[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11541-H11544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)

[[Page H11542]]

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, this is the last vote of the evening. 
Following this discussion we will return to regular order. Pending a 
further unanimous-consent request, 9 a.m. tomorrow will be the point at 
which we will reconvene. I would expect no votes before 11 o'clock 
tomorrow.
  We may be putting a few more suspension bills on the floor and, 
should that be the case, we certainly would notify the minority as soon 
as possible as to which bills those might be.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, there have been trilateral 
negotiations between the two bodies of Congress and the White House 
regarding the continuing resolution by which we would complete our 
spending program and the year's work and allow us to move on to sine 
die adjournment. These have been going very slow, as they tend to do. 
That is all very understandable.
  If I may just take a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to 
express my commendation for the long hours of work that have been 
devoted to this task by Members from both bodies and the White House. 
We have had people that worked here as late as 4:30 this morning and 
were back on the job early today and have been at it again, continuing 
to continue on continuing resolution. They have shown enormous resolve 
in this matter.

  Nevertheless, we have just been informed that there are further 
complications in the process because the White House has indicated that 
they are not willing to accept an agreement reached last night by the 
gentleman from Texas, Congressman Lamar Smith, the gentleman from 
California, Howard Berman, the gentleman from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, on the 
immigration bill.
  The White House has indicated that they are not willing to accept 
title V, even within the context of the negotiated revisions offered by 
that working group. This has been a very disappointing turn of events 
for all of us. Perhaps Senator Simpson has expressed his disappointment 
in the most sincere terms.
  This, obviously, means that we will spend more time on that since the 
White House wishes to connect the immigration bill with the continuing 
resolution and is not prepared to agree on the continuing resolution 
until we reach some agreement on the immigration bill. All this, 
obviously, leaves things a bit more tenuous, but still I remain 
confident and hopeful that we will be able to pick up our work tomorrow 
morning as scheduled and move on with it, hopefully for a fairly early 
afternoon adjournment.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader yielding.
  Those of us in California are aware of this issue. Would you explain 
what is in title V so this body realizes what the administration is 
opposing?
  Mr. Leader, my question is this: Does the administration realize that 
the reimbursement for emergency health care that we have is in that 
package?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about $375 million for the 
people of California. I think there should be an answer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time from the gentleman from 
California, I think it is fairly clearly known by all of us concerned 
that title V has to do with the question of welfare benefits for 
illegal aliens and the enforcement of the sponsorship provision on 
legal immigrants so that they too would be kept off the rolls. And 
that, obviously, has been a matter of concern and we will have to go 
back and work on that.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for 
informing us what the schedule is for the remainder of the afternoon 
and for tomorrow.
  I would just say to my friend from California that I have just been 
advised by my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], that 
the administration is indeed in favor and supportive of reimbursements 
to hospitals in the situation that the gentleman has described.
  And while I do not want to get into a full-fledged debate here 
tonight on the immigration piece, the gentleman should rest easy 
tonight that that will be taken care of.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, there are millions of people, over 5 
million people voted for an initiative that says we need to stop giving 
benefits. I just want to know, does that include the benefit packages 
that were all in this?
  We cannot ask those of us in California to walk away.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it has, in fact, been 
rather commonplace and, I think, quite frankly a good time has been had 
by all on many occasions when difficult questions have been put to me 
while announcing the schedule. The colloquies have lasted sometimes, it 
seemed, well into the night.

                              {time}  1745

  The gentleman from California wishes to express his concern and his 
anxiety related to his State, and it does not seem to me it would be 
fair, in the respect that has been given to me in the past as we have 
dealt with these fascinating discourses, that we let the gentleman from 
California proceed without the catcalls.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I ask questions on this. We 
disagreed on certain elements of the immigration bill across the aisle. 
There are those of us that tried to find a compromise and felt that 
this body went too far. I am sorry if I am saying now that those of us 
that went to the compromise and agreed now feel the goal post has been 
moved. I have got to go back to California and explain this to the 
people of San Diego County. I apologize for asking questions.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, if 
we are going to debate this, let us do it. The provisions we are 
talking about do not just deal with illegal immigrants but the medical 
and other benefits that do to legal immigrants. If we are going to ask 
questions, we ought to have the accurate premises. Some of us have 
objected to restrictions on the ability of legal immigrants to get 
medical care. I think it ought to be accurately phrased.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, his points are well taken, very fast and very rapidly, 
and some of us are still trying to understand them.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for 
a simultaneous translation?
  Mr. ARMEY. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, my good friend 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the 
gentleman from California doing this, although he says he has to go 
back to California and he is, of course, delaying the moment when that 
will happen. But if we are going to debate the immigration bill, it 
should not be as part of this measure. Let us have more time to debate 
it tomorrow morning. I object to a one-sided discussion of the issues.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, I think the 
gentleman from Massachusetts has made the point. The House has, in 
fact, debated this bill, has, in fact, passed it by over 390 votes. We 
are waiting to complete the conference work on it, and I think the 
gentleman from Massachusetts makes a good point that we ought to have 
the debate at the time we deal with the conference.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify two issues. No. 1, the 
administration wants the provision in title V that reimburses 
hospitals, public and private, nonprofit and proprietary, who treat 
illegal immigrants in emergency

[[Page H11543]]

care. They want that reimbursement. They think that is the Federal 
obligation and they support it. Let there be no more fuzzing over that 
issue.
  Second, before we all get too high and mighty about what is 
happening, remember the Republican conference committee, where no one 
was allowed to offer an amendment, where the bipartisan relationships 
in both the Senate and House to put together a bill that passed the 
House and Senate were totally violated, where months went by without a 
conference committee, where things were changed so far beyond the scope 
of either House's bill that the Committee on Rules had to grant a 
waiver of that and where no amendment was made.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California for his first point. I think it is helpful and 
encouraging.
  I can only say that the Members of this body, as I pointed out, voted 
by a vote of over 390 votes for this, and we do need to work on that. I 
expect and feel somewhat encouraged by the gentleman from California 
that we must get back to these negotiations.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman from Texas is 
this, we would like to have a list of the bills that you propose to put 
on suspension tonight so that the membership will have the opportunity, 
if we are going in at 9 a.m. and going to vote at 11 a.m., we need some 
notification of what we will be discussing. I hope you could 
accommodate us there.
  I might also say, I understand the difficulty of putting these 
schedules together, but I would hope that we could have come in a 
little bit later. I suspect we are going to have more than just a few 
suspensions, and we would have time to debate that. It seems to me noon 
or 1 p.m. would be a more convenient time for us to debate fully these 
resolutions.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would ask my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle, please do not further provoke the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. I cannot listen that fast.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's point is well taken. We have 
delivered to the minority leader's office a list. While it may not be 
necessarily complete, the gentleman is absolutely right; we should get 
any further additions to you as quickly as possible this evening.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, on the schedule, approximately how many do 
we have, 8 or 10 suspensions for in the morning?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We have, as the 
gentleman has indicated, 8 or 10. As the gentleman from Michigan 
expresses his concern about having time to debate them, and I can only 
express to the body it is my firm hope, and all consideration to those 
who may be disappointed, that we will wrap up our negotiations and come 
back with the continuing resolution in such a timely fashion that there 
will not be time to consider everything that is on the list.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman has been here before. I have been here before. From what 
I understand is going on in the negotiations, very little was done 
today. There is a good likelihood that we are going to do these 
suspensions tomorrow and whatever few you have left over, and then we 
are not going to have anything to do, because I understand Puerto Rico 
has pretty much dropped by the wayside. We are going to sit, and we are 
going to sit, and we are going to sit, and we are going to sit, and we 
are going to sit, and we are going to sit.
  Let us say we are here by tomorrow evening and that conference still 
is going on. Do we come in Sunday?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again, I thank the 
gentleman from Missouri. We, in our offices, every now and then have in 
the past historically seen that blue screen, and it does bother us. It 
is not our intention to do that. We think these negotiators are 
approaching a conclusion of their work.
  I frankly am anxious to go back and join them with it. Again, I think 
we need to appreciate how hard they have worked, how clearly they have 
shown their resolve to complete this work. And I do believe that, if 
the gentleman from Missouri will just bear with everybody who sits at 
that table, we will find ourselves tomorrow able to complete our work 
here.
  I think we should entertain only the greatest expectations born out 
of appreciation for the effort already made. If, in fact, there are 
disappointments, I will certainly be the one to come back and share 
that information later. At this point I do believe that between 1:00 
and 2:00, maybe 3:00 tomorrow, we will be able to complete that work.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
let us say, 3:00 or 4:00 tomorrow, perhaps we could know at that time 
whether there is a likelihood we will finish up tomorrow, or we will be 
back Sunday or be back Monday. Can I get that from the gentleman?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's point. I am sure 
that, if we are back in these circumstances conducting a colloquy at 
3:00 or 4:00 or 5:00 tomorrow, the gentleman from Missouri will want me 
to yield time for the purpose of telling me he told me so. And I will 
be happy to yield time for that purpose at that time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I am looking at Sunday and for all Members. 
There are a lot of Members here that have a lot of things scheduled 
Sunday. I do not have much scheduled Sunday. My big day is tomorrow. 
That is gone. There are Members here, and I think everybody would like 
to have some idea, if we can, whether we are going to be here Sunday.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we really need to 
go back to our work. We are working, and I have to say there are a good 
many of our Members that have been working and continue to 
work tirelessly. We want to go back and complete that work.

  The fact of the matter is, we all know how difficult it is to finish 
up under these circumstances. It is not a new way. It always happens. 
We do have Members working, I believe, in good faith with one another. 
We need to encourage that work through our appreciation, and I think it 
will be done soon.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if I may for one last final time--and then I 
will have to close this out--I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding. We 
are now getting down to a time when, of course, the fiscal year ends on 
Monday at 12 midnight. I would hope the majority party, along with the 
leadership in the minority party, is considering the contingency to 
ensure the operations of Government for Monday and Tuesday, maybe only 
48 hours or 72 hours.
  I know; I have been in some of these negotiations. They are tough. 
Everybody has an opinion. I think everybody is working honestly and 
hard to try to get to resolution. I would hope that we are providing 
for the contingency that for whatever reasons we do not get to closure 
prior to midnight on Monday.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I do feel obliged, and 
I think it is of due consideration that I fulfill that sense of 
obligation, to yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on today's list of suspensions was House 
Concurrent Resolution 218 dealing with instructions to the President 
concerning pardons. Will that be on the list for tomorrow?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. Let me 
say that is one of the items that is under consideration. I am sorry to 
say I have no announcement to make at this time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the gentleman to consider that 
we work on this very important matter.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
would it be possible for the distinguished majority leader, on the CR 
vote itself, to provide us with two or three hours', preferably, notice 
so that Members could be here for that important vote?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, his point again 
is well taken. Once the work is completed

[[Page H11544]]

on filing, we will try to give Members as much notice as possible. If I 
may ask the Members, if they will check the whip notice, perhaps even 
before they retire for the evening, we will certainly make every 
effort. Some folks will be driving and traveling. We want to be sure 
that everyone has an opportunity to make that vote. I do appreciate the 
gentleman's inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if I might remind the Members that we are 
going to have a Committee on Rules meeting right now to deal with some 
procedure resolutions so we can get out of here tomorrow, if possible, 
right away.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
conference report to accompany the Senate bill (S. 1004) to authorize 
appropriations for the U.S. Coast Guard, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the 
committee, for a brief explanation of the item concerning tort reform. 
Is the final language what we had agreed upon subsequent to the 
conference?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding. This is the 
conference report that we agreed upon.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, so I have that language. We are 
comfortable with it, and with the gentleman's assurance that that is 
the language.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. NADLER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, could I ask 
is there any language in this bill regarding Governors Island?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. No, it is not in this conference report.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  (For conference report and statement see immediately preceding 
proceedings of the House.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Oberstar] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report, 
Bipartisan Authorization Act of 1996. I want to thank all the conferees 
as well as the Senate conferees for their cooperation in reaching a 
fair compromise on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day. It has been 5 
years since the House has had a Coast Guard authorization bill ready to 
be sent to the President. This bill does that.
   Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day. It has been 5 years since the 
House has had a Coast Guard Authorization bill that is ready to be sent 
to the President.
  S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, authorizes 
funding for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 for their 
many missions: search and rescue; providing aids-to-navigation; drug 
interdiction; fisheries enforcement; icebreaking; marine pollution 
prevention and response; and commercial and recreational vessel safety.
  The House first passed its version of this legislation, H.R. 1361, 
way back in May of 1995. The Senate passed S. 1004 in November 1995. 
The House requested a conference on the Senate bill in February 1996 
and the Senate finally agreed to go to conference in July. Mr. Speaker, 
it has been a long and arduous process. Everyone has had to reach 
deeply to achieve a compromise that a consensus of the Members can 
support. On balance, this is a very good piece of legislation.
  Not only does it provide funding for the Coast Guard, but it improves 
their personnel management system, improves our marine safety laws, 
provides clear authority for the Coast Guard Auxiliary, implements the 
administration's proposal for streamlining the Coast Guard's regulatory 
system for commercial vessels, provides for the safer operation of 
towing vessels, conveys many lighthouses whose grounds will no longer 
need to be maintained by the Coast Guard, decreases the cost of 
financing U.S.-flag ships which will benefit both our vessel owners and 
our shipyards, and many other programmatic improvements to our Coast 
Guard laws.
  I would like to thank the leadership of our committee, our 
distinguished chairman, Mr. Shuster, as well as Mr. Coble and Mr. 
CLement for their outstanding work on this bill and for their 
dedication to improving the Coast Guard and all of our maritime 
programs.
   Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of the 
conference report on S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
1996.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, included as a provision in the Coast Guard 
Authorization Conference Report is the California Cruise Ship Act, 
which I and other members of the California delegation re-introduced 
earlier this Congress to help our State's tourism industry.
  Currently under the Johnson Act, a cruise ship that makes an 
intrastate stop is subject to State law even if that ship travels in 
international waters and is destined for another State or foreign 
country. Using this loophole and its authority to regulate gambling, 
States like California prohibit gambling aboard these ships.
  The provision included in this conference report, and which passed 
both the House and Senate in our respective Coast Guard authorization 
bills, would allow gambling on internationally-bound cruises and 
cruises bound for another State. It does not result in the expansion of 
gambling on the mainland, which remains under State control. Instead, 
the provision simply amends the Johnson Act to allow Federal control 
over voyages that begin and end in the same State so long as part of 
the voyage is to another country or another State within 3 days of 
leaving State waters.
  This issue is of great interest of the citizens of San Pedro and 
Catalina Islands whom I represent. According to Catalina's Chamber of 
Commerce, the city of Avalon itself loses $1.5 million annually in 
canceled port visits because of the existing restriction.
  Similarly, the city of San Diego, from which many cruises originate, 
is affected. That's why Lynn Schenk, my friend and colleague who was 
elected with me in 1992, introduced the original California Cruise Ship 
Act. Her measure passed the House in the 103d Congress, but was not 
considered in the other body.
  Today's action, and the final enactment of the California Cruise Ship 
Act, is a tribute to her dedicated efforts and perseverance.
  I strongly support this provision and thank the members of the 
Transportation Committee and the Coast Guard Subcommittee for their 
help in moving this important change forward toward enactment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________