill, talk to
us, we will be glad to work with you.
What is at stake now in the committee is that my Republican
colleagues want a Superfund bill which pays the polluter. They want to
pay the polluter. They do not want to have the polluter pay. Now, this
is nothing more or less than conversion of Superfund into a fine
polluter entitlement program.
Now, having set the record straight, if the gentleman wants to
support that kind of bill, I would urge him to work with Republican
members of the Committee on Commerce, who are diligently working
towards that end. The simple fact of the matter is that my Republican
colleagues on the Committee on Commerce recognize that that stinks so
bad that they cannot bring it to the floor. That is the problem.
Now that I have enlightened my good friend, I want to talk about some
other matters which are of concern here. We have heard that there are
precious few dollars available for Superfund cleanup. Citizens have
been waiting for cleanup for a long time, yet my Republican colleagues
have spent much of the time of this Congress in crafting what I have
already described as a polluter entitlement program and other
mechanisms to spend money for paying polluters instead of paying for
cleanup.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Superfund is a seriously flawed
program, and I will support reasonable changes in it which will make it
necessary for industry, which will reduce the enormous volume of
litigation which that program contributes. I would remind my colleagues
that when I was the chairman of the conference, I did everything I
could to prevent that kind of situation obtaining with regard to
Superfund. If I would have had more help from the gentleman from New
York, and some of the other people that are now complaining about this,
perhaps we would be discussing a different kind of Superfund package.
I would like to think that this rule, which includes a self-executing
amendment making $861 million available for the Superfund program
contingent on the enactment of a subsequent appropriation bill
extraordinary. I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New
York, Closed Rule Solomon, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
the innovation that has gone into that step, that it might provide more
money for cleanup. Unfortunately, the rule here is just meaningless
from the standpoint of providing any real money for the program.
In short, we have no assurance that this money will ever be
available. It is a wonderful paper entry, and what happened is my
friends on the Republican side suddenly found that they had spent money
which was going to break the budget, so they went then to the Committee
on Rules to get that problem cured by converting the whole thing into
what, frankly, is nothing more or less than a sham.
In any event, if this money then becomes available under the
legislation that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] was
speaking about, I can assume that the money will then be make available
not for the cleanup of pollution but rather for paying polluters along
the lines of the splendid ideas that my colleagues on the Republican
side have been setting forth today.
Last week we read with interest reports that the Committee on
Appropriations had approved an additional $861 million for the
Superfund program contingent on the enactment of a Superfund
reauthorization bill. This now makes the appropriations of this money
contingent on the passage of an appropriation bill. But the passage of
the appropriation bill is not contingent on the passage of an
authorization bill. So in point of fact, what is going to transpire
here today is a great deal of nothing and probably a lot of subsequent
finger pointing, but certainly nothing significant with regard to
cleanup of pollution or Superfund site.
The plan, I would note, which was put together was foiled when
appropriators realized that CBO would have to score that money and, in
the process, blow the caps off the VA-HUD bill and subject it to a
fatal point of order under the budget act. So the Committee on Rules
provided this wonderful and I say adroit self-executing amendment
making the $861 million contingent on the enactment not of a future
authorization bill but on the enactment of a subsequent appropriations
bill, something I have never seen before in the few years that I have
had the pleasure of serving this body.
In other words, the new money will be appropriated in the future if
new money is appropriated in the future. I hope that my colleagues on
the Republican side have listened to that, because if there ever was a
pea under the walnut shell game, this is it here.
Let us see who is being fooled here. CBO does not have to score these
additional funds because they are not being appropriated now. So all
the claims we have heard from our chairmen that more money is available
to finance their proposed Superfund reform are false. There is no
money.
What about the VA-HUD subcommittee's ability to appropriate these
funds in the future? They cannot do that without an increased
allocation or authorization. Between the budget resolution, the
Superfund bill, and the VA-HUD appropriation bills, there is almost
$900 million waiting to spill out, blowing an even bigger hole in the
fiscal 1997 budget deficit that most of my colleagues have found reason
to be distressed about.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It is a
scam. It is a pea under the walnut shell, and I would urge my
colleagues to look around and try and figure out under which walnut
shell the pea is. I suspect that they will not be able to find the pea.
In the great traditions of the carny showmen and scam artists who
engage in that, I am certain that they will find that there is probably
no pea at all here. Not a pea which has fallen under the table through
a hole in the table, but it is probably in the hands of
[[Page H6772]]
one of my good Republican colleagues who is even at this minute
clutching that pea with a hard grasp.
I would simply urge my colleagues to vote no. This is a scam, this is
a sham, this is a game. My Republican colleagues are not approving
money for Superfund. They want to complain about the fact that the
Democrats do not want to pass a bill on Superfund which will pay the
polluter instead of causing the polluters to pay.
Mr. Speaker, I include a communication to the chairmen for the
Record.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
Materials,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Bliley, Shuster, Oxley, and Boehlert: We are
writing concerning the status of Superfund reform
legislation. We greatly appreciate your efforts to seek a
bipartisan consensus on this issue. Democrats and Republicans
alike, as well as President Clinton and Administrator
Browner, agree on the need for Superfund reform. Thus, your
agreement in February to commence bipartisan negotiations was
a welcome departure from last year's divisive and partisan
proceedings. Since we commenced negotations in March, your
staffs and ours have spent significant time and energy, as
has the Administration, reviewing and analyzing scores of
issues, proposals, and counterproposals. These activities
have yielded a better understanding of each other's positions
and a narrowing of our disagreements in certain areas.
Despite out mutual efforts, however, fundamental
differences continue to separate us. Perhaps the most obvious
example is our conviction that any responsible legislation
must conform to the basic ``polluter pays'' principle
underpinning the Superfund law. Upon careful analysis, we
have concluded that all of your liability proposals are
premised on some notion of ``paying the polluter.'' Your
rejection of the fundamental ``polluter pays'' principle
fails to meet our mutual objective of responsible reform.
Regrettably, we view the three ``options'' that you
presented to us in your latest counterproposals as a mere
reiteration of positions taken by the Majority before our
negotiations began. Prior to our negotiations, Administrator
Browner and others testified before House and Senate
committees, and otherwise expressed their grave concerns
about the site carve-outs contained in H.R. 2500 as
introduced, and the wholesale exemptions for generators and
transporters of hazardous substances set forth in Mr.
Bliley's February 21 draft. Yet, we have been asked to choose
among three options based entirely upon these same carve-outs
and exemptions.
Our inability to reach an agreement with one another on
this fundamental principle is particularly disappointing in
light of the amount of time and energy we all have expended
in the Superfund reform effort to date. During the 103rd
Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together to
produce Superfund legislation that was approved unanimously
by the Energy and Commerce Committee and on a voice vote in
the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Seeking to
build on this bipartisan compromise, the Democratic
leadership of the two committees introduced H.R. 228 in
January 1995. It was a great disappointment to see our
compromise bill languish for ten months without so much as a
hint of bipartiship. The contentious Commerce subcommittee
markup in November confirmed the wide gulf between our vastly
different approaches to cleaning up toxic waste sites and
assuring that responsible parties and pay the costs of
cleanup. Unfortunately, it wasn't until February 1996, well
after the subcommittee vote, that you agreed to commerce
bipartisan negotiations.
In the spirit of compromise, our April 1 proposals went
significantly beyond H.R. 228 to address the liability of
certain classes of parties, all within the framework of Mr.
Bliley's February 21 proposal. These proposals were a
significant step for us and for the Administration. We sought
to address the liability of the same responsible parties that
you specifically identified as most in need of relief, such
as small businesses, municipalities, and contributors of
minimal amounts of waste. Given the great deal of interest
which we share in affording relief to these parties, reducing
transaction costs, and most importantly expediting site
cleanup, we are most disappointed that we have progressed no
further toward achieving these mutual goals. We believe our
proposal, as summarized below, can be signed by the
President and will establish a fairer Superfund liability
regime, including the allocation of liability and costs.
Our proposal significantly changes current law to create a
fair share allocation system for parties who are not exempt
from liability. This proposal essentially eliminates third
party contribution lawsuits and was unanimously supported by
the Commerce Committee and overwhelming supported by the
Public Works and Transportation Committee in the 103rd
Congress. However, in a genuine effort to find common ground,
our proposal addresses many of your stated concerns and also
contains the following additional liability relief
provisions:
Our proposal would exempt small businesses with 25 or fewer
employees and earning less than $2 million in annual gross
revenues that are liable under Superfund as generators or
transporters of hazardous substances from liability for
activities prior to the date the legislation is enacted.
Consistent with Mr. Oxley's stated desired to ``get the
little guys, the small businesses whose margins are razor-
thin to begin with, out of the system,'' this proposal
recognizes the practical reality that these very small
companies typically do not have the financial means to
contribute meaningfully to the costs of a cleanup.
Our proposal would exempt from liability all businesses
with fewer than 100 employees, residential homeowners, and
small non-profit organizations that are liable under
Superfund as generators and transporters of municipal solid
waste. This provision would exempt thousands of parties from
liability, including the Girl Scouts and the people who
disposed of things like ``pizza boxes''--two types of
generators frequently cited by Mr. Oxley as examples of those
who should be relieved of Superfund liability.
In addition to businesses with fewer than 100 employees,
residential homeowners and small non-profit organizations,
our proposal also would exempt all other generators and
transporters of municipal solid waste from Superfund
liability at NPL sites for activities prior to the date of
enactment. For activities after the date of enactment, the
proposal limits liability at 10% of the total response costs
at the site, so long as the generators and transporters
participate in a qualified household waste collection
program.
Our proposal would cap the liability of municipal owners
and operators of landfills that accepted predominantly
municipal waste.
Our proposal would double the ``de micromis'' exemption
contained in H.R. 228 to exempt parties that, as generators
or transporters, contributed less than 110 gallons of liquid
materials containing hazardous substances or 200 pounds of
solid materials containing hazardous substances.
Our proposal provides for expedited de minimis settlements
for parties at National Priorities List sites who contributed
a small volume of waste, presumed to be 1% or less of the
total waste at the site, unless EPA determines that site
specific conditions indicate that another greater or lesser
amount constitutes a small volume.
Altogether, the Administration estimates that our proposal
would provide relief from Superfund liability and a shield
from contribution litigation for more than 40,000 parties.
For the parties who remain liable under Superfund under our
proposal, the process would be greatly streamlined,
transaction costs would be reduced, and settlements would be
expedited. Our proposal improves fairness and takes numerous
smaller parties out of the liability net, but still preserves
fundamental principles of corporate responsibility, which
require as a general rule that companies responsible for
hazardous substance contamination pay their fair share of the
cleanup costs. This concept was endorsed by a wide range of
industry and other stakeholders in the compromise bill in the
103rd Congress.
The principal difference we have identified between our
proposals and yours is that your broader liability exemptions
(and consequent allowance of fair share funding) will exempt
those generators and transporters of significant amounts of
hazardous substances that in most cases are driving up the
cost of the remedy and the health hazards at Superfund sites,
as well as the owners (in your second and third options) who
profited from the disposal of hazardous substances. We
believe the additional parties you are proposing to exempt
from liability generally are able and should be willing to
pay their fair share of response costs in order to clean up
the contamination for which they are responsible.
We were informed by Commerce Committee Majority staff that
Mr. Bliley's February 21 proposal had rejected site carve-
outs in favor of retaining liability for the ``true
polluters,'' i.e., the owners and operators. Nevertheless,
your latest counterproposal contains two options for site
carve-outs which would exempt owners and operators. The
Administration has informed us that of the approximately 250
codisposal sites, about seventy percent contain predominantly
hazardous waste that is contributing significantly to the
type of remedy selected or cost of the response action, and
that was disposed of by generators or transporters. We
believe that neither the Fund, which needs to be preserved
for cleaning up abandoned sites, nor the citizen
taxpayer, who contributes to the $250 million General
Treasury portion of the Superfund budget and who will pay
substantially more if the Fund cannot cover the cost of
cleanup, should assume the responsibility of those who
created the mess.
It is no answer in our view to say that the polluters pay
because the Superfund into which they deposit taxes would
bear the costs of your proposals. Superfund taxes are imposed
on corporate taxpayers regardless of whether they are
responsible for contamination at any site, and the greatest
source of Superfund revenues, the Environmental Income Tax,
is imposed regardless of the type
[[Page H6773]]
of business in which the corporation is engaged. Revenues
from these taxes should be used to support the cleanup
program and to fund cleanup of sites where insolvent,
defunct, or recalcitrant parties are responsible for the
contamination.
Quite apart from these fundamental policy considerations,
we are troubled by recent developments in the Appropriations
and Rules Committees relating to the Superfund appropriation.
At our meeting on April 25, you sought to persuade us that
the Appropriations and Budget Committees had signed off on,
and would make available, hundreds of millions of new dollars
for Superfund cleanups that would fund your liability
proposals. Apart from our philosophical differences over
whether the Fund should be used to let polluters off the
hook, we expressed our skepticism that such funds could in
fact be appropriated without offsetting reductions in other
important environmental programs and priorities. Although it
appeared at first that the Appropriations Committee last week
would indeed make an additional $861 million available
subject to enactment of a reauthorization bill, it quickly
became clear that such a provision ran afoul of the Budget
Act, would exceed the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies
Subcommittee's allocation, and would be subject to a fatal
point of order. The Rules Committee's self-confessed remedy
for this Budget Act violation has been to make the $861
million subject instead to passage of a future appropriation.
In other words, the additional money is either completely
illusory and provides no independent justification for
support of your liability proposals--or, the money may be
appropriated at some indeterminate future time if the
Appropriations Committee can figure out how to blow the top
off the Subcommittee's allocation. This does not inspire
great confidence.
For all these reasons, we cannot agree to proceed on the
basis of any of the three options outlined in your letter. We
are, however, willing to consider compromises that work
within a basic framework consistent with the ``polluter
pays'' principle. With productive and creative attention to
these issues, perhaps a bipartisan compromise on liability
remains possible. In this context, we would be willing to
discuss additional funding, pursuant to the Administrator's
discretionary mixed funding authority, for the purpose of
facilitating comprehensive settlements at codisposal
facilities that accepted predominantly municipal waste.
Your April 30 letter also presents a number of proposals on
other issues that merit our response. Our review of your
remedy selection proposals persuades us that they would
result in a significant and unacceptable rollback of human
health and environmental protection. During Subcommittee
hearings on H.R. 2500, Administrator Browner testified that
the bill inadequately protects human health and the
environment and lacks sufficient emphasis on reliable, long-
term protection at a reasonable cost. We support your efforts
to make cleanup decisions based upon reasonably anticipated
future use of property and to eliminate ``relevant and
appropriate'' (as opposed to legally applicable) state
standards. But any new remedy selection provisions must in
our view meet the same test the industrial community and
other key stakeholders used to favorably judge H.R. 228--the
provisions must consider costs and risks ``realistically,
fairly, and pragmatically.''
In particular, we believe that legally applicable state
standards should apply to cleanups as they do in current law.
Subjecting such standards to an incremental cost-benefit test
weakens current law at the expense of human health and the
environment. Moreover, preserving legally applicable state
standards in remedy selection is an issue of vital importance
to the overwhelming majority of states. We also believe,
based upon staff discussions, that your groundwater proposals
fail to provide adequate protection even for aquifers that
may provide drinking water supplies, in part because your
proposals maintain the prerequisite for establishing a
``substantial probability'' that groundwater may be used for
drinking water in the future. Further, the proposals do not
contain the necessary emphasis on restoration of precious
groundwater resources that are of increasing importance to
our communities' economic development. And we are finding it
increasingly difficult to reconcile your Leadership's
professed support for returning power to the states in some
areas--for example, Medicaid and welfare reform--with the
apparent willingness in so many other areas to override state
laws when they are inconvenient for the business community.
Many of your proposals threaten to mire the cleanup process
in litigation and delay. Under a process even more cumbersome
than initially introduced in H.R. 2500, your proposal allows
for reopening records of decision and eliminating the current
law's bar on preenforcement review of remedies. This promises
more delay and litigation, as past decisions are reconsidered
and judges are asked to second-guess cleanup choices that
were previously made by EPA or states. We fail to understand
how these provisions can be reconciled with the overarching
concern about reducing transaction costs that you have
expressed in our liability discussions. Under these
provisions of your proposal, bulldozers will be idled, health
risks will remain unaddressed, and affected communities will
have to wait for cleanup, while lawyers and consultants clean
up with hundreds of new fee-generating opportunities.
While we could support limiting the preference for
treatment in current law to the most contaminated and highly
mobile toxic waste (hot spots), we cannot support a complete
elimination of the preference for treatment. Rejection of
this fundamental tenet of the President's Superfund reform
proposal would create more brownfield sites that, for all
practical purposes, could never be suitable for redevelopment
or other productive future use.
Changing long-standing concepts, such as the definition of
environment and minimum health standards (even as modified in
your latest proposal), creates ambiguous and ill-defined
terms and certainly will result in a litigation bonanza.
These changes are, in our view, ill-advised and unnecessary.
While we are willing to consider adding a Governors'
concurrence provision for new additions to the NPL, we cannot
support the arbitrary constraints, or ``caps,'' contained in
your proposals. Both the General Accounting Office and the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials have concluded that many states do not have the
funding to address sites within their boundaries that
otherwise would be placed on the NPL.
We also are highly concerned about your proposals for
natural resource damages, a set of issues that are as
important to us as liability and remedy. In our view, your
proposals would dramatically limit the ability of federal,
state, and tribal natural resource trustees to restore
natural resources injured by releases of hazardous substances
and allow losses to remain uncompensated. As you proposed, we
are pleased to have our staff participate in stakeholder
discussions on natural resource damages which commenced this
week.
In summary, H.R. 2500--and the proposals you have made
based on it--seeks to create a regime that abandons the
``polluter pays'' principle, rewards egregious and
recalcitrant behavior, delays cleanups, drastically minimizes
health and environmental standards, jeopardizes restoration
of natural resources, encourages litigation (even to the
extent of opening up previously settled decisions governing
cleanups), and leaves states responsible for enormous
financial obligations for cleanup. We cannot support such an
approach.
If we are to achieve our shared goal of Superfund reform
this year, we urge you to consider an approach that addresses
concerns about further liability relief within the bounds of
genuinely available fiscal resources and at the same time
adheres to the basic ``polluter pays'' framework that always
has been central to Superfund.
If you conclude that a comprehensive Superfund reform bill
is not achievable this year, perhaps we can achieve some
success yet. With a little futher work, we feel that we can
reach agreement on issues relating to federal facilities,
clarification of lender liability, grants to local government
to assist in redeveloping brownfields, and providing
liability relief to bona fide prospective purchasers of
property.
The Commerce Committee's recent achievement of a
comprehensive safe drinking water reauthorization bill makes
clear that we can achieve consensus, even on highly
contentious issues surrounding protection of human health and
the environment. We look forward to continuing to work with
you in that spirit.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce.
Thomas J. Manton,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Hazardous Materials.
James L. Oberstar,
Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Robert A. Borski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
____
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington DC, June 24, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to the commitment EPA Assistant
Administrator Elliott Laws made in May, I am writing in
response to your proposal on liability issues, presented to
us in your past letter.
I recognize that much hard work has been devoted to
achieving our shared goal of Superfund reform in this
Congress. We believe that the past several months of
legislative negotiations have been productive in identifying
issues where we may achieve a common understanding and
clarifying issues where we still remain divided on
substantive policy differences.
It is my firm believe that we can achieve responsible
Superfund reform only through a genuine commitment to a
bipartisan legislative process by you and the House
leadership. I had hoped our negotiations would have helped
revive the bipartisan dialogue that existed in the House
Commerce and House Transportation Committees during the
Superfund legislative process in the 103rd Congress.
[[Page H6774]]
At the start of the 104th Congress, we expected to build on
the consensus developed in the bipartisan bill passed 44-0 by
the House Commerce Committee and by near unanimous voice vote
by the House Transportation Committee in the prior year. The
bill was reintroduced as H.R. 228 with the hope that we could
begin a bipartisan dialogue and finish our earlier work in
the first session of this Congress.
We were disappointed when Superfund reform legislation was
introduced that departed significantly from the bipartisan
bill supported by a broad coalition of industry, small
business, state and local governments, community groups, and
environmental organizations that was crafted in the preceding
Congress. H.R. 2500 as introduced did not reflect this
consensus nor the Superfund reform principles supported by
the Administration. My testimony on H.R. 2500 reflected the
Administration's strong opposition to provisions that would
compromise the ``polluter pays'' principle; increase
litigation and delay cleanups; compromise cleanup standards
at the expense of human health and environmental protection;
and devastate the natural resource damage (NRD) programs
administered by federal, state, and tribal natural resource
trustees.
Unfortunately, the lack of a genuine process of bipartisan
negotiation in which to resolve our differences resulted in a
highly divisive Commerce subcommittee markup, and a
significant delay in progress toward responsible Superfund
reform.
Liability. In congressional testimony before both the House
Commerce and House Transportation Committees in 1995, I urged
that we begin a bipartisan process to pass responsible
Superfund reform legislation. Regrettably, it was not until
March of 1996 that you initiated bipartisan negotiations on
H.R. 2500. You asked us to be open to compromise on all
issues, and to base our liability and allocation discussions
on a new liability repeal proposal that had not been the
subject of a subcommittee hearing or markup. In an effort to
further address your stated concerns that the current
Superfund liability system generated too much litigation that
resulted in large transaction costs, we improved upon the
compromise liability proposal that we had all developed in
the 103rd Congress, and offered a new liability proposal that
would increase fairness and reduce transaction costs.
The Administration liability proposal offered on April 2,
1996, moved significantly beyond the compromise we had
developed in the prior Congress. We eliminated parties from
the system--such as small businesses--whose actual
responsibility for contamination at a site, or whose limited
ability to pay cleanup costs, was disproportional to the
litigation generated and transaction costs associated with
bringing them into the liability scheme. In these cases, the
polluter pays principle is best served by eliminating the
inefficiency associated with retaining these parties in the
liability scheme, while preserving incentives for responsible
behavior. We also sought to reduce transaction costs and
promote certainty for other parties by capping or eliminating
liability for parties whose liability is based on disposal of
municipal solid waste (MSW).
Taken together, we estimate that the relief provided by
these proposals would remove more than 40,000 parties from
Superfund liability and provide transaction cost relief for
many more parties that otherwise could be entangled in
Superfund litigation. For the parties who remain in the
system, the process would be simplified and settlements would
be expedited. Our proposals would still preserve the
polluter pays principle and maintain the principle of
corporate responsibility that those companies responsible
for hazardous waste contamination pay their fair share of
the cleanup costs.
When we met in April, Chairman Bliley indicated that we
could expect a counteroffer that would show ``substantial
movement toward'' our position. Notwithstanding this
suggestion, your letter of April 30 effectively rejected our
proposal with no discussion as to the policy reasons for the
rejection. As Assistant Administrator Elliott Laws outlined
in his letter of May 2, the three liability options you
proposed were essentially variations on prior liability
repeal proposals made by the three Chairmen over the course
of the past year. Your decision not to address our proposal
of April 2, other than one small addition to your liability
options, failed to provide the impetus for moving the
discussions forward.
I have given careful and serious consideration to each of
these options, evaluating each according to three criteria:
fairness; efficiency, and the polluter pays principle in
current law and our proposed administrative and legislative
reforms. Under these criteria, I believe that all three of
your options compare unfavorably to the Administration's
liability proposal.
Option 1 consists primarily of a repeal of liability for
generators and transporters of hazardous substances. This
proposal replaced the fifty percent ``retroactive liability
discount'' adopted at the Commerce subcommittee markup. This
approach would exempt many large hazardous waste contributors
who can afford to pay for cleanup, while retaining liability
for owners and operators of those same sites. This disparate
treatment of parties is unjustified, would significantly
increase the transaction costs associated with determining
the time of disposal; and would violate the polluter pays
principle. By repealing liability for so many parties, this
proposal would require a massive transfer of cleanup
responsibility from private parties to the federal
government, resulting in lost efficiencies and cleanup delays
as sites are transferred to EPA.
Option 2 proposes a ``site carve-out'' that would exempt
from Superfund liability all parties at certain co-disposal
and recycling sites which together account for approximately
twenty-five percent of the hazardous waste sites on the
National Priorities List. There appears to be no principled
basis or coherent policy rationale for eliminating these
sites from the liability scheme while retaining others. Any
purported reduction in transaction costs will be more than
overwhelmed by other budgetary and social costs of the
proposal, including the transaction and inefficiency costs of
a massive transfer of sites into a government-conducted
cleanup program under Superfund.
In addition, an analysis of the sites and parties who would
be exempted from liability under this scheme has made clear
that this proposal would exempt very contaminated sites, and
would exempt from liability many large industrial generators
of hazardous waste who should be called upon to pay for the
cleanup before resorting to Federal Trust Fund dollars. Our
review of these sites has also found that the recycling sites
that would be carved out under your proposal include a number
of sites at which serious environmental contamination has
resulted from egregiously irresponsible conduct.
Option 3 is essentially similar to Option 2, except that it
would append a portion of our liability counterproposal on
top of the broad site carve-out in Option 2. While I
acknowledge the attempt to accommodate our counterproposal in
some small manner, combining Option 2 with our proposal fails
to alter in any way the flaws we have identified in Option 2.
I also remain concerned by the lack of any assurance that
adequate funding will be available for these proposals
without rolling back remedy standards, compromising the pace
of cleanup, or cutting funding for other environmental
programs that are essential to protecting public health and
the environment. Our analysis suggests that the cost of
Option 1, for example, will far exceed the increases in
funding proposed in your letter. Should any additional funds
over and above the current Superfund appropriation be
actually appropriated for the Superfund program, they should
not be spent on proposals that delay cleanup, reduce
protectiveness or violate the polluter pays principle.
Other Issues. You also placed other, non-liability issues
on the table in your letter. Unfortunately, many of the
proposals are so general in nature that it is difficult to
respond in a meaningful manner. However, the proposals appear
to remain far short of meeting our fundamental principles
that Superfund cleanups remain protective of public health
and the environment and that the current pace of cleanup be
maintained or increased.
Your proposals still appear to place too much emphasis on
cost as opposed to public health and environmental protection
in the balancing test used for selecting cleanup remedies.
There remains far too many qualifiers on when, if ever,
groundwater would be cleaned up as opposed to selecting
exposure control remedies. There is no requirement for
treatment of the most highly toxic and mobile hazardous waste
at Superfund sites. Hundreds of RODs would still be reopened
under your proposals, potentially costing years of delay
at Superfund sites. The arbitrary cap on listing NPL sites
will undoubtedly leave hundreds of hazardous waste sites
unaddressed by states that simply do not have the
resources to clean them up.
In addition, your proposals to limit the ability of
Federal, state and tribal natural resource trustees to
restore damaged natural resources is unacceptable public and
environmental policy.
Next Steps. I feel I must also respond to the letter sent
by Chairmen Bliley and Oxley dated June 17, 1996. I am deeply
disappointed that the Commerce Committee Chairs would
question my commitment to enacting Superfund reform
legislation. EPA has worked for more than three and one half
years to secure a Superfund reform bill, while at the same
time implementing significant and successful administrative
reforms. No one has worked harder than this Administration to
make Superfund faster, fairer, and more efficient. In my
congressional testimony and private discussions with
congressional committee chairs and ranking members, I have
steadfastly urged that a bipartisan legislative process be
developed so that we can build the consensus necessary to
secure passage of a responsible Superfund reform bill. I
remain committed to that goal. If you genuinely share that
goal, I challenge you to offer responsible Superfund reform
proposals that protect public health and the environment and
that do not violate the polluter pays principle. Working
together, we can enact Superfund reform legislation in this
Congress.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of
the House Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus and would ask
the gentleman from Michigan, John
[[Page H6775]]
Dingell, if he would stand around just for a minute.
``This is a scam, this is a sham.'' Now, all of the Democrats voted
for this. ``This is a scam, this is a sham,'' and I would just say to
my good friend, and he is a very good friend and one of the most
respected Members of the body, nobody came to complain. We work in the
Committee on Rules 18 hours a day. We were up there the other evening
putting this rule out, finally, and nobody complained. As a matter of
fact, I think the rule, this open rule, incidentally, passed by a
unanimous vote.
I would just say to my good friend, too, he ought to be careful about
how he refers to Members because you could have your words taken down.
I would never do that to one of my best friends, but we should be
accurate. The gentleman, I happen to know, has served under former
Democrat chairmen by the name of Moakley and Pepper and Boland and
Delaney and Madden and Colmer and Howard Smith of Virginia, and if you
want to talk about closed rules, you ought to see them. We have turned
that around where now we have mostly open rules, thank goodness.
Mr. Speaker, let me just talk about this thing that seems to be
bothering some people. We have done one thing up in the Committee on
Rules at the request, I think, of the Congress; it was not the request
of any one particular person. But we changed one word. We did not
change one word, we simply added a word, and that word was
``appropriations.'' We say ``future appropriation legislation,''
instead of ``future legislation.'' We simply add the word
``appropriation.''
Why did we do that? We do it because the Congressional Budget Office
requires us to do it. We do it because the Committee on the Budget
requires it of us. But let me tell you why we really did it. Because
Jerry Solomon, this Member of Congress, requires it of us, because we
are not going to do anything that is going to get us off that glidepath
to a balanced budget.
The gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, the chairman of the Committee
on the Budget, is sitting in the back of the room. He has got us on
that glidepath for the second consecutive year, and we are going to
continue for the next 5 years and we are not going to veer off it, no
matter what. The most serious problem facing this Government today is
these unconscionable deficits that are turning this Nation into a
debtor nation, no better than a third-world debtor nation, and the
American people have had it and we have had it.
Let me get back on to the bill itself, because I want everybody to
come over here and I want Members to vote for this rule, then I want
Members to vote for the bill. The major part of this bill is the
funding of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is funded at a
level that is going to take care of the veterans of this Nation. Why is
that necessary? Because we have a contract with them. This is not some
kind of welfare program or social program we are dealing with in
funding the hospital medical care delivery system under the Veterans'
Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs now. In other words,
that is an earned benefit and that is what we are doing here today. As
a matter of fact, we are going to have an amendment by a good Democrat,
the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, and a good
Republican, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon, and the
gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump, and we are going to increase that a
little bit.
We are going to take less than one-half of 1 percent out of all these
other bureaus and agencies and offices that are funded under this
complex little bill here, and we are going to take that $50 billion
plus $15 million and we are going to add it into the Veterans'
Administration hospital care delivery system because that is what it is
going to take to keep that solvent and keep it going so that we do not
loose ground.
So that is really what this entire debate is all about today. Let us
not quibble over one word. We are doing it because we cannot afford to
violate the Budget Act and then have CBO and all of these other people
come down on us. We are going to change that one word, but then we are
going to pass this, one of the most important appropriation bills that
we have coming before this Congress this year.
{time} 1415
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that no man holds
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules in greater esteem
than do I or has greater affection for him, but he has just admitted,
just admitted that there is no money in that $861 million. It is
illusion. It is blue smoke and mirrors.
I want to compliment the gentleman because never before have I seen
this so adroitly done, even in the Committee on Rules, where he reigns
supreme and issues closed rules and handles the business of this House
up there behind closed doors.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and in partial response to my friend, the chairman of the committee, I
would like to insert some material in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican
majority claimed that the House was going to consider bills under an
open process.
I would like to point out that 60 percent of the legislation this
session has been considered under a restrictive process.
Mr. Speaker, additional information for the Record follows:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................ Compliance........ H. Res. 6 Closed................ None.
H. Res. 6...................... Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed................ None.
Package.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive........... 2R; 4D.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive........... N/A.
Scheduling.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open.................. N/A.
Act of 1995.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 63 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Act of
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive........... N/A.
Incarceration Act
of 1995.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open.................. N/A.
Deportation
Improvement Act.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive........... N/A.
Law Enforcement
Block Grants.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive........... N/A.
Revitalization
Act.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive........... N/A.
Habeas.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed................ None.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive........... 1D.
Extend the Health
Insurance
Deduction for the
Self-Employed.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive........... 1D.
Supplemental/
Rescinding
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive........... N/A.
Moratorium.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive........... 1D.
Protection Act.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive........... 1D.
Litigation Reform
Act.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive........... N/A.
Accountability
Act of 1995.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive........... 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform
Act.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive........... N/A.
Supplemental
Appropriations
and Rescissions.
[[Page H6776]]
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive........... 1D; 3R
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive........... 5D; 26R.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive........... 1D.
America Tax
Relief Act of
1995.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive........... 1D.
Extension.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open.................. N/A.
Authorization.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive........... 3D; 1R.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive........... N/A.
Interests Act of
1995.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive........... 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Bipartisan.
Act; FY 1996.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open.................. N/A.
Construction
Appropriations;
FY 1996.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive........... 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. Bipartisan.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed................ N/A.
Amendment to
Permit Congress
and States to
Prohibit the
Physical
Desecration of
the American Flag.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H. Res. 187 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive........... N/A.
for China.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open.................. N/A.
North Slope Oil.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive........... 1D.
U.S. Arms Embargo
on Bosnia.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive........... 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. partisan.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations
Act.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open.................. N/A.
Targeted
Investments.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive........... N/A.
Authorization.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open.................. N/A.
Lock Box.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open.................. N/A.
Acquisition
Reform Act of
1995.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Workforce
Development and
Literacy Programs
Act (CAREERS).
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open.................. N/A.
System
Designation Act
of 1995.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive........... 2R/2D.
Democratic
Solidarity Act of
1995.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open.................. N/A.
Employees and
Managers Act of
1995.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open.................. N/A.
Certain
Injunctions.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open.................. N/A.
Space Station
Authorization Act
of 1995.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed................ ..............
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open.................. N/A.
Science
Authorization Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive........... 1D.
Certain
Sentencing
Guideline
Amendments.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive........... 1D.
Preservation Act.
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations
Bill.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive........... 1D.
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget
Reconciliation
Social Security
Earnings Test
Reform.
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations FY
1996.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive........... 5R.
in the Statutory
Debt Limit.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open.................. ..............
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed................ N/A.
in the Statutory
Limit on the
Public Debt.
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed................ 2R.
Reform.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open.................. N/A.
Disclosure Act of
1995.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive........... N/A.
Funds for Bosnia
Deployment.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open.................. N/A.
Privatization Act
of 1995.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open.................. N/A.
Act of 1995.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. 293 Closed................ N/A.
Trust Funds.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H. Res. 303 Open.................. N/A.
Management Act of
1995.
H. Res. 304.................... Providing for N/A Closed................ 1D; 2R.
Debate and
Consideration of
Three Measures
Relating to U.S.
Troop Deployments
in Bosnia.
H. Res. 309.................... Revised Budget H. Res. 309 Closed................ N/A.
Resolution.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H. Res. 313 Open.................. N/A.
Radioactive Waste
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed................ N/A.
and National
Wildlife Refuge
Systems Freedom
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed................ N/A.
extension of
nondiscriminatory
treatment (MFN)
to the products
of Bulgaria.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed................ N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/
establishing
procedures making
the transmission
of the continuing
resolution H.J.
Res. 134.
H.R. 1358...................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed................ N/A.
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Laboratory at
Gloucester,
Massachusetts.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed................ N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive........... 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition Bipartisan.
Program.
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H. Res. 368 Open rule; Rule tabled N/A.
& Review Act of
1995.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H. Res. 371 Closed rule........... N/A.
Continuing Full
Investment of
Social Security
and Other Federal
Funds in
Obligations of
the United States.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H. Res. 372 Restrictive........... 2D/2R.
Downpayment
Toward a Balanced
Budget.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive........... 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act
of 1996.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive........... 12D; 19R; 1
and National Bipartisan.
Interest Act of
1995.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed................ N/A.
continuing
appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed................ N/A.
Enforcement and
Second Amendment
Restoration Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed................ N/A.
America
Advancement Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive........... N/A.
Coverage
Availability and
Affordability Act
of 1996.
H.J. Res. 159.................. Tax Limitation H. Res. 395 Restrictive........... 1D
Constitutional
Amendment.
H.R. 842....................... Truth in Budgeting H. Res. 396 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 2715...................... Paperwork H. Res. 409 Open.................. N/A.
Elimination Act
of 1996.
H.R. 1675...................... National Wildlife H. Res. 410 Open.................. N/A.
Refuge
Improvement Act
of 1995.
H.J. Res. 175.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 411 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2641...................... United States H. Res. 418 Open.................. N/A.
Marshals Service
Improvement Act
of 1996.
H.R. 2149...................... The Ocean Shipping H. Res. 419 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Act.
[[Page H6777]]
H.R. 2974...................... To amend the H. Res. 421 Open.................. N/A.
Violent Crime
Control and Law
Enforcement Act
of 1994 to
provide enhanced
penalties for
crimes against
elderly and child
victims.
H.R. 3120...................... To amend Title 18, H. Res. 422 Open.................. N/A.
United States
Code, with
respect to
witness
retaliation,
witness tampering
and jury
tampering.
H.R. 2406...................... The United States H. Res. 426 Open.................. N/A.
Housing Act of
1996.
H.R. 3322...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 427 Open.................. N/A.
Science
Authorization Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3286...................... The Adoption H. Res. 428 Restrictive........... 1D; 1R.
Promotion and
Stability Act of
1996.
H.R. 3230...................... Defense H. Res. 430 Restrictive........... 41 amends;
Authorization 20D; 17R; 4
Bill FY 1997. bipartisan
H.R. 3415...................... Repeal of the 4.3- H. Res. 436 Closed................ N/A.
Cent Increase in
Transporation
Fuel Taxes.
H.R. 3259...................... Intelligence H. Res. 437 Restrictive........... N/A.
Authorization Act
for FY 1997.
H.R. 3144...................... The Defend America H. Res. 438 Restrictive........... 1D.
Act.
H.R. 3448/H.R. 1227............ The Small Business H. Res. 440 Restrictive........... 2R.
Job Protection
Act of 1996, and
The Employee
Commuting
Flexibility Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3517...................... Military H. Res. 442 Open.................. N/A.
Construction
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3540...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 445 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3562...................... The Wisconsin H. Res. 446 Restrictive........... N/A.
Works Waiver
Approval Act.
H.R. 2754...................... Shipbuilding Trade H. Res. 448 Restrictive........... 1R.
Agreement Act.
H.R. 3603...................... Agriculture H. Res. 451 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3610...................... Defense H. Res. 453 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3662...................... Interior H. Res. 455 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3666...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 456 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 60% restrictive; 40% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 56% restrictive; 44%
open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented
standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which
can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed
rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This
definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules
Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD appropriations bill, as reported to the
House, allocates, apparently, $2.2 billion for Superfund, but of that
amount $861 million is contingent upon future legislation to make the
funds available for obligation. Actually, we are talking about $1.3
billion that is really available for Superfund.
The majority clearly is trying to point to this appropriation of $2.2
billion as evidence of their commitment to Superfund and their
commitment to environmental protection, but the Committee on the
Budget, Congressional Budget Office, and the Parliamentarian scored the
provision as exceeding the budget allocation and subject to a point of
order. The Committee on Rules therefore included a self-executing
provision in the rule that makes the additional $861 million available
only upon a subsequent appropriation.
Now, I view that as a form of doublespeak intended to make Superfund
appropriations seem larger than they really are. The appropriations
provision does not include any money above $1.3 billion. So what is the
status of that $861 million? That money is available only if
subsequently appropriated. And what does that mean? There will be no
additional money for Superfund unless Congress acts a second time to
appropriate it. And then, at that time, the appropriation will be
subject to budgetary ceilings. And that further means that at that
subsequent time the Committee on Appropriations will have to come back
and find $861 million to cut someplace else in these programs.
Otherwise, they will run up against the caps. They will have exceeded
their cap.
Now, that is not being candid and fair and open and honest about this
process. We need real money to clean up hazardous wastesites, we need
real money to protect human health and the environment, and doublespeak
is not going to get us there.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time to address the House and rise in support of the rule and in
support of this VA-HUD appropriations bill.
I represent probably the most diverse district in the State of
Illinois. I represent part of the city of Chicago, the south suburbs in
Cook and Will Counties, bedroom communities, farm towns, and a lot of
corn fields. When I represent a very diverse district, I always look
for things where there is a very common consensus, and in my district
there is one item where there is unanimous consensus and that is for
redevelopment of the Joliet Arsenal, a former military facility,
largest single piece of property in northern Illinois, to redevelop
that for peacetime uses.
Frankly, I am very pleased that this effort, which has been a
bipartisan effort, continues to move forward. The President signed our
legislation in February to accomplish our goal setting aside 19,000
acres for conservation, 3,000 acres for job creation, 985 acres to
create the second largest national veterans cemetery. The VA-HUD
appropriation bill continues that effort by working to make this
veterans cemetery a reality.
The Chicago area is now facing a shortage. We need new places to
honor and bury our veterans. This legislation provides $18.4 million in
funding for redevelopment and complete construction of this new
veterans cemetery. I want to point out that the funding that is in this
bill is exactly what the VA says they need in order to have this
veterans cemetery in place and honoring our veterans by 1999.
Again, I want to thank the chairman, my friend, the gentleman from
California, Congressman Lewis, for his assistance, and the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, the ranking member, for making this project,
which has been a bipartisan project, to redevelop the Joliet Arsenal a
reality. This legislation funds our veterans cemetery, and again I want
to thank the House and urge bipartisan support and passage of this
appropriations bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, in last year's appropriations bill the Republicans
attacked the EPA and the Superfund Program, and they attempted to slash
the Superfund Program by 25 percent.
When President Clinton refused to go along because of our success in
highlighting this issue, the President vetoed the bill. The
Republicans, because of Superfund and other programs, shut the
Government of the United States down twice because they wanted to see
programs like Superfund gutted. The truth of the matter is that there
were furloughed Superfund Program workers all over the country and
delays in the cleanup of toxic waste sites all over our country.
Now, in this bill the Republicans contend they are putting in $2.2
billion for Superfund. Sounds really great, but the truth is that this
is really kind of a legislative sneak preview of coming attractions.
But, like many Hollywood movie trailers, it is very deceptive, because
while they are advertising that their bill is ``Rebecca of Sunnybrook
Farms,'' the truth is that their actual bill is more like ``Nightmare
on Elm Street,'' because in reality the $862 million which they contend
is being put in the bill is not going to be appropriated this year in
this bill. They are not putting the money in.
So, here they are today saying, well, we are going to add in an extra
$860 million or so, but we are not putting it in this year; we are
going to put it in sometime in the future. And by the way, when we put
the money in, it is
[[Page H6778]]
going to be to give rebates to polluters. That is right. Instead of the
polluter who messed up a particular neighborhood paying to clean up the
site, we, the American taxpayers, we are going to pay the polluter.
Now, what kind of program is this? This is the Ed McMahon Polluters
Rebate Sweepstakes program. That is right, the Ed McMahon Polluters
Sweepstakes van pulls up in front of your corporate headquarters and
announces that you may be a winner. If you have already been accused
and accept responsibility for polluting and for cleaning up a hazardous
waste site in your community, you may be eligible for million of
dollars of taxpayers' money as the taxpayer pays the polluter for
having cleaned up a site which they polluted.
Rather than using these hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up
orphan sites, to clean up sites that would not be cleaned up otherwise,
no, the money in the Republican bill will be used to hand it over to
the polluters.
We must vote ``no'' on this proposal. It, in fact, represents just
the opposite of where the American people want our Superfund Program to
be headed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
In last year's appropriations bill for VA-HUD-independent agencies,
the Republicans attacked EPA and the Superfund Program. They tried to
slash funding for Superfund by almost 25 percent. And, when President
Clinton refused to go along with their radical proposals, they shut
down the Government twice. They furloughed Superfund workers and
delayed the cleanup of toxic waste sites in dozens of communities
around the Nation, including several in Massachusetts.
This year, instead of mounting a direct assault on the program's
funding, the Gingrich Republicans are claiming to provide Superfund
with $2.2 billion in funding, nearly a billion dollars more than they
provided last year. But when you look at the bill--and especially when
you look at the convoluted rule they have crafted--it is clear this
sham increase is really only an advertisement for future money. It's a
special legislative sneak preview of coming attractions. Unfortunately,
like so many Hollywood movie trailers, the preview is much different
than the actual film. In this case, we've been offered previews of a
legislative ``Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm'' when the actual bill is more
like a ``Nightmare on Elm Street.''
The sad truth is that the Republican Superfund appropriations bill is
still mean and still extreme. Instead of trying to slash Superfund
funding, however, the GOP is trying to turn the Superfund program on
its head by replacing the polluter pays principle with a new program of
paying the polluter. The extra $861 million--if it is ever really
appropriated--will be set aside in a polluter's slush fund, where it
could be used to fund the new polluter's entitlement program contained
in H.R. 2500, the Republican's Superfund reform bill which was approved
last November by the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on
Hazardous Materials. That bill replaces the polluter pays principle of
the Superfund law with a requirement that taxpayer dollars and trust
fund moneys be used to pay polluters rebate checks for cleaning up
Superfund sites that they contaminated and may already have agreed to
clean up themselves.
Under the Republican proposal, Superfund will be tansformed into the
Ed McMahon Polluter's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Superfund polluters
will be getting letters in the mail announcing the good news:
Congratulations, polluters, you may have already won
millions of dollars in fabulous cash rebates. All you have to
do is wait for Congress to pass this Superfund ``Reform''
bill. Then, our Superfund Sweepstakes prize van will be
pulling up to your corporate suite--with a big ol' rebate
check in hand to pay you for cleaning up sites that you
polluted!
We should oppose such radical and extreme proposals. Those who
polluted the environment with hazardous wastes should bear personal
responsibility for their actions. During House floor consideration of
this bill I will be offering an amendment later in the debate, along
with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] that would preserve the current policy of
polluter pays and prevent taxpayer dollars and Superfund trust fund
moneys from being misused to pay rebate checks to polluters. Those who
are liable for contaminating a Superfund site or have entered into a
court-approved consent decree to pay the costs of such a cleanup should
pay these costs themselves. At the same time, our amendment will not
impair mixed funding for cleanups in those circumstances where EPA has
reached a consent agreement with a polluter that a portion of the
clearnup will be funded from Superfund moneys.
This amendment has the support of the Clinton administration, as well
as a broad range of environmental and public interest groups, including
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the
Environmental Information Center. It will be one of the key
environmental votes of the year, and we look forward to the floor
debate on this critical issue.
At this time, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. We should not
be passing rules which transform appropriations bills into advertising
promos for future appropriations bills. Let's be honest about how much
funding Superfund will receive this year, and let's be honest about how
these funds will be spent.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and
congratulate the gentleman from California, [Mr. Lewis], the chairman
of the committee, and the chairman and members of the Committee on
Rules for putting together a very effective rule.
Let me answer my friend from Massachusetts, who was so concerned
about the reform of Superfund becoming the ``Nightmare on Elm Street.''
I would say the ``Nightmare on Elm Street'' has been running for the
last 15 years, and it is called the existing Superfund law that has
fostered litigation to the point where we are spending half of the
money on lawyers and we have only cleaned up about 5 percent of the
sites.
Anybody who knows anything about the Superfund Program knows what a
disaster it has been. Whether they are the most green of green
environmentalists or whether they are an evil corporate polluter, they
know that the Superfund Program as exists today is not working. We are
trying to change that program.
Now, the gentleman from Michigan talked about scams. Let me show my
colleagues what a scam is. I have a program there that shows how the
cleanup of the Superfund sites takes place under today's program. Now,
that is probably the lead-in to the ``Nightmare on Elm Street,'' and it
may be the cartoon, but look at all the hoops one has to jump through.
And meanwhile, meanwhile, the program has cost some $30 billion. That
is billion with a ``B.''
We are here to change the program and make a lousy program work. I am
disappointed with my friend from Massachusetts and others who
apparently want to stay in a position where they are defending the
status quo. I do not think that is defensible.
I see my friend from California, the chairman of the committee, and I
would like to ask him a question. If, in fact, we pass a Superfund
reform bill, I want to know what is going to happen to the funding of
the Superfund Program under the rule that we are debating today.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague
yielding. This bill is a bill that funds some 20 Federal programs
including the EPA. The Superfund Program is a piece of the EPA.
Presently, within this measure is $1.33 billion for the Superfund
Program.
If we see a reauthorization bill, and the kind of work that will
allow this program to go forward in a positive measure, we would add
back the $861 million that is the subject of this discussion.
If the gentleman will continue to yield, I was a bit astonished by
the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. Almost
since I have been here in the House, I have sat back in wonderment as
the gentleman has been a member of the committee responsible for
authorizing Superfund. The Administrator of EPA 1\1/2\ years ago told
us this program was broken. I have never seen the gentleman's proposed
legislation. I do not see fixes coming out of the committee. I do not
see fixes coming from the department.
I hope that the authorizing committee will go forward with the
bipartisan effort and support necessary for the program to work.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and
I think that is really the point here.
[[Page H6779]]
This is a big carrot out for the members to work in a bipartisan way to
get a reauthorization of the Superfund Program so that that extra money
is available and we can take that money, instead of giving it to the
lawyers, and we can put it into cleanup.
That is really what the essence of this is all about. I am just
disappointed with my friend from Massachusetts, who will be offering an
amendment, as I understand during the title III of this bill, that
apparently just says, hey, the status quo is fine. We can just continue
on our merry way and pour money down a rat hole instead of really
solving the problem. That is why I say I am disappointed with my
friend.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my good friend, the
gentleman from California, that in fact we passed the bill 44 to
nothing out of the Committee on Commerce reforming Superfund in 1994.
And just to let the gentleman know, as he remembers, it died there in
the waning bitter days of the end of the 1994 Congress. We had reformed
Superfund on a bipartisan basis out of our committee on 1994, Democrat
and Republican alike, unanimously.
The larger question is where is this $850 million going to come from
in sub-
sequent years unless we lift the cap on the VA bill without increasing
the deficit in other places?
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis] because I think this puts it into light in
terms of the budget caps and the flexibility therein. The gentleman
knows a lot more about it than I do.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, first, we are
about appropriating funds that are available under the lids that
dramatically impact all of these agencies, VA, HUD, EPA, et cetera.
Within that limitation, we are attempting to produce as much money as
possible and can be meaningful insofar as the Superfund is concerned.
I remind the gentleman that the other party controlled the House and
both Houses during the last Congress. They controlled this House for 40
years. They controlled the House since the Superfund was created.
Everybody has known that the program has not worked almost from the
beginning. It seems to me it is long past due that a bill was passed
and sent to the President that changed this.
Indeed, they produced a bill last year that supposedly was going to
work. For some reason, the director, Ms. Browner, has not chosen to
take that bill up and send it up here and said, yes, this is the
answer.
There is no doubt this is a complicated process. There has to be a
reauthorization, hopefully to make this process make sense. There has
to be appropriations. That is our job. There also has to be ways and
means work that reexercises the tax in order to provide the fund in the
first place. So it is a complex issue. We have to get on with it,
indeed, instead of pointing fingers at other Members.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I
rise in opposition to this unique rule. It is a rule which appears to
say that about $860 million is appropriated but it is not appropriated.
It is not counted.
This is and of itself is sort of strange. Then we have a strange
provision in the Budget Act with says this money can be allocated to
the Committee on Appropriations if certain things happen.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is just sort of a method of hiding the fact
that many of the discretionary limits set by the majority simply were
not working, are not workable and they are trying to find a variety of
ways to get around the fact that their top dollar numbers simply do not
work for discretionary spending. But this money appears to be very
unique.
If the committee acts and the Congress acts to reenact some taxes
that relate to the Superfund, it appears that money can be spent twice,
once for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to increase the
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations so the money can be spent
on the Superfund; but the revenue base was not increased, so these same
dollars can be counted as offsets to other tax cuts for pay-as-you-go
purposes.
So it would appear under the Budget Act we have these dollars in this
bill now which are appropriated but we are going to be told have to be
reappropriated again in some future time in a special budget allocation
which makes some money available, if a tax increase for Superfund is
enacted, but that can be both spent and used to offset other tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very unique type of rule, very unique type of
budget process that is the ultimate in game playing.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair the time remaining on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule allowing
for the consideration of H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
My problem with this rule should come as no surprise to anyone,
because it embodies precisely the shortcomings which are inevitable
when supporters try to make a bill be all things to all people. The
price of being less than forthright, the cost of refusing to decide
what your priorities are, is always a dependency on gimmicks and
parliamentary gymnastics, employed in the hopes that our colleagues,
first, and our constituents, second, will fail to see through the ruse.
I stand here as one who wants to see the Superfund Program
reauthorized. I largely support the majority in their efforts to reform
the Superfund Program. I commend Mr. Oxley and Mr. Lewis for the work
they have done in reforming the Superfund Program. I also stand here as
one who believes we must be honest about the cost of those things which
we say are a priority and then we must pay for those priorities by
finding savings elsewhere.
This rule attempts to have it both ways when it comes to the cost of
the Superfund Program. To those who support the $861 million
appropriation, the bill says, ``Sure, we'll take care of you--here's
your money.'' To those who are concerned about how this additional
spending will add to the deficit, the rule says, ``Not to worry--you
don't have to count this $861 million. We'll take care of that later on
in a supplemental appropriation.''
Back home we call that being ``too cute by half.'' Not only is it
dishonest; it also insults the people who are expected to buy off on a
rationale that conflicting goals can be accommodated without sacrifice
being made anywhere else.
There were many times during the previous Congresses that I spoke out
against rules which abused a sense of democratic fairness. I especially
protested the regular waiving of the Budget Act, an act designed to
protect the integrity of the legislative process and impose a measure
of fiscal discipline. But I have to say we are testing new depths of
parliamentary gimmickry in this Congress with this rule. We have now
waived the Budget Act over 700 times since its enactment. In addition
to making a mockery of the act, this sort of behavior adds to the
skepticism and cynicism which continues to undermine the credibility of
this institution.
There are simple questions to be answered here: Are we appropriating
funds or aren't we? If we are appropriating funds, are they adding to
the deficit or have we made cuts elsewhere to support this priority?
Are we honoring allocations and appropriation caps or are we attempting
to spend nearly a billion dollars outside of the normal budget
disciplines?
These are questions that should be easy to answer in a bipartisan way
if legislation is being presented in a strightforward way.
[[Page H6780]]
Unfortunately, today's rule is anything but straightforward. Vote
``no''.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
[Mr. Orton].
(Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about two amendments that I
have filed which deal with modernizing the FHA single family mortgage
program. I rise now because I expect that these amendments would be
ruled out of order as legislating an appropriations bill. Therefore, I
will not offer these amendments during the consideration of the bill,
but let me explain them.
One of the most successful Government programs is the FHA single
family loan program. Since its inception, it has provided over 50
million mortgages and has played an important role in increasing home
ownership. In fact 40 percent of first-time home buyers use FHA. And it
has been successful at no cost to the taxpayer.
Two years ago, the House enacted a housing bill which included
important provisions to improve and modernize the FHA program.
Unfortunately, these proposals died when the other body failed to act
on that bill. With the end of the 104th Congress in sight, it is
frustrating that there has been no legislative vehicle in the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services to revisit these proposals.
Therefore, the first amendment I filed is an end to the law which
prohibits parents from lending money to their children for a down
payment on a home financed by FHA. This prohibition is antifamily and
anti-home ownership. Why should the Government be telling parents they
cannot lend money to their children?
The second amendment is an effort to simplify FHA regulations, reduce
costs, reduce bureaucracy, and ultimately lower closing costs for FHA
borrowers. It contains two parts: The first is a simplification of the
unnecessarily complex two-part down payment calculation, which is a
nightmare. This provision would greatly simplify the process,
maintaining the same general down payment levels.
The second part allows designated FHA lenders to issue their own
mortgage certificates. This change would remove a bureaucratic
roadblock to the execution of FHA mortgages ending costly delays faced
while waiting for HUD to issue certificates. Since such lenders have
already been giving designated underwriting authority, this change will
not affect the quality of loans approved. But it will reduce the need
for HUD personnel and will eliminate unnecessary delays.
All three of these provisions passed the House 2 years ago with
bipartisan support. They are supported by HUD, and they pose no
additional risk to the solvency of the FHA reserve fund. They ought to
be enacted into law, and we should find a way to do it before we
adjourn this year.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Manton].
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, the majority's self-proclaimed love affair with an open
and fair rules process appears to have soured. They apparently reserve
the right to shamelessly use the rule to subvert the legislative
process and fool the American people.
In crafting this rule for the VA-HUD appropriations bill, they have
elevated legislative deception to a new height. This rule contains
self-executing amendments that circumvent the majority's own budget
caps and waives points of order against the bill for exceeding spending
limits. Why? So the majority can claim they are spending more money on
Superfund cleanup when, in fact, the money simply does not exist.
Clearly, the majority wants to improve their image on the
environment. They have been severely battered by the public and the
press for their aggressive attempts to dismantle environmental
legislation and reverse the real progress that has been made on this
front over the last 25 years. This has led to all types of
proenvironment shenanigans, including today's attempt to paint
themselves green with claims of substantial funding for the Superfund
Program, an imaginary $2.2 billion.
But, therein lies the hoax, $861 million of that total is contingent
not only on reauthorization of the Superfund Program, but more
importantly, it is dependent on an appropriation that would potentially
occur at a later date.
Last year, the majority shut down the Government demanding a budget
based on honest numbers using CBO projections. But the so-called
funding the majority has included in this measure for the Superfund
Program is so illusory, CBO wouldn't even score it.
The blue smoke is getting thick. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
rule.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of the
House Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I really am just, I am sort of shocked at
what I am hearing here. I am going to tell my colleagues something,
they defeat this rule, this bill does not come to the floor, they
better look out when it comes back the next time. As a matter of fact,
I have a list of cutting amendments over there in the drawer. We might
just offer all 75 of them.
I am getting a little fed up with this. We could have brought this
rule to the floor and did what the Democrats have done for the last 40
years. That is, just waive the Budget Act, and let the deficits go up.
We did not do that, my colleagues. What we did in order to get this
bill to the floor, we waived the Budget Act, but then we self-executed
the correction of the violation so that, when the bill comes to the
floor, there is no violation.
Let us get something straight. President Clinton vetoed the Superfund
business taxes that now have expired. If he had not vetoed them, they
would now be in effect. So where we stand now is that the Committee on
the Budget created a Superfund reserve fund in the fiscal year 1997
budget resolution. I see the chairman standing over there, the former
chairman, the ranking member. But this reserve fund allows the
gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, to increase the committee
allocations when the Superfund Program is reformed and new money is
provided by an extension, and this is the key, by an extension of the
Superfund business taxes.
This is neutral and has nothing to do now that we have self-executed
this portion out, has nothing to do with unbalancing the budget. That
is where we stand.
I want my colleagues to come over here and vote for this rule. It is
an open rule. If they have a problem with it, come over here and offer
amendments. They are all in order, anything they want to offer that is
germane, come over here and do it. Let us have it out, and have an even
and fair debate. That is what this is all about, fairness.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. This Congress's
continued attack on our Nation's environment is unforgivable. If this
rule passes, the air we breath and the water we drink will become
dirtier.
The American people need to know that more than $800 million included
in this bill for cleaning up toxic waste dumps does not exist. How can
this be, you ask? Even though this amount of funding is printed in the
bill, the congressional majority has attached strings to the
legislation that will prevent the money from becoming available.
The rule is bad for two reasons. First, it is budgetary smoke and
mirrors. It contains money that doesn't exist. And second, it will
prevent a vote on an amendment by Representatives Markey, Pallone, and
Borski that would make this $800 million for toxic cleanups available
at the beginning of the 1997 funding period. The rule for the VA-HUD
bill prevents this vote, and that's why I oppose it.
In my congressional district, children and families will continue to
be threatened by a toxic waste dump because this trick of the light
money for the Federal Superfund Program will not be available at the
beginning of next year. For more than 80 years, Raymark Industries sent
asbestos, lead, dioxins, and PCB's into the air. Stratford, CT became a
dumping ground for
[[Page H6781]]
Raymark's toxic waste. Children's parks and schools were contaminated.
The Environmental Protection Agency has made great strides in
cleaning up the Raymark site. It is on the verge of being a model of
success, with development proposed for the site that will create jobs
and bring in tax revenue. But this bill both cuts the cleanup program
and prevents the expenditure of $800 million.
If any American believes that these cuts will not prevent the cleanup
of toxic sites like Raymark, they are being misled. I ask my Republican
colleagues to help defeat the budget gimmickry and the
antienvironmental extremism this bill represents.
{time} 1445
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the need to
provide fair and adequate housing for our Nation's poor and to
recognize the importance of support for our veterans and, as well, for
us to stay ahead in space exploration. But however we find ourselves
with a rule, once again, on appropriation legislation that helps some
and hurts many.
A cornerstone of this country's public housing is affordability. The
elitist notion that $25 a month is not too much to ask for rent is the
same notion that resulted in the underfunding of this Nation's public
and affordable housing. I believe it is important that public housing
authorities have few requirements in creating a voice for residents of
public housing, the decisionmaking process that affects their homes. It
is important that when one is poor, the poor have the opportunity to
have good housing.
I would simply like to add as well that we have a rule that has a
funny mechanism that allows Republicans to pretend they are providing
an additional $861 million for Superfund cleanups when, in fact, the
funds cannot be spent until a second appropriation bill is approved.
So we have a rule that in fact disallows us helping some and hurts
many. I would like to also add that because of what we face in my
community that I will add an amendment to this process to give more
flexibility to adding one-for-one replacement where there are waiting
lists of 6,000 or more.
We need to confront the issues of this appropriations bill in a fair
manner. This rule disallows that, and I ask my colleagues to not
support this rule.
Mr. FROST. I have no remaining requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say this is an open rule and for the life of me I cannot understand
why people would, any Member of this body would, oppose it, and I urge
the adoption of the rule and passage of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249,
nays 166, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No 269]
YEAS--246
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NAYS--166
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--21
Andrews
Boucher
Browder
Bryant (TX)
Chrysler
Coleman
Cubin
Fields (TX)
Ford
Furse
Houghton
Istook
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Ney
Peterson (FL)
Roth
Roukema
Schumer
Towns
{time} 1509
Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. JONES of North Carolina changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H6782]]
DEATH OF THE HONORABLE BILL EMERSON
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 459)
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 459
Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of
the death of the Honorable Bill Emerson, a Representative
from the State of Missouri.
Resolved, That a committee on such Members of the House as
the Speaker may designate, together with such Members of the
Senate as may be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral.
Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be
authorized and directed to take such steps as may be
necessary for carrying out the provisions of these
resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection
therewith be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.
Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to
the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the
deceased.
Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as
a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Clay], the dean of the delegation, is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as dean of the Missouri delegation, I rise today to pay
tribute to a great man from Missouri, a thoughtful and pragmatic Member
of this body, a widely respected colleague, a friend, and a man who
truly loved this institution and all the good that it represents.
To know Bill Emerson was to respect Bill Emerson. I know of no other
more likable Member of this institution. On many political issues, he
and I had genuine disagreements. But it is not those differences of
opinion that I remember as I recall the life of Bill Emerson. Rather
what I remember is that Bill Emerson was a man who was not limited by
ideology and party label. If a compromise could be reached, Bill would
reach for it. If Bill Emerson thought that political differences could
be bridged in the best interest of the people of his district, his home
State, or the people of this great Nation, Bill would help erect that
bridge.
As we bid farewell to Bill Emerson, let us be forever mindful of his
gallant leadership to eradicate world hunger. As vice-chairman of the
Select Committee on Hunger, Bill walked the walk by placing his own
personal comfort and safety on the line. He traveled to Somalia in 1992
to gain firsthand knowledge of the horrors of mass starvation going on
in that far-off land. Later, when that Select Committee was targeted
for elimination, Bill joined our colleague Tony Hall, in his fast to
bring attention to that regrettable decision by this institution. And,
finally, Bill Emerson made his own pledge to contribute $10,000 to the
hunger caucus formed to fill part of the void left by elimination of
the hunger committee.
On behalf of my family and the people of the First Congressional
District of Missouri, let me express deepest sympathy to Bill's wife Jo
Ann, his daughters, and other members of Bill's family. Thank you for
sharing this decent and compassionate human being with our Nation. Rest
well, Bill. All of us who serve in this institution that you loved so
dearly will miss you.
{time} 1515
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness to
join in the sorrow of this institution at the loss of our dear friend
and colleague, Bill Emerson. As our friend and leader from Missouri
stated so aptly, Bill was one of our colleagues who was always there to
work in a bipartisan way on the priorities of this country. Whether it
would be the problem of hunger in the world or in this country, or
agricultural problems that affect so many districts, or whether it be
our relations with Germany, where Bill was so instrumental in starting
the Bundestag, the congressional effort to strengthen ties, Bill
Emerson was in fact this institution's leader.
However, I knew Bill Emerson in a different light, Mr. Speaker. In
the last session of Congress he was named to be a bipartisan cochair of
a task force dealing with disaster issues with our friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. Having had the
pleasure of serving with both of them, we worked for 6 months on
looking at ways that we could improve the response to handle those
disasters that affect all of our districts, and in Bill's case the
terrible floods that ravaged the people of Missouri and the central
part of this great Nation. Again, Bill Emerson rose to the task and was
a leader in this institution and helped us craft a bipartisan bill that
now enjoys the support of over 260 of our colleagues.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, last month Bill Emerson was
recognized by the 1.5 million men and women of this Nation's fire and
emergency services as the 1995-1996 legislator of the year. That is
because of Bill Emerson's tireless efforts on behalf of those people
who have to face the problems and tragedies associated with disasters
in this great Nation.
On behalf of all of those people who have suffered and all of those
1.5 million people who day in and day out respond to disasters, I rise
to pay tribute to our friend and colleague. I can think of no more
fitting tribute, Mr. Speaker, than if this body would take up the
Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act, Bill Emerson's bill, in
this session to pay tribute and homage to this great American leader.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity and the privilege for
some 7 to 8 years to ride to and from McLean, VA to the Capitol with my
fellow Missourian, Bill Emerson. We would start out the day, we would
solve all of the problems of the world and, unfortunately, by the time
we went back to our houses in the evening together, all of the problems
would fall apart. He was a wonderful companion, a wonderful friend.
Memory and friendship are funny things. They go hand-in-hand. I will
long remember the discussions we had: Political, legislative, Missouri,
Westminster College, where he went to school; families, angels,
agriculture, Fort Leonard Wood, the gamut of subjects was nearly
covered by our conversations. It was always in a spirit of warmth,
joviality, kindness, and yes, vision, that he spoke of things we
discussed.
This is a fitting tribute, and I compliment the gentleman from St.
Louis, MO, Mr. Clay for bringing it to the floor, for Bill Emerson will
long be remembered in this body, but he will long be remembered at home
where he really cared for the people that he represented.
He talked about them. He told me stories about them. He was proud of
them. He liked to talk about the unusual legislation that he had from
time to time, the wild horses bill and how the bureaucrats were trying
to do them in and how he won that here on the floor. How proud he was
of his family, those wonderful four young ladies and his lovely wife,
Jo Ann. Bill Emerson will long be remembered, not just as a legislator,
not just as one who was a child of this House, knowing that he started
out as a page here, but he will long be remembered by so many of us as
a warm and good and decent friend. I am so pleased and honored to have
walked along life's pathway with him through those years.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess it was about 7\1/2\ years ago I was sworn in as
a Member of the U.S. Congress. I had known Bill Emerson for quite some
time. He had been up here for about 8 years. Bill and I used to stand
back there at the back row and I would ask him for his advice and
counsel, but I remember long about February 1989, the first substantive
vote that we actually had up here in the Congress, and I do not
remember what the vote was, but I was green as a gourd and I did not
really understand the process.
I had never held a public office, I had never held a legislative
position. I was back there kind of scratching my head and Bill walked
up to me and said, he
[[Page H6783]]
said, what is the matter, Mel? He said, you have a problem? And I said,
well, I do not know for sure how to vote on this. He said, well, he
said, here in the Congress you have one of two choices. You can either
vote politics or you can vote what is right. Sometimes they are the
same, sometimes they are not. But he said, I know you, and I know
southwest Missouri, and I know the people of the State of Missouri. And
he said, Mel, if you will just vote your gut feeling on anything that
comes up here in Washington, DC, that we are voting on, he said, you
will probably be right about 99 percent of the time.
Following that conversation, I went ahead and voted, and I thought
about it regularly when some of these tough decisions come up. The only
time, and there has only been once or twice that I did not follow his
recommendation, and I went home at night and could not sleep about it.
I decided that that was not going to happen.
So for the past roughly 7\1/2\ years when the tough decisions come
up, I think back to what Bill Emerson told me right back there at the
rail about 6 weeks after I became a Member of the U.S. Congress. With
the conversations we had, his loyalty to this organization, the House
is going to seriously miss the institutional memory that Bill Emerson
had.
It is with deep regret that I think all of us mourn the passing of
Bill Emerson, but I also think we can be positive because of the way
Bill did pass. He stayed here, he did his job, he was concerned right
up to the very day that he went to the hospital about maintaining a
voting record, and one of the things Bill Emerson used to say is, the
vote I cast here in the Congress does not belong to me, it belongs to
the people that I represent. A great American, a great individual.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues today in
honoring a person who to me was not just a colleague, but like many
others was a friend. It is a day of sadness for us all, and it was a
great day of sadness when I heard Sunday of the death of my friend Bill
Emerson.
Mr. Speaker, Bill and I go back. I was here a few years before he
came, but when he came in 1981 and began his service on the Committee
on Agriculture, and I was a member also of the Committee on
Agriculture, we worked together, he for the people of southeast
Missouri and I for the people of northeast Missouri.
Our districts border along that same Mississippi River, he in Cape
Girardeau and I in Hannibal. We had a lot of similar interests in our
districts and then we had some differences. We discussed them not only
during meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, but as our colleague,
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock], has said before, back behind
the rail many times discussing things, whether sitting on the floor,
other times in our offices. Either he would visit me or I would visit
him, and we would discuss legislation and what was good for our
districts.
Just to give you some examples of things that we worked together on,
back in the 1993 flood, it hit the northeast part of Missouri before it
hit the southeast, but it hit the southeast just as hard as it did the
northeast. We worked together working with the Corps of Engineers and
others to bring about some relief for the flood victims.
One of the things that when I came up with the buyout bill so that
people would be able to move out of that floodplain. It was his efforts
in the Committee on Public Works, when that bill had to go through the
Committee on Public Works, along with others on the committee, but
primarily Bill, that he was able to move that bill within a few short
weeks out of the House, through the Senate and on to the President's
desk.
He not only had a love for the House of Representatives, he had a
love for government in general, and he knew government. He believed
firmly, strongly, in a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people, and I too wish to join in saying to the people of the great
State of Missouri and of the United States, we have lost a leader. To
his wife, Jo Ann, who has lost a great husband, his four daughters who
have lost a great father, I offer sincere condolences, to Jo Ann and
the children, and I also wish that all of us would be able to attend
the funeral, but I know that is not going to be possible. But I know
that all of our hearts are with the family at this time, and to his
mother who awaits him now in Cape Girardeau, I send my condolences
also.
{time} 1530
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Speaker, a good friend passed away the other day.
Bill Emerson was a friend of the Congress, a friend of the people of
Missouri, and a friend of mine.
Bill was the type of individual whom others hope or aspire to become
like. His interest was the public interest. His concerns were the
public concerns, and his conscience was indeed the public conscience.
One of the many reasons Bill was so beloved by the people of Missouri
and the other Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans
alike, is because of his unique genuineness of character. People know
that when they met Bill Emerson, the candidate or the legislator, that
they were first and foremost meeting Bill Emerson, the man.
He always had a very clear understanding of where campaigning ended
and when the business of legislating and serving began. If we had more
public servants like Bill Emerson, I have no question that the cynicism
many Americans hold toward their Government would evaporate and be
quickly replaced by the hope and optimism that was so evident in Bill
Emerson.
Bill was a man of enormous kindness and thoughtfulness, traits that
even the scourge of cancer could not take away.
Bill worked diligently, he worked hard, and he worked faithfully
right up until the very end. The very first day I noticed that he was
not on the floor and was missing his first vote, I learned it was
because one of his daughters was graduating from high school. Until the
very, very end, he was on the floor voting for his constituents.
At a time here in the Congress, and in our United States, when the
shifting demographics raised serious concerns that the voice of rural
America, an area many of us represent, among others, would be reduced
to a whisper, Bill stood as a giant for our small towns, farms, and the
entire agricultural community.
All the while, he also stood as a bastion of civility, using reason
and friendship to accomplish what others had failed to do through
bombastic rhetoric and political gamesmanship.
I consider it a very real personal privilege to have worked so
closely with Bill in prior weeks on some bipartisan legislation he
supported so strongly, one that would provide more food for the hungry
in our Nation, an effort that was ever foremost in his mind, that of
nutrition and feeding the hungry amongst us.
I will miss Bill's friendship, Bill's leadership, Bill's compassion,
as will innumerable others. He departs our world leaving the State of
Missouri and the U.S. Congress infinitely better because of his
presence.
The career we honor in fitting ceremony today, the people of Missouri
will remember in more everyday ways for years to come as their lives
have been enriched by Bill Emerson, an American treasure and one of the
best and brightest ever to serve our State of Missouri.
Bill, we will miss you.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear
friend of mine, and a fellow Missourian, who dies this week after a
lifetime of service to his country and to his community. Of course we
are talking today about our dear friend, Representative Bill Emerson.
Bill's passing is a tremendous loss for me personally and for all of
us who came from his State. We worked very closely over the years, and
I always knew him as a man of quiet peace and decency to every person
that he ever met. He was simply one of the finest human beings to ever
pass through these halls. How he did love this institution of the House
of Representatives in which he spent most of his life.
[[Page H6784]]
But his passing is also a tremendous loss for the entire U.S.
Congress. He was someone who could always reach across the aisle and
work with both Democrats and Republicans for the sake of his beloved
Missouri and the entire country.
He had more accomplishments than we have time today to list, like his
dedication at home to improving Highway 32 or fighting for a new bridge
across the Mississippi River, or just fighting for his constituents, in
so many ways. All of this will serve as monuments to his life and to
his work.
We all came to respect Bill's levelheadedness, even in the most
tumultuous debates. His courage in the face of his illness is something
that will stay with all of us for our entire lives. He missed only five
votes in this Congress. His was a record of constant and consistent
achievement.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join all of us in a celebration
of the life of Bill Emerson. His mark on this institution will forever
be remembered. Our thoughts and our prayers and our wishes are today
with his dear family, his dear friends, and all the loved ones who so
much grieve today his passing.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle in paying tribute to my fellow Missourian, the gentle man
from Missouri, Bill Emerson, and to thank the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Clay] for bringing this resolution before the House.
I joined the Congress a year and a half ago, but I have long admired
Mr. Emerson's ability to build bridges between this aisle, which
oftentimes is very wide. He made friends with his engaging personality
and he kept them with his honest and fair approach to lawmaking.
I had the opportunity to serve with him on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure where he was a wonderful mentor to
me. We worked together to bring Federal assistance to Missouri, to
three grossly deteriorated bridges across the State, the Chouteau
Bridge in my district and Representative Danner's district, the
Hannibal Bridge in Representative Volkmer's district, and a bridge in
Cape Girardeau, which I hope will one day bear his name in tribute to
his great efforts in this Congress.
We must never forget Representative Emerson's commitment to upholding
the integrity of this body, and we must embrace his cooperative spirit,
which I hope will guide us through the remainder of this 104th Congress
and the challenges that face us.
It has been an honor to have served with him, and he will be missed
by all of us. I envy those who served with him far longer than I did. I
will treasure those quiet, witty, thoughtful conversations, so rich in
history and so full of wisdom.
I send my heartfelt condolences to his family, to the citizens of the
8th District, and to this great Nation, and I join with my leader in
celebration of his goodness.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Emerson was loved by all of us in this body and he
will be missed by all of us.
We all knew Bill Emerson was a skillful legislator who represented
the best in public service. I always knew Bill Emerson the person. He
was one of my closest friends here. I knew the loving, caring, honest
guy Bill was. He cared deeply about people, all people, from all walks
of life. But his passion, Mr. Speaker, was to reach out to people like
me, people recovering from alcoholism. Until his cancer incapacitated
him, Bill held meetings in his office every Wednesday noon, always
there, for all of us, always there with a listening ear, always there
to help others still suffering the ravages of alcoholism and drug
addiction, always there setting up interventions for families, always
there to talk to spouses of Members who are in trouble with this
disease of alcoholism. Bill Emerson was a true inspiration to all of us
who care about this disease of alcoholism. I am not breaching his
anonymity because Bill Emerson has given this talk before, publicly. He
was a true profile in courage, a true profile in courage for the way he
lived and the way he died.
I talked to Bill Emerson a week before he passed on. He said, ``Jim,
if I'm not going to make it, I'm going to go sober.'' Bill left us
sober, and he left us a wonderful, wonderful legacy, those of us
recovering and all of us as well as those still suffering from this
disease. To Jo Ann and Bill's four wonderful daughters, thank you for
sharing this truly wonderful human being with all of us. Bill, we love
you.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, that moving speech by the gentleman from
Minnesota is certainly one that is not going to be equaled for me to
repeat, because I did not know Congressman Emerson in the same sense
that Mr. Ramstad did. In this fast and furious pace, Members touch us
in different ways. While I am not a member of the Missouri delegation,
Mr. Emerson taught many of us by example a number of things. One was
courage.
Mr. Emerson was wheeled into this body about 2 weeks ago in his
wheelchair with his oxygen on and I went over to say hello to him and
asked if there was anything I could do. He removed the oxygen from his
nose and he started to get up out of his wheelchair, and he said,
``Tim, you make sure you go around telling all my colleagues and all my
friends that I'm going to beat this thing. This wheelchair only helps
me get back and forth from my office to the floor to cast my votes.''
This place where Bill Emerson started as a page was not just the
House of Representatives. It was like Bill Emerson's home. Bill Emerson
taught me the lesson not just of courage in casting votes up until the
end, he taught me about civility and about being kind, to Democrats and
Republicans, and treating everybody the same here. My heart goes out to
Jo Ann and the four daughters and I will thank Bill Emerson for the
lessons that he taught me from farther away.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I join my friends from Missouri and thank
them for giving all of our friends in the Congress and the friends of
Bill Emerson a chance to say how much we loved and respected our
colleague.
I had the privilege of coming to this Congress with Bill Emerson in
1980. We sat next to each other on Pat Roberts' Agriculture Committee
and we reminisced and we talked and we went through so much.
The three things that I think come to mind: It is the courage, it is
the basic decency, and it is the commitment to governing. The courage
of commitment, the courage of the fight, the courage to be above it all
and to be gracious in the most difficult of times.
The basic decency. He was, as few have talked about here, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Nutrition. He was the one who said in
the midst of all of this effort to reduce the budget, ``Let's not
forget our commitment to the hungry and to those on food stamps.''
It was his courage, I think, and his partnership with Pat Roberts
that made sure that as we block-granted these programs, we kept a
Federal commitment on the food stamps.
And then the final issue is the basic commitment to governing. No one
would ever call Bill Emerson a revolutionary, because Bill Emerson
believed in this institution and he believed in this Government and he
believed in this country. It was his goal to preserve them and to make
them work and to make them something that all of us could be proud of.
Ralph Waldo Emerson defined success as to laugh often and much; to
win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to
earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of
false friends; to enjoy beauty; to find the best in others; to leave
the world a bit better place, whether by a healthy child, a garden
patch, or a redeemed social condition.
{time} 1545
To know that even one person has breathed easier because you have
lived, is to succeed. Ralph Waldo Emerson did
[[Page H6785]]
not know it at the time, but he wrote the eulogy for our friend, Bill
Emerson.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Clay] for this resolution and a chance to get up and say
something about our friend, Bill Emerson. He died Saturday night. I had
the chance to visit with him Saturday morning at the hospital. It was
very heard to see. It was excruciatingly hard to see how sick he really
was, but there was peace about him in that room that in a way was a
lovely thing to see. My heart goes out to him and his wife and his
children, his mother. They loved him deeply. He was a great friend of
so many of us, Republicans and Democrats alike. As a matter of fact, if
he had any enemies, I would not know who they would be. He loved people
and he cared for them deeply, both in his own district and in this
country and overseas. He was a great humanitarian, and he had a wealth
of knowledge about many subjects.
He was kind of a historian, especially about Lincoln and about the
history of this place. As a matter of fact, the last time I had a long
talk with him, he was again in his hospital room getting chemotherapy,
and I asked him to tell me about Lincoln. An hour and a half later he
was still talking about Lincoln. He did not take a breath. It was
fascinating, it was exciting to hear about Lincoln and hear things I
had never heard before, and that is the kind of person he was. He was
enjoyable to be with, fun to be with, and a great man.
He is doing OK now. He is with his Lord. It is us that are really
hurting. He was a great friend of all of us.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time and for introducing this resolution commemorating the service and
the life and times of our good friend, Bill Emerson.
We have talked a lot about Bill's beliefs and his enthusiasm, his
principles and his character. I speak from the perspective of one who
regarded Bill Emerson not just as a friend and a colleague but as a
mentor. From the moment I became involved in running for Congress, all
through my service in the Congress, he was always available on a very
practical level to help me; and he always did, and you knew you could
trust him.
Another great Missourian, Harry Truman, said one time, ``If you want
a friend in Washington, buy a dog.'' Well, that was not true with
regard to Bill Emerson. I look around at the people here on this floor
and I know everybody regarded him as a friend and somebody that you
could trust and confide in. I walked up to him in the Cloakroom one
time. It was my first year here, and I was going through a bout of
freshmanitis. I just felt like I was carrying the weight of the world
around. I said, Bill, can I talk to you for a minute? He said sure. I
said I am just so uptight. It is kind of vague anxiety. He says,
``Well, what is it? What is wrong, Talent?'' I said, I just feel like
it is hard for me to keep going day after day, there is so much going
on that I do not understand. He said, ``What do you mean?'' He kept
drawing me out. I finally said, it is like my neck is all tight. It is
like I just cannot seem to move it. He said, ``Well, what you need,
Talent, are neck exercises.'' He started moving his head back and
forth, and then he started laughing and I started laughing. By the time
we were finished, my depression was gone. He knew exactly what I
needed. He looked right down into my soul and he gave me the help that
I needed.
He was a big fan, we have mentioned here, of Abe Lincoln. I do not
know if anybody before I came talked about what a fan he was of Winston
Churchill's. Winston Churchill said one time in a speech about Neville
Chamberlain, and I think everybody in public life can relate to it, he
said:
At the end of the day, history is going to judge what we
do, and we do not know what it is going to say. But at the
end of the day, at the end of a life, the only shield you
really have is the rectitude of your conscience.
Mr. Speaker, by that shield, our friend Bill Emerson will do very
well in the reckoning of history. He lived by his principles. He was
faithful to his beliefs in his constituents. He fought the good fight.
He finished the race. He kept the faith. It was a privilege to have
known him.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. McNulty].
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Missouri, Bill Clay, for yielding me the time.
Bill Emerson was one of my best friends, not just this Congress, but
in life. When I first met him, it was not on the floor of the House of
Representatives. It was not in Washington, DC. It was not even in this
country. We were in the Horn of Africa and Bill was working with Mickey
Leland and Gary Ackerman and others to try to see to it that the
tragedy of 1988, when 250,000 people in Sudan died of starvation, did
not recur. He was successful, along with Mickey, in that effort.
He came to the House of Representatives as a page, and he loved this
institution until the day of his death. He was an outstanding
legislator, an expert on agricultural issues, a great family man, a man
of deep religious conviction, and he was a great friend to all of his
constituents, to all of his colleagues, and especially to the hungry
and the homeless of the world and all of those who had special needs.
I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Jo Ann, to his four
children, to his lovely mother whom I had the opportunity to meet at
the hospital last week, and I join with all of my colleagues in
expressing the hope that our good friend Bill will continue to watch
over all of us.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay]
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, all of us feel the loss of Bill Emerson because he was a
friend to most of us and our condolences go out not only to his family,
for which it is such a loss, but for the members of his constituency
who could not have been better represented in this Chamber than he
represented them. We all know Bill as a kindly person, a great sense of
humor and a fine storyteller. He was a wise person.
He was truly a man of the House. I recall when I joined the committee
on which he served, besides Agriculture, then called the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation, he took me in hand and showed me a lot
of the ropes.
Most of us have seen the photo which is in the Republican Cloakroom
of a young page helping to carry Members off the floor who had been
shot at and wounded. Bill was a hero as a page. He was a hero to all of
us in his legislative craftsmanship, not only in Agriculture, in
nutrition, but on our committee, now the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
It was first the Mineta-Emerson Act, and then the Emerson Act--the
Natural Disaster Act, H.R. 1856. I hope that in his memory during this
session or perhaps the coming session that we can bring that
legislation to the floor and pass it in his name because that measure
meant so much to him. He had the constituency, as many of us do, that
had suffered from a number of major disasters, and he thought the
Federal Government could do better.
As has been said many times today, Bill Emerson believed in
governing, and this craftsmanship was certainly a good example of it.
So our condolences to all of his family and to all of his constituents.
A great man has been taken from us.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Clay] for organizing this resolution so all of us can
speak.
I did not know Bill Emerson as well as most but had the opportunity
to work with him on agriculture, and I also had the opportunity to know
one of this pet concerns; that is, feeding the hungry. We also worked
on a number of issues. Bill Emerson was a man who cared about people
deeply. I disagreed with Bill Emerson on some issues, but even in his
disagreement, he taught us how to disagree with activity.
[[Page H6786]]
He taught us how to have an advocacy for a position that differed
from others, but yet respect. I was honored along with Bill Emerson on
two different occasions, so we got to be friends about the issue of
hunger.
We should celebrate the life of someone who deeply cared about
people. We also should share and celebrate the life of someone who had
very strong positions that differed with others, but he could be an
advocate for those positions with a sense of civility and respect. He
will leave us a standard for the rest of us to be good legislators, to
be advocates for our position, but also to honor this position.
His life brings honor to this House. If we could emulate that, we
would honor the life that he has served.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time
and taking out this time to talk about Bill. Steve Horn just left and
spoke about the picture. I would ask all colleagues who have not seen
it to take a look at that picture of Bill Emerson carrying the
stretcher on which resided a Congressman who was shot up in, I believe
it was, the 1954 shooting in the House Chamber when several Members
were hit.
The picture of Bill Emerson in that picture, I think, is
representative of what we saw in our association with him in the House
as a Member of Congress, because there was Bill Emerson, the lead
carrier on that stretcher. He was pointing out the direction in which
they should go with that thing. As usual, he was big, he was fearless,
he had a lot of courage. Just as he was in his career in Congress, he
was right in the middle of things and that represented Bill.
Bill was a real fighter, and when he took on a cause, whether he had
two people on his side or a majority, it did not make any difference.
He believed in the good fight and yet he was also very forgiving. He
was forgiving to us, his colleagues, when we disagreed with him on
issues. On a personal basis, he was very forgiving, too.
We were sworn in in 1980, and as the Speaker knows, I was holding my
son in my arms, little Dunk. Bill had his daughters on the floor.
Incidentally, little Dunk held me in his arms the other day and would
not put me down and it upset me. But Bill decided to buy firewood from
the Hunter firewood organization. My boys would go up to the Blue Ridge
Mountains with me. We would cut firewood, load it in a horse trailer
and find victims, I mean customers, for that firewood in Washington,
DC. I see the gentleman from Texas, Larry Combest, back here is one of
our victim purchasers.
I asked Bill after I delivered him about three loads of firewood,
most of which daddy cut and the boys handled a little bit, but after I
delivered that wood to him for several weeks and he had paid my sons, I
asked him how it was burning. He said it is wonderful. He said, ``If
you will just reimburse me for the gasoline I am having to put on it,
everything will be fine, Hunter. But that represented Bill Emerson, big
hearted, forgiving to his friends and all of his colleagues.
The Founding Fathers, in putting together this great structure for a
government, for a democracy, needed one important ingredient, and that
was to have people in this Chamber who were compassionate, who had
courage, and were forgiving and would relentlessly represent the ideas
and the philosophies of their constituents. Bill Emerson was such a
man.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Bishop].
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, it is a real sad time for me to have to
reflect on the life of Bill Emerson, but Bill is the kind of person I
think that I will never, ever forget. If there has ever been a person
who represents what is stated in the 25th chapter of Matthew:
When I was hungry, you gave me meat. When I was thirsty,
you gave me drink. When I was naked, you gave me clothing.
When I was in prison, you came unto me. When I was sick, you
ministered to me.
Bill Emerson was such a person.
Bill Emerson was bipartisan. He was a leader. He was my subcommittee
chairman on the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and
Foreign Agriculture. He gave me the assurances that everything would be
all right when we were worried about those people that were hungry and
what would happen to them in this Congress.
1600
He gave me the assurance that it would be OK, and I am happy that
Bill Emerson was there. I am happy that Bill Emerson was subcommittee
chairman, and I am just happy to have been able to call Bill Emerson my
friend and my leader.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri,
Mr. Clay, for yielding this time to me and also for setting up this
effort on behalf of Mr. Emerson.
It seems like we spend a lot of time on this floor berating each
other and talking down the institution of Congress. I think it is
wonderful that we are able to spend a little time now remembering some
of the good things that happen here, and especially I think it has been
interesting to me to sit here and listen to the many good things said
about Mr. Emerson.
He has been a real inspiration to me. I think he has been to many of
us, and that is why so many of us are here on the floor today. I kind
of thought that I had a special relationship with him, and so many of
my colleagues have talked about instances that they had with him. I do
not know how he was able to spread himself around so much.
I first saw him when he fought hard against our leadership last year
to preserve the task force on hunger. As the gentleman from California
[Mr. Hunter] said, there were times that he fought if he only had two
on his side. I think he was alone at that time., and he fought very
hard because he believed in helping the underdog, those who needed
help.
Later I had the opportunity of serving on the task force on disaster
that was set up by the Speaker, and he and the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Durbin] headed up that task force. In serving with him on that, I
had the opportunity to go to his office, and it is full of memorabilia.
If Members have not visited his office, they should go do it. He has
the picture there of him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski] when they were helping carry the Congressmen out of here
when they served as pages.
He also served here as a staff member and then served as a Member of
the House. And he loved the House and he loved each of the Members of
the House and he loved all his constituents and his family. He had a
great capacity for love.
When we had our kickoff for the 104th Congress, I had the opportunity
of setting up some of the day's activities, and the first thing we
started with was the prayer service in the morning. I asked him if he
would head that up and he did a fantastic job. He did not suffer from
ego. He was just here to serve, and it was just a wonderful thing to
work with him.
I think the thing that hit me the most about Bill Emerson was the
last few months here when he was fighting this illness, and every time
I have talked to him he has been an encouragement to me. He did not
talk about his suffering. I know he was going through great pain, but
he always had a big smile and always was uplifting. Fantastic. Reminds
me of the words of John Donne:
No man is an island. No man stands alone. Each man's joy is
joy to me. Each man's grief is my own. We need one another,
so I will defend each man as my brother, each man as my
friend.
He was a great friend. He epitomized those words. We will miss him
greatly, but I will always remember Bill Emerson.
MR. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan [Miss Collins].
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. Bill Emerson was a friend of mine with strength,
his compassion and his dedication to the ideals of America.
I met Bill on a CODEL to Somalia, where we both flew into a small
town to witness the hunger and the lines of women and children to get
nourishment. I did not know that Bill Emerson was a Republican because
he was
[[Page H6787]]
not the kind of person who was Republican or who was Democrat; he was
an American.
In spite of all his trials and tribulations, he still found time to
give me words of encouragement, and I would like to share those words
with my colleagues because, to me, they personify the strength of Bill
Emerson.
He said, ``Barbara Rose, you must be strong to persevere and resolute
to overcome.'' And he repeated that to me three times. ``You must be
strong to persevere and resolute to overcome.''
I will never forget those words of encouragement and I think that
those words describe Bill Emerson and his work in the House. A good
friend to America.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time, and I rise in tribute to a great guy and a good friend, Bill
Emerson, the third of my friends to pass away in the last 2 months, all
under 58 years of age.
We would all like to think we can make a difference in this world
when we go. Bill Emerson can certainly say he made a difference,
whether as a page with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Paul Kanjorski,
when this place was shot up, as memorialized in the photograph that has
been mentioned earlier, or as a graduate of Westminster College, where
earlier Winston Churchill gave his famous Iron Curtain speech; whether
through his efforts to travel to Africa and elsewhere to exhibit his
concern for the hungry and the needy, to try to feed those who were
most in need; whether through his dedicated and devoted representation
of his constituents, or his guidance and oversight of the Mississippi
watershed, taking trips to New Orleans with the wonderful people along
the Mississippi River, go down there and try to make sure that those
who needed flood protection were able to have that protection from the
devastation of floods, and at the same time to partake of a little bit
of New Orleans jazz and seafood, which he deeply loved and enjoyed with
his wife Jo Ann.
In fact, he will be remembered for the love that he bore for his wife
Jo Ann and his four daughters. Bill Emerson, in fact, did make a
difference. He was a good man and we will all remember him fondly, and
we wish his family well.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas, [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his effort and leadership. As has been indicated many
times, there is a picture of Bill Emerson when he was a page in the
Republican cloakroom leading the way in regards to assisting the
wounded Members that were shot back in 1955, and he has been leading
the way ever since.
We have had a virtual outpouring of affection and love for Bill here
on the floor, as was the case a week ago Wednesday when the Jefferson
Island Club, made up of many Members on both sides, named Bill their
man of the year.
I think the word that really applies to Bill more than anything else
is courage. I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and
myself were there when he took that very courageous step to go to the
Betty Ford Center, and he has been such a leader and has exhibited even
more courage in such a manner to those, as expressed by the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
Bill was a back rail troop, as has been indicated by the gentleman
from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer, and the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Talent, and others. He would be back there as of today probably saying
this is going on a little too much. In that regard, we had many
discussions about Eisenhower and Taft and Lincoln and politics and
Kansas and Missouri and family and everything else.
We are family in the House Committee on Agriculture, and we said this
as of last Monday, ``We suffered a deep loss both professionally and
personally at the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Bill
Emerson.''
From a personal standpoint, we came to Congress together back in
1981. We have served side-by-side on the Committee on Agriculture ever
since. Four farm bills, countless legislative battles, he has been a
unique champion for farmers and ranchers.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] the distinguished chairman
emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture, has a statement as well, but
I think it is interesting that at 1:30 in the morning when we finally
finished the farm bill, Bill did not comment on some of the amendments,
he did not comment on the farm bill, but when it came time to pay
tribute to Mr. de la Garza, the longest serving chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, Bill got up, and even though he was sick and
had lost his voice, he paid tribute to Kika It was at that time that I
turned and said, Bill Emerson, we love you.
Something has already been said about his motto for living. It was
only a week ago Thursday he was sitting right over there looking very
much like Winston Churchill, and he was in the process of making all
those votes, and he got this quorum call card and he gave it to me, and
as has been said before, he wrote on it, ``Roberts, I want you to be
strong to endure and resolute to overcome.'' How many Members did he
say that to? It is what the Prince of Wales said to the troops prior to
World War I, and I have kept it. I have kept it ever since and I will
keep it.
My colleagues, Helen Steiner Rice said this on such occasions.
When I must leave you for a little while, please go on
bravely with a gallant smile. And for my sake and in my name,
live on and do all things the same. Spend not your life in
empty days, but fill each waking hour in useful ways. Reach
out your hand in comfort and in cheer, and I in turn will
comfort you and hold you near.
That is Bill Emerson. God bless you, Bill, and we miss you.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the last image that we have of Bill is one of
courage and strength, an oxygen tube in his mouth, confined to a
wheelchair. But the Bill Emerson that will live on in our minds and our
hearts is a gregarious man, just full of energy and goodness and pride
that he was part of this institution.
I had the privilege of representing Bill and Jo Ann and their four
daughters at their home-away-from-home in McLean, VA. In fact, I had a
wonderful day one day when his daughter Tori shadowed me for the full
day. And I will never forget when Bill joined us for lunch of seeing
the pride in his eyes as he looked at his daughter, so beautiful, so
bright, so accomplished, and he knew that this was largely because of
his investment of time and caring and love in her and the rest of his
family.
He lives on in that family, as he does in this body. He invested so
much of himself in making this the kind of legislative organization
that is the pride of Western civilization. he spent most of his life
here. He loved this body. He loved its Members and we loved him.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for introducing this resolution.
I join with my colleagues in sending our condolences and love to Jo
Ann and the entire Emerson family. Much has been said here today about
the selfless individual that served among us as the Representative from
Missouri. There are two things I would just like to remember with my
colleagues about him that stand out for me.
Eight months ago, when we were considering whether or not we should
continue the Select Committee on Hunger, Bill Emerson asked me to go to
lunch with him and a couple of staff people. He wanted to talk about
this, just one-on-one, to talk about the passion he felt for that
select committee and the work that it was doing.
I did not have to ask him, ``Bill, why are you doing this; what is in
it for you?'' I knew there was nothing in it for him, but I knew how
much he believed in it; that he took the time to meet with Members one
by one to talk to them about this.
{time} 1615
The other thing was his service as chairman of the page board. I had
the
[[Page H6788]]
privilege these last 2 years of serving with him on the page board.
Like him, I started here as a page, though in the other body. Like him,
I loved this institution of Congress. Bill Emerson loved the
institution of Congress that he started serving at such a young age,
but he also loved the pages. He loved the young people that worked in
that program. He took the time to talk to them. He took the time to
understand what the program was about and how important it was.
Just 3 weeks ago when the group of pages that had served us for this
last year left, he came to the floor. He wanted so much to lead the
tribute to the pages, but he was taking oxygen, he was in a wheelchair.
And he said: Jim, would you take this 5-minute special order to do
this? He said: I really want to do it, but I just cannot.
But he stayed here on the floor. He listened to what was being said
because he really cared about it, and he put his remarks in the Record
so that they would appear there. Bill ended his life as he lived it,
with courage, with love, and with caring. Sometimes we have to have a
sad event like this to remind us that this body is not about
Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, urban or rural,
northerners, southerners. It is about people, flesh and blood who love
and laugh and cry and hope and grieve.
Bill's life demonstrated that, and his leaving reminds us of it.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. de la Garza].
Mr. de la GARZA. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I join in the sadness of the loss of Bill Emerson, and I
join my colleagues in the joy of celebrating his life and all that he
did. As a Member of Congress, as a citizen, as a husband, as a father,
as a friend, I had the fortunate opportunity to serve with him in the
committee, to work on many of his endeavors, to share with him the zest
for the underprivileged, for the hungry, not only here but around the
world.
He dedicated his effort and his life, but for the grace of God, he
was not on the plane with Micky Leland. He traveled to all of the
corners of the world where most Members do not go. He traveled to where
there was hunger, to where there was famine, to where there was a
problem. We had a very pleasant relationship because I never could
spell, and I do not think that I can spell now Cape Girardeau, so that
was a constant thing with us.
As we recalled some of the personal relationships, my wife made me a
present of a beautiful tie with continental type drums. The day that I
wore it with great pride, he came straight to it and said, that is a
beautiful tie, about three times. That evening I told my wife, I said:
Do you know who liked your tie? Bill Emerson. Can we get him one. She
said: I got this in New York someplace. It was the last one. I do not
know if we can. And I said: Well, if you do not mind, I am going to
give it to him. And she said: Well, I think it would be nice.
We already knew that he had this ailment. So the next day I gave him
the tie. May you wear it in good health. That afternoon he was on the
floor showing me the tie. Those are the things that we will remember.
What we cannot forget is that we cannot say all these things about
Bill Emerson today and forget him tomorrow. We need to dedicate our
lives, our service here to that which was his first interest, beyond
his family, beyond his country, were those that needed nutrition, the
hungry of the world, the hungry of our country.
I hope that we as a House and we as individuals dedicate ourselves
and remember Bill Emerson when we work, not necessarily on the budget
or the priorities but that there are people hungry who need to be fed.
That is what his purpose in life turned out to be. I hope we honor
that.
I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] for allowing me the
time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum].
(Mr. McCollum asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, Bill Emerson and I came to Congress
together in 1980. We were in a great class of Congressmen. We were fast
friends over a long period of time. I ran a number of leadership races.
He supported me in every one of those, very committed through thick and
thin, even those where I did not do so well.
I can remember on projects the hours he would spend actually making
those telephone calls personally or rounding up whatever votes either
for leadership or for a bill on the floor where necessary. Whenever
Bill Emerson made a commitment, he lived up to those commitments.
I remember a few years ago he made a tough decision that he consulted
with me on more than one occasion about whether he should run again for
Congress. He thought about retiring. I encouraged him strongly to
continue. I knew his love for this institution, and I knew what he gave
to his country and what it meant to all of us. He made the right
decision to stay. In fact, it was not too many days ago that he
reminded me of that and told me so. I was pleased that I was party to
helping make that decision.
I also know that he had friends elsewhere. He was involved with the
Interparliamentary Group with some of us with the German Parliament,
the Bundestag. Just about 10 days ago I was reminded of that by a
friend in that group from over in Germany where we spent a week
together a year ago who asked me to be remembered to him, and I did
that here on the floor of this House. Bill Emerson was my friend. I
wish him well. If there is a heaven, he is there.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Bill Emerson never gave up that he would not whip his cancer. That is
the way he was in life. If he had a strong matter he was interested in,
he would try and try.
He felt so much love for his wife Jo Ann and his family. Really, he
knew that the good Lord would protect him and take Bill home when the
Lord was ready for Bill.
At the House prayer breakfast every Thursday morning, we saw him
gradually get weaker and weaker. He missed a few times, when he was
taking chemo, from the prayer breakfast. he would call one of us the
day before: ``I will not be at the prayer breakfast today but just
think about me.'' Then we saw him come with a breathing apparatus, but
he kept coming. Then soon he was coming in a wheelchair to the prayer
breakfast but he kept coming.
As has been said here today, Bill Emerson was one of the most beloved
Members of the Congress. He was such a part of this House.
Now, Bill, you will be buried in the rolling hills of Missouri on
Thursday. And as someone said earlier, if there is a haven, there is a
heaven and Bill is looking down on us today.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine shock and sadness that I
rise to join our colleagues in memorializing the passage of and
honoring an outstanding Member of this body, Bill Emerson of Missouri.
We have all been aware for some time that Bill was grievously ill.
However, this did not lessen the shock of his passing.
We all recall how he remained courageously active until the very end
and, in fact, did not miss any rollcall votes, even though in a
wheelchair just until a week before his passing. Bill Emerson loved
this institution from the time he served as a page until the present
days. He was beloved back in his home district, the Eight of Missouri,
and he served on the Agriculture and Transportation and Infrastructure
Committees of the House. His dedication on both of those committees
earned him the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
In addition, Bill was a productive member of the Joint Committee on
the Organization of the Congress and in may ways the reforms adopted by
this House are a living memorial to Bill Emerson. He was a 28-year
veteran of the Air Force Reserves and his dedication to the needs of
our veterans and our Nation is well known.
[[Page H6789]]
Bill leaves behind his widow Jo Ann and their four beautiful
children. Hopefully Jo Ann and the children may receive some small
solace from the knowledge that many share their loss, both here in the
Congress and at home in Missouri.
Mr. Speaker, I shall never forget the efforts Bill Emerson made to
enhance the work of our Select Committee on Hunger a few years ago. As
a member of our Hunger Select Committee, he became one of our more
energetic, productive, and dedicated members. We shall all miss Bill
Emerson. His shoes will be difficult to fill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Clay] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, Bill Clay for this
opportunity to give testimony to our friendship and the admiration that
we have for our departed friend, Bill Emerson.
I came to Congress with Bill Emerson in the same class, but it was
not that alone that drew us together. A few short years later Bob
Michel appointed us to the Select Committee on Hunger, I, as the
ranking member. and Bill as my strong right arm. And I will tell you,
it was not long after that that Micky Leland brought us to Ethiopia at
the height of the worst famine in history ravaging the country and it
was also war torn and enduring a civil war. I will tell Members, once
you go to Ethiopia together, you are bonded in friendship forever. It
was an extraordinary character-building experience.
We saw children, women, and men dying in the streets from starvation.
And Bill and I determined then that we would be in a partnership
forever to help wherever that help was needed. I must tell you, even
this year, when it came to food stamps and the school lunch program,
and maintaining the agriculture nutrition standards, we always knew
that Bill Emerson was there. No children would go hungry while Bill
Emerson was on the job.
I must agree with what Mr. de la Garza has stated. We in this
Congress must continue that dedication in Bill's memory. No child
should go hungry on our watch.
To his daughters, Liz and Abigail, with whom my daughter Meg went to
school back in Ridgewood, NJ, I want to say to Liz and Abigail, cherish
the memory of your wonderful father and always remember the hope, the
faith, the dedication, and the valor that he brought not only to life
but to his death.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time to me.
Bill Emerson, we will miss you and yet your influence will continue
to inspire all of us.
Bill Emerson was a man of commitment, compassion, civility, and
courage. What an example he set for us. He was fair-minded, bipartisan
and, as Members have attested, he never did complain. The House and
Congress was his life, from the time he was a high school student and
was a page here, and then as he worked for someone who became my
mentor, Senator Mac Mathias, which is when I first met Bill Emerson
many years ago.
Bill then was elected in 1979 to Congress himself. And he then
married into a family that are very close to me. His father-in-law is
the late Ab Hermann, who became a political sage of mine. His mother-
in-law, Sylvia Hermann, continues to be a leader in Montgomery County,
MD. He married a beautiful Jo Ann Hermann and has raised four wonderful
children who have all been inspired by their mother and indeed by their
father.
He is a man who cared very much about the community. We know how he
cared about the fact that people needed to be nourished, to be
nourished in many ways, spiritually as well as physically nourished,
and he was there. He does inspire us.
I am reminded of, as Bill Emerson leaves, the Tin Man in the Wizard
of Oz. The Tin Man was looking for a heart. When he meets the Wizard,
he says, ``Now I know I have a heart, because it is broken.'' And the
hearts of all of us in this House and in this Chamber are broken.
{time} 1630
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the wound of this loss is so fresh for all
of us that it is difficult to place into words the kind of love and
respect and admiration that we held for our friend, and truly Bill
Emerson was a personal friend. He was not just a friend, he was a
personal friend to all of us.
Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we will find this many Members of
Congress from both sides of the aisle that would take the time and feel
compelled to come here and say these words, whatever we say, to our
friend, Bill, and yet that was the kind of magnetism that this
personality, this loving, kind person, held for all of us.
There was always something personal that he would find between
himself and another person that bound them together. He and I came here
together. He always bragged that he was one day younger than me, born
just the next day after I was, and that was his way of forming that
friendship. All of my colleagues had some kind of connection in that
respect with Bill.
And yet it was much more than that because Bill Emerson, as has been
said here, was a patriot. He loved history, was a great student of
history and felt extremely and highly honored that he was serving in
this body because it represented, so much, the history of our Nation
and his participation in it.
As has been said many times here today, Bill Emerson loved this
House. As my colleagues know, it is fashionable these days, it seems,
for many of our Members to be critical of the House, hoping, I guess,
to find some sort of sympathy from the public in criticizing this body.
But you never heard that from Bill Emerson. We only heard respect and
love for this body.
His greatest achievement in life, outside his family, I think, was
presiding there in that chair, and he did it so wonderfully well, none
better, and I always picture Bill Emerson sitting in the Speaker's
chair because I think that was the height of his professional life in
his own mind.
It has been said that duty makes us do things well, but love makes us
do them beautifully, and, Bill Emerson, you made things so beautiful.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and I thank him for bringing this resolution today, and I send
my condolences to the family of Bill Emerson.
I came here in a special election, so friendship is very important,
and Bill Emerson showed me that friendship. I came here, and I was
invited to the prayer breakfast by Bill Emerson, and it became a very
important part of my existence here in this Capitol. I come here today
because I need to express my grief and my loss for this friend, and I
say to all of my colleagues.
Let us look at what Bill Emerson has given to us. He has shown us the
way, love of country, love of family, love of each other, and finally
he had such a deep love for his God that I know he is in good hands,
and we should learn from his lessons.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we continue for 1 hour and that
I control the remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Skelton] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I was a real admirer of Bill Emerson, and
there was an old former gospel singer I just happened to draw upon
memory from, a gospel song writer from Missouri, Albert E. Bromley, who
is one of the greatest gospel song writers in the world, and I think
this just fits Bill Emerson, and the words go something like this:
I'll meet you in the morning with a how do you do, and
we'll sit down by the river and
[[Page H6790]]
with rapture our acquaintance renew, and you're going to know
me in the morning by the smile that I wear, when I meet you
in the morning in the city that is built four square.
If anybody is going to make it, Bill Emerson is going to make it. He
was one of the finest men that I have met, ever met, in this body, and
he, and Bill Natcher, and men of that statute are going to make making
it to Heaven worthwhile working for and something to look forward to.
And, Bill Emerson, we are going to miss you more than you will ever
know.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, our hearts and our prayers go to
Bill's wife and daughter, certainly to all of his constituents, as well
as his good friends.
Bill was my big brother when I came into Congress in 1993, and he
just contributed so much time and so many hours in helping me learn how
to adjust to Washington and to Congress.
So I wanted to be part of, if my colleagues will, this honor guard,
thanking Bill again for all that he has done for many of us, certainly
all that he did for me personally. Bill was a friend.
I served with Bill on the Committee on Agriculture. I mean his
dedication, his willingness to study and learn and work with both
Republicans and Democrats is not only to be admired, it is to be a good
lesson for all of us.
Bill Emerson was a great American.
Bill, we hope you continue to guide us, and our prayers are with you.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for yielding time to me.
As a new Member of this body, it is wonderful just to sit here and
listen to the more senior Members who have known Bill Emerson longer
than I have come before this body and lift up praises to him for the
outstanding, not only the outstanding work that he did while he was in
Congress and the outstanding family man that he was, but just the type
of person; all those wonderful characteristics that we all look up to,
that we all want to emulate, and I can verify from the 18 months that I
knew Bill Emerson that he certainly was that type of person and
certainly led by example. I know when I was selected to join the
Committee on Agriculture, he was one of the first folks I sought out,
and he gave me wonderful advice and counsel throughout the entire time.
I also had the special occasion to go to Missouri with him one time
and attend a hearing that he was conducting, and I know for a fact that
Bill Emerson loved his district, he loved it very strongly. He stood
very strongly for he was a man of commitment for that district, and I
know during the 18 months that I was here he displayed it very
strongly. But having the occasion to go to Missouri and visit people
there, I know that Missouri loved Bill Emerson.
Bill was a wonderful congressman, a wonderful man, a wonderful
father, a wonderful husband, a wonderful role model to many of us in
Congress, and I know that he has gone on to better things, and I know
that we are certainly going to miss him, I know that Missouri is
certainly going to miss his presence here in Congress, and all we can
do at this point is just add our appreciation to his family for what he
did and continue to lift up his family in prayer because these are
difficult circumstances, and I know all those Members here would agree
with me on that, and we will continue to hold his family at this
special time of their bereavement.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it was a young but brave Bill Emerson who as
a page helped move the mortally wounded Members of this body from the
floor on a stretcher after a terrorist assassination attempt. Even as a
teenager Bill Emerson saw his duty, and he did it without any thought
for his own safety.
Bill Emerson and I had many things in common, our careers paralleling
one another, we both worked here in Washington before returning home at
young ages and being elected as Members of this body. Bill's personal
office and staff is located next to mine in the Rayburn Building. Our
families were neighbors in McLean, VA, and we were neighbors and
colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Only four doors down from my family in McLean were Bill Emerson, his
wife Jo Ann and his four children. Our children attended school
together, were often found in each other's homes, and participated in
school and church activities together. Bill was a devoted family member
and a devoted church member.
I know that my daughter Suzanne will never forget the times when
Bill's daughter, Tori, and later Katherine, who we later called,
``Kat,'' would babysit. They loved having each other over, spending the
night together, doing their home work together, baking cookies
together.
I recall one instance when we noted in the neighborhood a large truck
outside of Bill and Jo Ann's home. It was a huge delivery truck, and
they had just unloaded hundreds of cartons in front of Bill's driveway.
So we strolled over to see what was going on. Could not imagine what
was being delivered to their home.
``These are my books,'' Bill said very proudly with a sense of
excitement.
``Where on earth will you put them all,'' we asked him.
His wife Jo Ann laughed and said, ``That's a good question.''
The cartons went inside, and Jo Ann and Bill found a space for quite
a library of their beloved history books.
So, Bill was not only a great team player here in this body, he was a
great team player in his neighborhood. Theirs was a close-knit family.
Their strength, their hopes, their faith over these past months as Bill
struggled to ``beat this thing,'' as he put it, never faltered.
Bill, his wife Jo Ann and his four daughters are a source of love and
stability for each other throughout this ordeal, but amazingly they
took time to reassure and give strength to their neighbors as well,
showing their deep and abiding Christian faith at all times.
So as we say goodbye, for a short time anyway, to our friend Bill
Emerson, we say it to a very honored, respected, and beloved friend of
all of us, and while he is gone from us for a short time, he will live
on through his wife Jo Ann and his four daughters and his mother, but
more, he will live on through all of us in this body who had the great
good luck and good fortune to have known Bill Emerson and to have
served with him.
MR. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and honor to
the memory of a good man, a special man, Congressman Bill Emerson. Bill
was a good Congressman, a good friend and more than anything else a
good human being. He was a man who truly cared about his fellow man,
here at home and across the world. Bill Emerson was a gentle man.
In 1992 I had the great privilege of cochairing a congressional
delegation to Somalia with Bill. It was a dangerous trip. Somalia was
still filled with gangs of armed warlords and we had to wear flak
jackets as we drove through the streets. But Bill Emerson was committed
to the starving people of Somalia. He put their health and their
welfare above his own personal security. that was the kind of man Bill
Emerson was.
Bill had a warm, caring and sharing spirit. His sense of humor was
able to overcome any situation, to break down any barrier.
I will miss Bill Emerson. I will miss his wit and his wisdom. I will
miss his caring and his compassion. More than anything else I will miss
his companionship. Bill Emerson was my friend and I will miss him, as
we all will, greatly.
My condolences and my love go out to Bill's family and friends.
{time} 1645
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, to those watching this debate, whether by
television or in the gallery or wherever,
[[Page H6791]]
think it is obvious that they can see that this is not just an
ordinary Member, this is an extraordinary Member that is being
remembered here today; not in a flashy, necessarily charismatic sense,
but as a solid, stable, and caring legislator who touched so many of us
in so many different ways. He was a Member in the finest way, not a
Democrat and not a Republican, necessarily, but a solid Member.
He brought me, as he brought so many of you, into a new experience.
Bill recruited me to join with him when he was chair of the
Congressional Study Group in Germany. He sort of brought me up through
the ranks and made sure I was ready to handle the responsibilities. He
made me the vice chair and this year, the chair. I got to visit Bill's
district. A lot of us are used to visiting Members' districts with
Members. I got to see Bill's district without Bill being present,
because at the time that the Congressional Study Group on Germany was
holding its meeting, and it was holding it in Cape Girardeau, Bill was
not able to be there because of his chemo treatment. He hated that. He
had arranged the whole trip. He wanted very much to be with the group.
He had been with it for many years. It was being held in his district.
He could not be there. Yet he carried on, his staff carried on
marvelously.
I got to then represent Bill, so I saw firsthand the love and respect
and caring that his constituents had. Of course, Bill checked in daily
and did a phone conference with us. He wanted to make sure everything
was running fine. We hear a lot about Republicans and we hear a lot
about Democrats. I understand why Bill always won so handily, because I
got to meet another party: Emercrats. These were folks who were voting
for Bill, no matter what happened. I got to meet a lot of them, too.
One of the memories that I have most about that several-day visit was
that at the end of it there was a function that Bill had arranged for
the visiting German parliamentarians in a large hall. It was to be a
reception and dinner with a lot of citizens in that area. They knew
Bill was not going to be there. Bill had been very open about that.
They still came. They came out and packed that hall. They came out for
Bill Emerson, because they knew that is what Bill wanted to do. Of
course, every one of them was asking how Bill was doing.
If we could all live our lives as openly as Bill lived his, whether
here on the House floor, fighting every day his fight against cancer,
not asking for any sympathy, but just being here, and that being a
message in itself; the struggles that he has fought openly. His
constituents knew him and they loved him. They lived with him, they
suffered with him, and they prayed with him.
Mr. Speaker, we all live through our children. As we all seek some
balm for Bill's death, the balm that there is that Bill left four
wonderful children that he talked about with me, as I know he talked
about with you. But to Jo Ann and his four daughters, Bill lives
through you, and for that we are all very lucky.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy occasion for me to
be standing here before my colleagues and to pay a special tribute to
the late Congressman Bill Emerson from the State of Missouri.
Bill Emerson, I think, can adequately be described as stubborn as
those Missouri mules, as I understand it, but Bill Emerson also had a
heart. He had a heart full of compassion, and one of real appreciation
for the needs of America's elderly and the poor and the hungry.
It was my privilege to serve as a member of the Select Committee on
Hunger, where Bill Emerson was also one of the senior members of the
committee. The occasions that I have had in having hearings with him
and to listen to this man, I certainly have respected him very highly
for his opinions about the needs of America's hungry.
It was also my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to attend or to be a member of
the delegation that went to Somalia, as it was cochaired by the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. Bill Emerson was a member of that
delegation. It was not until that trip that I felt the real sense of
compassion that this man had for those who are really in need.
As my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, indicated earlier, we
had to wear jackets for our safety because of the dangerous situation
that the people of Somalia were confronted with at that time. Bill
Emerson was there because he had compassion. I believe personally that
it was because of his strong convictions that he was able and was one
of the forces which led President Bush to send the troops that were
needed from the resources that America had, that he wanted for
humanitarian reasons to help the needs of that nation.
Bill Emerson was a dear friend because he helped me, and I am sure
this was true of so many of my colleagues here. For my elderly people
and the disabled in my district, Bill Emerson was one of the key
players who helped me provide the legislation for their needs. I
certainly would like to convey my heartfelt condolences to Jo Ann and
to the members of his family and to this great gentleman, not because
he was a Republican, but because he was a great American.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the representative
of the 18th Congressional District in Texas, a district that was
previously represented by the Honorable Mickey Leland. I know that if
Mickey was here, he would have wanted to offer just a word of thanks
for the life of Bill Emerson.
Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland were very good friends. They were good
friends, but as well, they were committed to a singular cause. That
cause was to ensure that there was no more hunger in this world and in
this Nation, particularly as it relates to children.
As a freshman, let me say to Bill Emerson's family, Jo Ann and his
four daughters, that we can only wish that others would follow in the
tradition of the friendship of Bill and Mickey, and that they would
also follow the cause, to ensure that all would be able to live free in
this world, in this Nation, without hunger and hopelessness.
Let me also say as a freshman, just watching Bill Emerson on the
floor, knowing what he was dealing with physically, all I could see was
a genteel and sincere individual, committed to public service, with a
love for his country. Just a moment ago I was with Joe Hillings, a
constituent who served as a page with Bill Emerson. He offered his
grief and his concern for a man who did nothing more than to give to
his fellow man. He was a servant, he was a lover of people, and I do
believe if Mickey was here, he would say to his friend, Bill Emerson,
``Well done, good and faithful servant.''
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, when I first came here in 1993, I, like most Members of
Congress, was somewhat intimidated by everything and everybody, and I
needed a friend, just as we all need friends during that period of
time, and certainly as we continue our career. Bill Emerson was one of
those guys that I found to be open and friendly to new Members, and
always helpful.
I could go to Bill for advice on agriculture. I served on the
Committee on Agriculture with him. All those agriculture issues, as we
know, are very complicated; understanding the milk program, the peanut
program, the wheat program. They are just endless. I do not think
anybody knew as much about those programs on the committee, who had the
time to sit there and share with you, and so forth. I would go to Bill
and I would say, okay, what is going on on this? He would explain the
intricate USDA policy on that.
One could also go to Bill and ask him, about the political side, and
he could tell us which groups and which committees and which people
here, Members of the House, how they stood and what would probably
happen. He could predict what was going to be the outcome of
legislation many weeks before it ever got on the floor.
[[Page H6792]]
If you only knew Bill in that political sense, as a guy who could
give advice on agriculture issues and politics, you were missing
something entirely more important to him. That was Bill Emerson, the
person. Because as a man, he was one who was philosophical. He could
sit there and with a sense of humor sort of say, well, this is where we
Republicans are going to line up on this, but those old Democrats, they
have a good point here, and here is where I agree with them, and here
is where we disagree. He could just rise above the rough edges of this
institution and deliver somewhat of a balm, an ointment to the Members,
so we could all feel a little bit better, not just about ourselves but
about the legislation and about service in Washington. That is the kind
of guy Bill Emerson was.
I, Mr. Speaker, am going to miss Bill Emerson. He always would stand
back there and kind of peer over the banister, and I believe in many
respects he will continue to peer down on us, just as he sat back
there. You could always reach him. I think now we can look high up in
the heaven and Bill Emerson is in good company with all of the other
angels of the Lord.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
allowing me this time to speak this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen so many of our classmates that came to
orientation back in 1980 with Bill Emerson, as I was privileged to come
to this Congress at the same time. And in thinking about the life of
Bill Emerson which we celebrate today, and of course, his passing,
which we mourn today, I think all of us feel a little richer for having
been with him and a little poorer for now missing him from this body.
But when we think of his lifespan, starting as a page in this body
and ending over the last year with his sitting here and presiding as
Speaker of this House and working in this House, I do not think that
any man has ever been loved more that served in this House, or any man
has loved this House more than Bill Emerson loved this House. He loved
the process and he loved its Members. I think that is something we need
to think about more today as we see that things are becoming more tense
here on the floor of this House, and as we work through our legislative
process.
We often think of Tip O'Neill as being the man of this House. I think
we certainly can also refer to Bill Emerson as being the man of this
House from the Republican side, as Tip O'Neill was from the Democrat
side. As speakers ahead of me have said, he seemed to have a way to cut
through the politics and make things happen. He was very practical in
wanting to make good legislation. We have heard about his concern for
the hungry, not only of this country, but also of the world. His great
heart, that no longer beats, had such compassion for his fellow men,
had compassion for the people that he served with.
I remember just a few weeks ago Bill was on the floor and he was
standing right over to my left, where we remember seeing him for the
last time in a wheelchair. And he was walking. He was still walking
over for each vote, carrying a little tube of oxygen with him, and
losing his breath. He was concerned about his losing his energy. When
he came over here, he had lost his breath.
I mentioned to him that perhaps he ought to think about getting a
wheelchair. and he said, my goodness, I do not want to do that. People
will look at me and think I am dying. Bill fought right up to the very,
very end.
Of course, then he decided that he would save his energy so he cold
spend his time in a productive way when he was on the floor, and the
last few days of his life here on the floor he would appear here in the
wheelchair. What a wonderful man Bill was. We are certainly going to
miss him. Our hearts and our feelings go out to his wonderful wife Jo
Ann, who is a wonderful friend of my wife Emily, and of course Bill
Emerson, who was a wonderful friend of all of us.
I think it would be a great tribute for each one of us in our hearts
and in our daily work to think of Bill Emerson when we try to get
together and pass meaningful legislation; as we go through the last
months of this 104th Congress, that we dedicate each day to a greater
understanding of each other, in the true memory of Bill Emerson.
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to pay
tribute to Bill Emerson, a great man, a great Congressman, a great
Christian, a great friend, and, as we have all heard, a great family
man, which is so important, and was so important to Bill.
I had the privilege of serving with Bill on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for 6\1/2\ years. When I was on that
committee with him, I was a Democrat while he was a Republican, and so
I have heard a number of the speakers talk about the bipartisan way
that Bill would work with Members.
Having been a Member of both political parties last year, I can vouch
first-hand that Bill was such a wonderful individual. He treated each
Member, regardless of party or ideology, with great respect and would
work with them on finding solutions to problems. Being senior to me on
the committee, I respected his advice. There were countless times when
he said: ``Greg, think about taking this approach; why do we not work
at it this way?''
So it is no wonder that so many people have come to the floor today
to talk about what a wonderful individual Bill Emerson was, because we
were all proud.
As the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Skelton] would vouch, as I asked
for 30 minutes to an hour to talk about Bill Emerson, every Member of
this body could do that. As we would talk about him, we would always
want to put the word great in front of friend, great in front of
Congressman, great in front of family man, because Bill Emerson was
that kind of individual. So we in this body who count Bill as our
friend are blessed to have had Bill Emerson.
This Nation was blessed to have had Bill Emerson as a citizen and as
a Congressman. We know from his love and the way he expressed his love
and affection for his family, his family was blessed, as we all were,
that Bill Emerson was a part of their lives as we were in our lives. So
America has been blessed, as his family was, by the good Lord that Bill
Emerson was a part of their lives, as ours.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, arguably the best friend that
Bill Emerson had in the House, for yielding me this time.
We have heard a lot today about Bill Emerson, about his commitment as
a public servant, his friendship to Members on this floor on both sides
of the aisle. I want to talk just very briefly about something, a
little gift that Bill Emerson passed on to me, and that was Bill
Emerson's faith.
Bill Emerson was diagnosed with what he must have known was a
terminal condition. It was amazing to me how calm Bill Emerson was in
the face of staring death square in the eye. I went to Bill Emerson,
and I said: ``Bill, what about this peace? You do not seem to be
struggling, you do not seem to be angry. What about this?''
He said: ``Well, John, you have to understand, a number of years ago
I started working on my faith, my faith in God and my faith in Jesus
Christ.'' And he said: ``John, at some point in our lives we have to
decide whether it is just a game or whether it is real. I have decided
that it is real. My faith is real. I will see my Lord in heaven. And
either way it goes, I am going to be a winner. Either I am going to
recover and I am going to be able to be a servant of God right here on
earth, or I am going to go and meet my Lord and Savior in heaven. So,
John, everybody has to decide, for those that go to church, for those
that read the Bible, is this just a game that we play with ourselves,
or is it something that we accept and believe and practice, and believe
as real as my talking to you.''
That is why Bill Emerson had such an incredible struggle with his
cancer. That is what Bill Emerson passed on to me, a giant piece of his
personal faith.
Mr. Speaker, we can always tell whether people really practice their
[[Page H6793]]
faith, really believe wholly in their faith when the chips are down,
when their backs are up against the wall. Bill Emerson never got angry,
Bill Emerson never was frustrated, and he never blinked when he went
eyeball to eyeball with death. Bill Emerson believed in his heart and
in his mind that death was nothing more than a transition to a promised
land that he has believed in.
Today, I have to tell my colleagues, that face shines bright in my
mind. He gave me a piece of it. He made me more peaceful in my heart
about the future and what a terrific, tremendous, wonderful gift the
faith of Bill Emerson that he passed on to many of his friends, his
family, and his colleagues. God bless you, Bill. God bless you. We will
miss you.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Like so many of my colleagues, Bill Emerson was a personal friend of
mine. So many nice things have been said about him on the floor today
and rightly so, he deserves all of them. I do have many pleasant
memories of Bill Emerson like my colleagues do.
I remember the last time we were over with Bob Dole over at the
Cannon Caucus Room. So many remember Bob Dole took a few minutes to
talk about Bill Emerson in his last speech in the Congress, and I
thought that was a wonderful tribute that Bob Dole did.
I noticed every speaker spoke about Bill Emerson's attitude, and that
is the thing that struck me. I do not think I would have had nearly the
courage that Bill Emerson had. I remember the last time I saw him here.
I shook hands with him, and I said: ``You have a strong handshake.'' He
said: ``I am strong, I just cannot get enough oxygen.'' There was never
any doubt that this man just had 100 percent confidence.
The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] spoke here on the floor.
He said that he was in Cape Girardeau, I was at Cape Girardeau with you
and some others, and it is true he was really loved and respected.
When I first came to Congress here, we had a Congressman by the name
of Bill Steiger. He died just before we were sworn in. Tip O'Neill was
the Speaker. And Tip O'Neill summed up Bill Steiger's life in four
words. He said: ``This man had respect.'' And that is what I would say
about Bill Emerson, this man had respect. That is the best I think we
can say when a man leaves this Congress, a man or woman leaves this
Congress.
We also remember when Bill Emerson was in the chair. No one did a
better job in the chair than Bill Emerson. Not only was he fair, but he
had total command of what was going on on the floor. But Bill Emerson
left a legacy to you and to me, and that legacy was courage. I mean
real courage. We saw that courage daily here in his wheelchair; his
attitude was always 100 percent.
I think the thing that we can remember about him, when we think
things are tough here on the floor, let us remember Bill Emerson, and
things will be made easy.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Missouri for yielding me this time.
As it has been said all afternoon Bill Emerson truly was a remarkable
man. I had the opportunity to come to know him just since 1994 when he
became involved in my race for the U.S. Congress. My district is right
across the river from his. And he came to my district on one occasion
to help out my constituents in a matter that they were concerned about.
A couple of weeks ago I was driving through my rural district of
western Kentucky. I came across a small church. There was a bulletin
board out there and it simply said: You cannot make a success of life
without making a gift of it.
Subsequent to that, I thought that that certainly applied to Bill
Emerson. Bill Emerson was a husband, he was a father, he was a son, he
was a politician, and in all of those roles he made a success of those
roles because he made a gift of his life.
At this time when there is so much cynicism and apathy around the
country about politics, I genuinely wish that people from all across
America would have had an opportunity to sit down and talk to Bill
Emerson about government, about a democracy, because he was truly
committed to it. He believed in this body, he believed in our democracy
and in our process, and all of us will miss him. We will be thinking
about his wife Jo Ann and his four children.
I had the opportunity to meet his mother just a couple of days ago,
and in looking in her eyes, I saw that twinkling in her eye that all of
us saw when we talked and looked into Bill Emerson's face, and we will
all miss him. But he was a gift to us, and I, for one, will always
cherish that.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have spoken a great deal about our friend Bill
Emerson this afternoon. I would be remiss if I did not say a word or
two about loyalty, loyalty to those about him and those about him were
extremely loyal to him.
At this time I would like to say a word of thanks to the D.C. staff
and to the district staff of the late Bill Emerson for the wonderful
work that they did for him to help him serve the people of Missouri:
Tricia Schade, David LaVallee, Julie Pickett, Pete Jeffries, Glenn
Kelly, Lisa Johnson, Julia Kertz, Seaver Sowers, Neil Moseman, Jess
Sharp. Those are the ones who composed the staff here in the Rayburn
Building.
In the district: Lloyd Smith, Kacky Garner, Pat Pecuat, Greg Branum,
Carol Goldsmith, Alan Heath, Mike Chitwood, Iris Bernhardt, and Carlene
May.
Each of these staff members served so ably and so well. And on behalf
of all of us, we thank them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time to speak on behalf of the loss of his great friend.
It is so sad to be here today and not have Bill here. He has been in
this Chamber, I guess, as much as anybody else over the years. His
spirit has always been here and hopefully will always be here.
I got to know Bill a little bit differently than some other people.
Back when I was the Governor of Delaware, he came to Delaware to look
at some programs we were running involving food stamps and nutrition
and delivery of services. He liked these programs, and I liked Bill
Emerson. We were not used to having Congressmen come to Delaware, quite
frankly, if they were not from Delaware. He took the time to come up
there, and when I came to Congress he was my friend. He was one person
I knew, and he was one person who spent time with me.
I did not realize he was the friend of 434 of us here in this
Congress. We have heard more fascinating stories in these last 2 hours
about this wonderful man and the way he reached out to different
individuals, be they neighbors or committee members or classmates or
whatever it was. But Bill Emerson was bigger than that. He was almost
bigger than anyone else who ever served in this Congress. He was for
all humanity.
He was the one who reached out for those who had problems with hunger
around this world. He was the one who reached across the aisle to
Democrats as well as to Republicans. He was the one who virtually made
a friend of everybody he dealt with. He was the one who was so popular
in his district that he just won by overwhelming margins there.
He was the one with a wonderful family. He is the one that we are
offering our condolences for here today because he meant so very much
to so many people in the United States of America.
There may have been finer Members of Congress, but I do not know if I
could name who they were or who they might be. I do not know of anyone
who has served his fellow man as well as Bill Emerson did over all of
the years that he represented us in this Congress.
So we will miss you, Bill. We will miss your spirit. We will miss all
that you stood for, particularly at the end when you were so brave and
so courageous.
Frankly, I did not think it would ever end. It just came as a
surprise,
[[Page H6794]]
even though we all knew that ultimately it had to be fatal. So we will
miss you, Bill. God bless you.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane].
{time} 1715
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding me this time.
With regard to all of the comments made about Bill Emerson, I can
only say amen. As a very dear person, a caring person, though, I would
like to share an anecdote.
I have my No. 5 daughter suffering from cancer and she has been going
through chemotherapy since last October. She was over here visiting on
the floor with me and we ran into Bill. He told her that he was going
through the same experience. He really lifted her spirits. He told her,
``Hang in there, you're going to beat this,'' and he reassured her.
Then he asked me further for her telephone number when she was in the
hospital, getting chemo, and when she was home, he called her, just
lifting her spirits.
Bill, of course, had that amazing quality for maintaining high
spirits even when he knew what the prospects were.
I share this as an anecdote only because it was so personal and
meaningful to me. As a father, of course, you anguish over your little
ones through that kind of experience, but you cannot help but anguish
over those who suffer the loss most, and, that is, his lovely wife Jo
Ann and his daughters, his mother.
But remember that the pain and suffering and the anguish of that loss
is experienced only by we survivors. Bill is home free and he is
looking down smiling upon all of us and he probably feels a little
embarrassed at times over some of these revelations of our affections
for him.
When my dad passed away last year and we all attended, it was family
reunion time, I reassured my brothers, my sister, and the family that,
hey, the big reunion time is right up there now, and his parents were
waiting for him and all the loved ones that preceded him.
It is time for Bill to enjoy his celebration. He pulled his tour of
duty. We can only look forward to the time when we can participate in
that joyful experience and recognize that in the interim, though, we
are here to try and bolster one another and to carry on the good fight
and in the best tradition that Bill did. God bless you, Bill Emerson.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding this time to me as we pay tribute to one of the great men of
the U.S. Congress.
Bill Emerson truly was a man of the House. His participation in this
body extends far back beyond when he was first elected to the Congress
in 1980. In fact, in our Republican cloakroom, we have a picture of
Bill dating back to March 1, 1954. It is a fitting tribute in memory to
him. He played a part in the history of this Congress, because on that
day some terrorists burst into the Chamber through those doors up there
to my left in the gallery and sprayed the entire House Chamber with
gunfire.
Bill Emerson was here because at that time he was the chief page on
the Democratic side, because in 1954 that was the last time the
Republicans were the majority in the Congress, and he was responsible
for the pages on the Democratic side. He was over in that corner. I can
remember him as vividly as possible telling me this story, just a
couple of years ago, explaining that picture to me, back in that
corner, he hit the floor, there are bullet holes in the wall back there
for anybody who wishes to examine it, bullet holes here in the desks on
the Republican side, and the photograph in the back shows Bill Emerson
carrying out Congressman Alvin Bentley, a Republican of Michigan, one
of five Members of the House who was wounded that day. So Bill
Emerson's part in the history of this House extends back virtually all
of my lifetime.
I had the honor of serving on the Committee on Agriculture with him
for the past 3\1/2\ years, and serving on the Department Operations and
Nutrition Subcommittee with him. He truly was a caring man who cared a
great deal about the people that he was serving in his district, about
the people who benefited from the Government programs under his
auspices, and the taxpayer whose dollar he always looked after as he
represented his constituents very wisely.
Bill Emerson is truly someone we can all be proud of, someone who
represented his district and who represents all of us in the Congress
as a legacy in the history of this country.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Latham].
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the Speaker
for this opportunity to honor a very, very special person in my life,
Bill Emerson.
First of all, I want to extend my most sincere sympathy to Jo Ann,
the daughters, and the entire family.
Mr. Speaker, I came here 18 months ago, a freshman. Bill Emerson took
me under his wing and was my mentores here. I was very fortunate to
have the unique opportunity to serve with Bill not only on the Ag
Committee, the full committee, and Transportation and Infrastructure,
but each of the four subcommittees that we served on together. I
sincerely cherish the time that I had with Bill here.
Bill was always there to answer what had to seem like my endless
questions. He was always there with stories about his experiences in
Congress, in this body, and with stories about his beloved Missouri.
And he was always there as a true friend. My only regret here is that I
only had 18 months to be with Bill and to learn from him.
In the past few months, it seems that Bill wanted to teach me as much
as possible as quickly as possible, somehow knowing that maybe his time
was running short. I will never forget just 2 weeks ago when we were
marking up the food stamp bill in the Ag Committee, that I was honored
that he asked me to give his statement because he was too weak and it
would be very, very difficult for him to do so.
As Bill continued to battle his illness, he continually asked me to
pray for him, and I think he asked many of us here to do that. He kept
telling us that the prayers were working and that he could feel our
prayers.
I will never forget what Bill Emerson meant to me. Someday I would
hope to be half as food in this body as Bill was.
Also, I will never forget his faith in God. When Bill Emerson came
here, he did take me under his wing, and I know today that Bill Emerson
has been taken under God's wing. Knowing that, I can celebrate both his
life and his death today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House of
Representatives, one of the first people I met was Bill Emerson. Bill
was a gentleman in every sense of the word, and I will never forget it.
We took a trip several years ago to Israel. He was such a good will
ambassador, not only for this country and for his congressional
district and for the great State of Missouri, but for the world. I
think all of us know of his emphasis and focus on hunger in the world.
It truly is a great, great problem. Bill Emerson was out there on the
front lines.
When we were in Israel, Mickey Leland was killed in that terrible
airplane crash in Africa. Bill Emerson dropped everything to try to
find out about Congressman Leland and even tried to get to Africa to
see if there was any way he could help. That is the kind of person Bill
Emerson was.
Life works in strange ways, but you can have a difference of opinion
without having a difference of principle. That is what Bill Emerson was
all about. He did not care whether you were a Democrat or a Republican.
He cared whether you cared about America. He always attacked the issue.
He did not attack the individual. He did not try in any way to destroy
the institution. He did everything he could to build the institution
and build faith and confidence in this great country. Bill, you are
going to be really missed. To your lovely wife Jo Ann and to your
wonderful family, we will never forget you.
[[Page H6795]]
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding me this time. I want to extend my sympathies to the Emerson
family. When I first came to Congress 14 years ago, Bill Emerson was my
neighbor in the Cannon Office Building. He was also my neighbor across
the Mississippi River from Illinois in Missouri. We talked a lot about
our similar backgrounds and similar districts. Of course we were of
different political parties. I am a Democrat, and he was a Republican.
We are very proud of our partisan heritage but it never stood in the
way of a good friendship. Over the years I came to know Bill and
respect him very, very much. He fought some classic battles, both
personal and political. In each one of them he showed a level of class
which is rare in this institution. It is really unfortunate but true
that from time to time we let politics get too personal in this
institution and we forget that we are in fact colleagues and all quite
honored to have this opportunity to serve in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Bill never forgot it. I think it goes back to his
experience as a young man serving as a page in the House and then
coming back to be a Member of this institution. He loved the House so
much.
There were times when the rhetoric around here and the debate would
become so partisan and so personal that Bill would take it on himself
to go and meet with the Democrats on the other side of the aisle and
say, let's start bringing Members together for informal dinners so that
people become friends again and realize that we still have so much more
in common.
Then the year before last Speaker Tom Foley appointed Bill Emerson
and myself to serve as co-chairs of a bipartisan task force on Federal
disaster assistance. It was a great experience, because I literally sat
shoulder to shoulder with Bill Emerson for months as we went through
hearings and came up with a joint report that we both agreed on. We
completely trusted one another, we worked together closely on a
bipartisan basis, and I think did good work for this Nation and for
this House of Representatives.
Bill Emerson is going to be missed but what he brought to this House
of Representatives we will remember for a long, long time. It was a
certain level of class which we should all aspire to.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, what Bob Clement said earlier I thought was very
apropos; that is, that people can disagree without being disagreeable.
Bill Emerson was truly a man of the House, a man of this institution.
I had the privilege of working with Bill a lot, because part of my
district is right across the river from the Missouri boot heel. I can
tell Members from personal experience, Bill Emerson was loved in the
Missouri boot heel. We did a lot of work together on the Mississippi
River. both of us served as president of the Lower Mississippi Valley
Flood Control Association and had a lot of common interests that we
were pursuing to help the folks that lived along the river up and down.
My heart goes out to Jo Ann and the family because Bill Emerson was
truly a gentleman. I never heard him say a harsh remark about someone
personally on this floor. It happens all too often, as some of the
other speakers have said. That is what I mean about being able to
disagree in an agreeable way. That is really what this institution
ought to be about. Bill Emerson lived his life in furtherance of that
goal.
I just hope his memory, and I think it will, will permeate this place
for many years to come. He was a good man and true gentleman and we
will miss him greatly.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
{time} 1730
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the Bill
Emerson that I knew was a very, very special person. Bill loved his
God. He loved his country. He loved his family. He loved his district,
his State, and he loved this House of Representatives. The last
conversation that I had with Bill, he was looking ahead to next year
and wanting to be a part of making the constructive changes that he
tried all of his life, from, I think, since serving as a page in this
institution the first time.
Having sat by Bill every Thursday morning in the House prayer
breakfast group, I was blessed many times by having him share his ideas
about life and what it meant, and even during these last several weeks
when it clearly was becoming more and more of a severe problem for
Bill, he never lost his faith.
I would just, too, like to say to Jo Ann and to the family and to all
of his many other friends back home, I know everyone will miss him, but
so will we. We know now that Bill is in Heaven and I know he is smiling
down and appreciating the nice things that many of us have said when
perhaps he would say, ``You could have done a little better job when we
were here, too, Charlie.'' But Bill, we miss you. God bless you.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in mourning the passing
Bill Emerson, the gentleman from Missouri, truly the gentleman from
Missouri. We all talk about when we first got to know Bill, and I did
in his work with Mickey LeLand on the Committee On Hunger. I was not a
member. I wanted to be. The two of them were so enthusiastic, and is it
not sad that we have lost both of them.
Others have reminisced about when Mickey's plane went down and how
Bill reacted to that and redoubled his already boundless efforts to end
world hunger. We had a few chuckles over the fact that we were working
together on disaster relief when of course everyone knows that we are
earthquake prone in California and San Francisco, but when Missouri was
identified as a potential site, again with all the gusto in the world,
as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] mentioned he launched into
the disaster relief issue.
I want to extend my sympathy to Jo Ann and the Emerson family. I hope
it is a comfort to them that Bill is mourned by every single one of his
colleagues, that this House that he dearly loved and served so well is
diminished by our loss of Bill, and that all who know him pray for the
family at this very difficult time.
As has been mentioned, Bill was very concerned about his staff and we
all are, too Bill. But I want to say that as has been mentioned, Bill
was a person of faith. He was a man of faith. With that faith, he
helped all of us here reinforce our own faith and be kinder to each
other.
In his work to end world hunger, Bill Emerson worked on the side of
the angels, and now he is with them.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I had spoken yesterday and I was not going to speak
again today, but something came up, I wanted to speak. Bill Emerson and
Tony Hall and a few of us are part of a covenant group. We met every
Tuesday in the chapel. In fact, as we just broke up, a group of us, the
whole meeting was on Bill. Somebody sent flowers that were on the altar
today for Bill. Somebody else brought and put on all the chairs a
jersey for all of us in the group from Bill.
Bill was a committed Christian. Bill loved Jesus as much as he loved
anything else. So I just want people to know, and I can speak
personally from having listened to Bill for the last several years, he
loved Christ. He knew that when he died, where he was going, that he
was going to Heaven to be with the Lord. Bill was somebody whom
everyone loved on both sides, and those in our group, Tony Hall and our
group, kind of transcend it. In fact, we had greater loyalty in our
group to the individuals in the group than we actually had to our
parties. We worked together on many issues, and we are going to miss
Bill an awful, awful lot.
[[Page H6796]]
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley].
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a tribute to Bill Emerson that we are
here in going on now 2\1/2\ hours eulogizing him and remembering him.
He was a Member of my class, the 97th class, even though I caught up
with him about 7 months later because I came in a special election in
1981. Bill was one of the first people to come over and extend a hand
and help me with this great transition from the State legislature to
the Congress.
Recently I had an opportunity to participate in a congressional study
group on Germany meeting in Bill's district in Cape Girardeau and,
unfortunately, Bill was unable to attend because he was having
treatment back here at Georgetown. As a result, some of the Members
that were out there listened to Bill call in, and we were there with
members of the German Bundestag, and it was so evident what pride Bill
took in his district and his constituency. He even gave us a book from
Mark Twain that had a specific part of the book marked where Mark Twain
talks about Cape Girardeau and that area, and the German members of the
Bunderstag were so impressed with Bill's commitment and his strong
feeling about German-American relationships and the strong number of
German-Americans that were in his district.
He was a person who everybody in this House could look up to and yet
feel that they were a friend on an equal basis. We will miss his great
honesty, his humor. We wish the very best to his family and Jo Ann, his
wife, for someone we will miss greatly, a real leader in this House and
one who loved this House of Representatives, Bill Emerson.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I did not know Bill Emerson as well as
some of my colleagues, but what I did not know of him, when I think of
him and remember him, I will think of the words decency, commitment,
honesty, collegiality, civility, which is sometimes in this body
something that we have lacked.
The last word I ever heard him say was ``good''. I remember seeing
him in his wheelchair and I asked him, Bill, how are you doing? And he
said, ``I'm good.'' He was fighting till the end. A class guy, an
honorable guy, a guy that when individuals think of this Congress, they
see somebody in the best traditions of the men and women that serve
here.
Sometimes we speak ill of each other and speak ill of this
institution. Bill Emerson loved this institution. He would be upset at
those that reviled it, and I will always remember him as a man with
class, a bipartisan person who cared deeply, a person who cared deeply
by about this country, about hunger, about foreign policy, about his
farming district, about where he came from, and I will always have that
very good feeling about Bill Emerson.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Johnston].
Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I guess the politics of Bill
Emerson and myself were 180 degrees apart. We were diagonally opposite.
He is a conservative, I am a liberal. He was for a constitutional
amendment against flag burning, I was against that. He was for English
only, I was against that. He was pro-life, I am pro-choice. But Bill
Emerson is pro-life in the ultimate sense. Without him, without Frank,
who just spoke, without Tony Hall, a lot of Africans would die this
year of starvation. Bill Emerson interceded, and Frank Wolf and he went
to the leadership and got food aid put back in the budget last year.
He was a close friend, and I personally will miss him.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed this afternoon tributes to a wonderful
American, great Missourian, Bill Emerson. I have not seen such an
outpouring in my time here in the Congress of the United States. Habit
is a funny thing. Habits sometimes become a ritual. To and from work,
driving from McLean, as we did nearly every day, in the morning when he
would come by the House, ``Billy,'' ``Mr. Ike,'' then the conversation
was off and we would visit all the way down, trying to solve problems,
discussing everything from family to friends to work for the people we
represented.
Then at night we would drive back and getting ready to get out, the
conversation would be, ``What time tomorrow?'' ``7:20.'' ``7:20.''
``Good night, Bill. 7:20.'' We will always fondly remember that
wonderful Missourian, Bill Emerson.
I also wish to thank the gentleman from St. Louis, MO, [Mr. Clay],
for initiating this resolution. It is certainly thoughtful of him to do
so and to allow us to participate.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am pleased to rise to honor the memory of my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, the late Bill
Emerson.
For the past 18 months, he has been a friend and periodic advisor. He
has generously shared his love of Congress as an institution with me
and his deep knowledge and interest in American history, most
especially the role of Abraham Lincoln and his family.
Bill Emerson touched the lives of two generations of Frelinghuysen's
in Congress. He was a congressional page in 1954 when my father, Peter
H.B. Frelinghuysen was a Member of this body. He was on the floor, as
my father was, on the fateful day when Puerto Rican nationalists shot
and wounded several Members of Congress from the spectators gallery.
He was a special person and one who had an immediate impact on those
he met. Perhaps the greatest indication of his impact on this House and
those who work in it is the testament that we've heard today--from
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, men and women,
old friends and new who all respected this honorable man.
At a time when it is fashionable to criticize government and
Congress, Bill Emerson was always unabashed in his defense of this
institution. He served as an example to us all that quiet leadership,
an open mind, and a strong commitment to constituent service is the
best way to earn the public trust and the respect of our colleagues.
We can honor his service by practicing these virtues. And through
this effort by each and every one of us, the House of Representatives
that Bill Emerson loved so much will bear his grand imprint for many
years to come.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great degree of
sadness that we, today, mark the passing of a true, distinguished
public servant, and a fine human being, Congressman Bill Emerson of
Missouri.
Mr. Speaker, we will always remember Bill for his wonderful sense of
institutional history, his championing of the hungry and downtrodden of
the world, his tireless work for the agricultural interests of the
United States, and his longtime service to his country.
Mr. Speaker, the immense love Bill Emerson displayed for his family,
his friends, his Missouri, his country, and his God should always
resonate with us. We were truly blessed to have such a wonderful man
serving among us.
To Bill, I say ``So long, good friend. You are going to be missed by
a lot of people down here. It was an honor to know you.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
late Representative Bill Emerson, a distinguished American who served
his country with unsurpassed dignity and an inspiring fighting spirit.
Representative Emerson began his public service as a teenaged House
page in 1954. He later served on the staffs of Representative Bob
Ellsworth and Senator Charles Mathias.
In 1980, Representative Emerson sacrificed a lucrative lobbying
career to run for Congress. Through his dogged determination and
exemplary integrity, Bill Emerson defeated the Democratic incumbent,
becoming the first Republican in 50 years to represent the Cape
Girardeau-Bootheel region.
During his 16 years in Congress and throughout his life, Bill Emerson
earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and the public. He
was able to rise above politics and work together with Members on the
other side of the aisle to pass legislation benefiting our country. As
a compassionate leader on the Agriculture Committee, Bill Emerson
dedicated much of his efforts to food stamps and nutrition programs.
No matter what challenge life threw at him, Bill Emerson attacked it
with every fiber in his body. He fought and defeated alcohol dependency
and never gave up his fight against cancer. Since being diagnosed with
cancer last November, Bill's spirit and zeal for life never wavered.
This House and our country has lost a great American patriot. I offer
my condolences to the family and friends of the Honorable Bill Emerson.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my
colleagues in mourning the death of Bill Emerson.
[[Page H6797]]
I was privileged to have worked with Bill on the Agriculture
Committee for the 10 years that I have served in the House, including
having him as my ranking member on the General Commodities Subcommittee
during my time as chairman of that subcommittee. As was the nature of
the Agriculture Committee in previous years, we worked on a bipartisan
basis to ensure the competitiveness of American agriculture on many
occasions.
He was a tireless advocate of those less fortunate in our country,
particularly the hungry in this Nation. With the bounty produced by his
congressional district, I know it was frustrating for him to think that
in this day and age that children still go to bed hungry. We are also
aware that this concern spanned the continents as he joined our late
colleague Mickey Leland and Congressman Hall in working to stamp out
hunger in foreign lands as well.
He served the constituents of his district well on the Public Works
and Transportation Committee and on the Agriculture Committee. He, like
I, represented a district which has a wide variety of agricultural
commodities grown, sometimes with divergent views. He was always an
advocate for the farmers in his district above all else and fought
relentlessly to ensure that their interests were heard. His work on the
Public Works Committee also underscored his understanding of the issues
of importance to his district--safe drinking water and adequate
transportation systems to allow his rural district to complete on an
equal basis with their urban neighbors and enjoy the same quality of
life.
Mr. thoughts and prayers are with his family, his staff, and the
constituents of the Eighth District of Missouri as they mourn their
loss and remember the life and times that they shared with him. His
death is a loss for all of us and for this institution that he loved,
the U.S. Congress.
Mr. STOKES. Mr Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the
distinguished dean of the Missouri congressional delegation,
Congressman Bill Clay, for allowing us this time to pay tribute to our
departed colleague, Bill Emerson. We join the members of the Missouri
congressional delegation and, in particular, the people of the Eighth
Congressional District in mourning the recent passing of a
distinguished lawmaker, a dedicated politician, and a good friend.
I am proud to have served in this legislative Chamber with Bill
Emerson. He came to Washington, DC, with a sense of dedication and the
highest level of commitment to public service. Throughout his career,
he worked hard and fought for issues which he believed in. Many of us
recall that when the Hunger Caucus was abolished, Bill Emerson joined
my colleague from Ohio, Tony Hall, in fasting to bring attention to the
issue. On other issues of importance to the Nation, Bill Emerson was
the voice of reason and compassion. He was a courageous lawmaker and a
gentleman at all times.
Mr. Speaker, I saw Bill just a few nights ago when he was coming into
this Chamber in his wheelchair. I recall that he was in good spirits,
and told me at that time than he was still fighting hard and doing all
right. Bill Emerson was that type of champion. The fact that despite
his battle, he was here in this Chamber just a few days ago carrying
out his legislative duties, is a reflection of his strength of
character and commitment to duty. He did his very best and he served
with the highest level of integrity and dignity.
I will miss our colleague, Bill Emerson. I join my colleagues in
extending my sympathy to his wife and members of the Emerson family. We
have lost a good friend and America has lost a champion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________