[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2600-H2609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1469, 1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
    APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR 
        OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN BOSNIA

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 146 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 146

       Rsolved, 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. 1469) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for 
     overseas peacekeeping efforts, including those in Bosnia, for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     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. The amendment printed in part 1 of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and an 
     amendment striking lines 8 through 17 on page 24 shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived 
     except as follows: page 3, line 1, through line 9; page 10, 
     line 3, through line 15; page 25, line 1, through line 21; 
     page 26, line 8, through line 15; and page 33, line 14, 
     through page 34, line 19. Before consideration of any other 
     amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendments 
     printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. 
     Each amendment printed in part 2 of the report may be 
     considered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against the amendments printed in part 2 of the report 
     are waived. During consideration of the bill for further 
     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: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. During consideration of the bill, 
     points of order against amendments for failure to comply with 
     clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. 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 any amendments thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
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. Speaker, House Resolution 146 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 1469, which is the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for 
Fiscal Year 1997, under an open rule. In fact, this rule may be 
described as an ``open-plus'' rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and it waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill.
  The rule further provides that the amendment printed in the rule and 
the Riggs amendment relating to the WIC program, printed in part 1 of 
the Committee on Rules report, shall be considered as adopted when the 
rule passes.
  All points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to 
comply with clause 2, which prohibits the unauthorized or legislative 
provisions in a general appropriations bill, or clause 6, prohibiting a 
reappropriations in a general appropriations bill, of rule XXI, are 
waived except as specified in the rule itself.
  These exceptions relate to those legislative and unauthorized 
provisions contained in the bill reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations which were objected to by the authorizing committee of 
jurisdiction. In an effort to be as fair as possible to all Members and 
to respect the committee system, the Committee on Rules followed its 
standard protocol of leaving any provision to which an authorized 
committee objection was raised subject to a point of order. 
Specifically, this rule leaves the following unprotected:
  Provisions relating to enrollments in the Conservation Reserve 
Program; provisions establishing exemptions to the Endangered Species 
Act for disaster areas; language changing existing procurement rules 
with respect to currency paper; and unauthorized parking garage and 
rescissions of contract authority from the transportation trust funds.

                              {time}  1045

  The rule also waives all points of order against each amendment 
printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. It provides 
that these amendments may only be offered in the order specified, shall 
be debatable for the time specified in this report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall be considered as 
having been read, shall be offered only by the Member designated in the 
report, and shall not be subject to further amendment or a demand for a 
division of the question.
  Once these nine amendments have been considered by the House, the 
rule also provides for consideration of the bill for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule. The rule grants priority in recognition to those 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record prior to their consideration if otherwise consistent with House 
rules.
  The rule also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce the vote 
to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute 
vote.
  The rule waives points of order against all amendments for failure to 
comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency 
designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill 
containing an emergency designation.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1469 is an important bill for this country, 
particularly parts of the country. It seeks to provide needed disaster 
relief for thousands and thousands of families around

[[Page H2601]]

the country, particularly in the upper Midwest, where floods, fires and 
other disasters have literally decimated homes, livestock and lives. I 
know that those Members who have not been able to visit there have 
witnessed it on television and certainly read about it in the 
newspapers.
  Furthermore, the bill provides needed supplemental funding to protect 
and equip our Nation's 8,000 troops in Bosnia.
  Mr. Speaker, despite these laudable goals, I am personally 
disappointed that the Senate version of this emergency spending bill 
has been loaded up with extras, like a Christmas tree, many 
nonemergency items which may threaten the enactment of these important 
funds for families and for Bosnia. While the bill before us today also 
has some nonemergency items, the open process under which we will 
consider the bill today will provide the whole House with the 
opportunity to fully and openly debate these important issues.
  After hearing testimony up in the Committee on Rules yesterday for 4 
hours from over 50 witnesses, the Committee on Rules has presented the 
House what I would describe as a very fair and open rule that allows 9 
additional amendments to be offered to the bill, in addition to any 
amendment any Member of the House may wish to offer under the regular 
amendment process.
  In this light, I urge my colleagues to support this important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill originally designed to 
provide flood relief to the people of the Midwest who have lost their 
homes, who have lost their businesses and have lost personal 
memorabilia.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Midwesterners who are waiting for 
this flood relief are not going to get it, at least not yet. Because, 
Mr. Speaker, despite opposition from the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, despite a veto 
threat from our administration, my Republican colleagues have decided 
to attach a poison provision to this bill that effectively says, ``Stop 
us before we shut the Government down again.'' This provision says that 
our Republican colleagues do not think that they can keep the 
Government open this year any better than they did last year.
  This provision does not belong in emergency disaster relief 
legislation, Mr. Speaker. The people of North Dakota, the people of 
Minnesota who have suffered floods and fires, some of their stories 
really belong in the book of Job. They deserve the Federal relief that 
every single one of us wants to give them, and my Republican colleagues 
should not put politics in the way of helping them put their lives back 
together.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, to dooming flood relief, this bill first 
helps, then hurts, mothers and small children who need nutrition 
assistance. Last night my Republican colleagues changed their mind and 
agreed to rewrite the bill to include full funding for WIC nutrition 
programs this year. But, Mr. Speaker, it stops there. This bill could 
end up cutting 500,000 women and children from that same program next 
year. I am glad to see my Republican colleagues did away with their 
proposal to cut 180,000 women and children from the WIC nutrition 
program this year, but next year we will have even more American 
children and more pregnant women who badly need this nutrition 
assistance, and my Republican colleagues will not let them get it.
  In the Committee on Rules yesterday afternoon, they joined us in 
restoring this year's funding for this very important program that 
supplies pregnant women and young children with milk, eggs, cereal, 
formula, et cetera. But by allowing the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas] to offer his amendment, my Republican colleagues will be 
locking in WIC and education funding at last year's level, which will 
cut one-half million women and small children from this program next 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, it will also keep 86,000 children from Head Start, 
360,000 students from Pell grants for college or job training, and 
71,000 fewer adults from adult education.
  Mr. Speaker, education is the American people's No. 1 priority. I 
think my Republican colleagues are making a big mistake by restricting 
its funding. We were not sent here to take bottles away from babies and 
Head Start away from toddlers, even if it is not until next year.
  In terms of this rule, we are in a bad position. This rule is 
attached to a self-executing temporary WIC funding measure, and I hope 
that we will be able to reverse the course in time for next year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when, oh when, oh when will we stop playing politics on 
the floor of this Chamber?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. That is what I would like to know.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, last year this Congress was criticized for shutting down 
Government. In an attempt to try to be responsible and to try to work 
with the President of the United States, we are incorporating into this 
legislation today a continuing resolution. I am no fan of continuing 
resolutions. As a matter of fact, what this means is that Congress and 
the President have not done their jobs when we finally get around to 
having to have a continuing resolution. If Congress did its job, we 
would pass the 13 appropriation bills funding all branches of 
Government and that would be the end of it. But the truth of the matter 
is that last year when the President and the Congress could not agree, 
the Government was shut down. This is an attempt to keep the Government 
open. That is exactly what it is.
  Just to explain that, we have 13 appropriation bills that provide for 
the funding of this Government of ours. If one of those or two of them 
or three of them are not signed into law by the beginning of the fiscal 
year 1998, which is this September 30, it means that there will be a 
continuing resolution that will provide for the funding of those 
branches of Government for which we could not reach agreement. That is 
exactly what a continuing resolution is. It means that come September 
30 if we have not agreed, we are not going to shut down the Department 
of Transportation or the Defense Department or any other department. 
That is all this does.
  When we held this hearing yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we had 
good Members from the Republican side and from the Democratic side. We 
had the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], who has 72,000 Federal 
employees coming up and asking us for a continuing resolution. We had 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who represents another huge 
number of public employees coming and asking for the same thing. We had 
Republicans like the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] asking for the same thing. 
This is an attempt to keep this Government moving should we not have 
reached agreement on all these issues. We ought to have less posturing 
around here and let us get down to the business of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this 
time, and I associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this modified open rule. The 
rule provides for consideration of this legislation, which as we have 
heard is extremely important, in a timely manner and without 
restricting the right of Members to have their say in the process. That 
is obviously a delicate balance but I am very pleased with the final 
product we bring to the body to vote on, and I congratulate the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, for his leadership 
on this.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill continues the tradition begun in the last 
Congress of

[[Page H2602]]

paying for the supplementals. While commonsense by the standards of 
most Americans, the idea of actually paying for new emergency spending 
was foreign to past Congresses. Before the new majority, the old 
practice was charge it and send the bill to the kids. That was the 
wrong thing to do. This is the right thing to do, and I commend the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman, and his 
committee for making the very hard choices necessary to keep our word 
with the American people.
  Finally, we must acknowledge the Americans who have been dealt such a 
severe blow from the floods. Yesterday I met with the mayor of Grand 
Forks and other local officials in that area who are working overtime 
to put their lives back together, and the lives of the people they 
represent.
  They did not ask for any special treatment or sympathy. They just 
want a fair disaster hand right now to help them rebuild their 
communities, which are obviously devastated. They actually have a 
different view than our committee on how best to deliver the money, and 
this rule accommodates them by allowing the gentleman from South Dakota 
[Mr. Thune] to offer his amendment, I suspect helped by the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. 
Pomeroy].
  As a Floridian, I know the terrible personal tragedy that comes with 
a flood, hurricane, or other natural disasters. We have them, too. With 
this bill, we have assumed our responsibility to our friends in the 
Midwest while not forgetting the American taxpayer. This is a good 
bill, it is a good rule, it is going to be fair and open, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to reiterate and I question my dear friend from New York 
when he says he is working with the President on this. The President 
has said in a letter he sent to the Committee on Rules that he will 
veto this if the CR is in the bill. The CR is in the bill. This is not 
cooperating with the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Here we go again.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear on the majority side of the aisle in their press 
conferences that they are all for bipartisan cooperation with the 
President, all for trying to work things out and being constructive. 
But then they bring a rule and a proposition to the floor which invites 
and indeed guarantees a White House veto. What this does in my view is 
to give the back of the hand to the President. It rejects cooperation 
with the House Democrats on a wide range of issues, and it virtually 
assures weeks and weeks of delay in getting needed assistance to the 
people who have been the victims of floods and natural disasters all 
over the country.
  The rule does a number of things which I think Members ought to know 
about. First of all, it has a self-executing rule on WIC so that after 
more than a month of the majority party trying to cut in half the 
administration's request for WIC, it now has a self-executing provision 
in the rule that guarantees that there will not even be any debate on 
WIC, in order to cover their tracks on the issue, I guess. At least 
that is the way it appears to me.
  Then they have a provision on the FEC. The administration originally 
requested $1.6 million for the FEC so the FEC could pursue campaign 
finance violations investigations and also to provide for an upgrade of 
the FEC computer system.

                              {time}  1100

  First the committee itself said, ``Oh, no, no. No money for 
investigations. You can only use money for computers.'' Then the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] announced that she wanted to 
offer an amendment to restore the ability of the FEC to pursue these 
congressional finance investigations. And so what did they do? Rather 
than have a debate on the issue, they have deep-sixed the whole thing 
because in this, if my colleagues vote for this rule, they will be 
automatically knocking out all of the additional funding for the FEC. 
Nice, nice job.
  Then they have amendments that they are putting out that are 
guaranteed to produce a veto. First of all, the CR amendment that is 
being proposed does nothing but turn every single remaining 
appropriated program in the budget into an entitlement, that is all it 
does, and it becomes the Bureaucracy Supremacy Act of 1997. It 
guarantees that there will be no further choices by Congress. It 
absolutely eliminates the pressure for compromise between the two 
parties. It guarantees status-quo Government across the board. That is 
some leadership.
  Then they have a provision being offered by the distinguished 
gentleman from New York which again virtually guarantees a veto. We, 
under a time limit of 10 minutes, are asked to consider his amendment 
that would totally reorder our national strategy on dealing with 
weapons of mass destruction in the Soviet Union, and based on 5 minutes 
of arguments on each side we are supposed to throw into the junk heap 
the Nunn-Lugar legislation which has, at the cost of less than one B-2 
bomber, helped us to get rid of some 4,500 nuclear weapons within the 
former Soviet Union.
  Tell me whether or not it is responsible for this country to make 
that kind of major decision on the basis of 5 minutes' token debate on 
each side of the question. I think it is laughable.
  Next they propose an amendment which would in the view of the 
Pentagon endanger the security of American troops in Bosnia by sending 
a specific date for a pullout, congressionally mandated. All of us 
might like to see the troops out by that date, but I see no sense in 
advertising to every potential adversary in Bosnia exactly what the 
date is, after which they can behave like the irresponsible characters 
that so many of them behaved like before the American presence there.
  It has a number of provisions which, far from helping the situation, 
make matters worse in terms of our ability to get needed aid to the 
States who need it. The gentleman from New York said, ``When is 
politics going to stop being played on this floor''; indeed that is the 
question that ought to be asked. This rule is chock full of politics. 
These amendments are chock full of politics. It seems to me if there is 
a desire on the majority side of the aisle for bipartisan cooperation 
that a good number of these amendments that the administration itself 
has defined as poison pens would simply not be offered.
  Mr. Speaker, the way to get together on a deal is to get together on 
a deal. This CR amendment, simply it is the old saw of someone crying 
out in the wilderness, ``Please stop me before I kill again.'' We do 
not need this CR provision in order to stop the Government from being 
shut down. We need a new attitude on the part of this Congress; that is 
all we need.
  I would urge opposition to this rule, and I would urge opposition to 
the bill itself so long as it contains these egregious provisions. If 
my colleagues vote for this proposal, they will be slowing down the 
delivery of needed relief to those areas of the country who have 
disasters, they will be slowing down the assurance that we need to get 
to those folks who we are trying to help by restoring Federal support 
for needy immigrants for the 1-month bridge that is needed until the 
new budget agreement takes care of the problem.
  So I would urge Members who are interested in bipartisan cooperation 
to vote against this rule, vote against this bill, have the Committee 
on Rules go back up and bring us a rule that is truly bipartisan, not 
one designed to create further confrontation with the White House.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman doth protest too much. He knows 
that this is an open rule, and to stand up and to ask people to vote 
against an open rule I just think is wrong, but the gentleman is 
entitled to his opinion.
  But let me just say this. Where is the Democratic leadership here 
today? I want them on the floor, and I want them to tell me and this 
side of the aisle that they are opposed to a continuing resolution when 
I am on this floor, and say it now, and also say that they have got the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] and they have got the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I would think that they would want to come over 
here and protect the 100,000 Federal employees and hear the

[[Page H2603]]

opposition from their side of the aisle opposing this continuing 
resolution. I just think this is outrageous.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, just briefly.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out his leadership is not 
on the floor. Where are they? It would be nice if they were providing 
some help in getting us together rather than pulling us apart again.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would say to the gentleman I am a part of the 
Republican leadership, and we are here represented. Let us get the 
gentleman's side over here as well.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the very distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] for incorporating full funding for the WIC program 
in this proposal, and we are doing the right thing here. This should 
not be a partisan issue, and with the full funding I think Congress is 
saying no, we are not going to take food out of the mouths of little 
babies and WIC is off limits.
  I would also like to say with the concerns of some of my Republican 
colleagues, please do not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. WIC is a 
program that works, and it works in the longer term and actually saves 
Federal money.
  I will have more to say in the general debate, but I do appreciate 
the fact that the committee has taken this out of the partisan position 
and given bipartisan support for this very essential program.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and want to extend my 
thanks to Chairman Solomon and the Republican leadership for their 
attention to funding for the Women, Infants, and Childrens Program. 
This rule does the right thing by bringing the WIC Program to full 
funding.
  This should not be a partisan issue and with this full funding, 
Congress is saying: ``No. We are not going to take food out of the 
mouths of little babies. WIC is off-limits.''
  The Congress cut funding for WIC last year significantly--$150 
million. The Department of Agriculture estimates that full funding for 
the program requires $76 million. This rule provides that figure in 
this supplemental.
  This self-executing amendment would draw on NASA funding--the 
national aeronautical facilities account--to offset the $38 million. We 
are rescinding spending for our space agency to ensure that our 
children are provided for here on Earth.
  I would like to address the fiscal concerns that I know will be 
raised by some of my Republican colleagues.
  Don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  The WIC Program is a program that works and, in the longer term, 
actually saves Federal money. For every $1 used in the prenatal segment 
of the WIC Program, Medicaid saves untold moneys and gives healthy 
productive lives to these children that cannot be measured in dollars 
and cents.
  WIC works. It reduces the instances of infant mortality, low birth 
weight, malnutrition, and the myriad other problems of impoverished 
children. The WIC Program also provides valuable health care counseling 
for expectant mothers for both mothers and children.
  In recent months Time and Newsweek magazines have written feature 
articles on the importance of the years from birth to age three. These 
articles validate long-standing research based on up-to-date studies of 
prenatal and early childhood development. WIC funding is a big part of 
the future development of these infants. Let's not be penny-wise and 
pound-foolish.
  This $38 million for the WIC Program is truly an investment. A wise 
investment, at that.
  Without this $38 million, we could see another 180,000 women and 
children dropped from the program.
  Mr. Speaker, don't we ever learn? This is the wealthiest Nation in 
the world and yet, children still go to bed hungry.
  Again, WIC should be fully funded and should be off limits. Only, 
then will we preserve food for hungry babies.
  I want to extend my thanks to several of my colleagues who were 
instrumental in restoring full funding for WIC.
  Marcy Kaptur of Ohio has been a long-time champion of the WIC 
Program. Frank Riggs of California is the chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee and we will be working closely to reform and protect WIC 
when we reauthorize.
  Together with Jack Quinn of New York and many other colleagues, the 
WIC Program wins today. That means women and children--and the 
taxpayers--win today.
  I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Moakley], for the time, and I want to start by 
commending the gentlewoman from Ohio, [Ms. Marcy Kaptur], and the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], for working so hard on 
trying to restore the money for the women, infants and children program 
that is such a wise investment for this country.
  I do have some deep concerns about this rule, Mr. Speaker. I believe 
that through the self-executing aspect that we will not be able to 
debate this WIC Program for as long or as thoroughly as we probably 
should. So I would encourage my colleagues on both the Democratic side 
and the Republican side to oppose this rule.
  I would say about the WIC Program, however, that as I joined in 
special orders and 1-minutes to say that the Republicans through 
cutting $38 million of this program in the Committee on Appropriations, 
finally they have come around, better late than never. This is one of 
the best bipartisan Government programs ever created. It is an 
investment in our children, it is an investment in our families, it is 
an investment in balancing the budget. To have cut $38 million from 
this program would probably cost the taxpayers about $120 million later 
on through Social Security disability payments that would have robbed 
from children through all kinds of social costs and welfare costs. 
Finally, after many mistakes, we have restored this money.
  Why is this a great investment? Because milk prices are up, the 
caseload is up for children and for women, and we have problems in 
terms of making sure that we get resources to these women in their 
efforts to make sure they deliver healthy babies.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very, very important that we get 
this $38 million restored. I encourage bipartisan support for the WIC 
Program. However, I do have concerns with the self-executing part of 
the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe what I am hearing here, because to 
defeat this rule would slow down this process, and they are going to 
prevent these moneys from going to people that need it desperately, and 
they need it today, not next week, next month.
  We are about to adjourn for an entire week coming up here after this 
coming week, and if my colleagues defeat this rule, there is no way to 
get this back on the floor and even deal with this issue.
  Second, if my colleagues vote against the rule, they are voting 
against increasing WIC funding by $38 million. They better think about 
that. Those funds are needed.
  To speak more eloquently to that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], someone whose 
constituents are suffering by the day, by the hour, and they want 
action on this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding, and indeed it is the amendment of the gentleman 
from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] that I care so deeply about.
  I am speaking in favor of this rule. In doing so I understand I am at 
odds with people in my own caucus whom I deeply respect. It does not 
happen often, particularly on ruled debates, but I think it is 
important to remember that at the heart of this bill is disaster relief 
for people who desperately need it. I do not think there is a group in 
the country that is as desperately in need of the relief in this bill 
as those in the district I represent, the State of North Dakota, and 
particularly the region of Grand Forks, ND.
  No one can remember when a city of 50,000 has gone entirely under 
water, but that is the circumstance, tragically, that happened to us 
when the Red River, which has a flood stage of 28 feet, finally crested 
at 54 feet, almost double the flood stage.

[[Page H2604]]

  We need the relief that the amendment of the gentleman from South 
Dakota [Mr. Thune] offers to this package. It is allowed under the 
rule. Frankly, it concerns me that non-disaster relief amendments are 
also pending, and throughout the afternoon I intend to vote against 
each and every extraneous matter that might impede this bill. But let 
us address it amendment by amendment. Let us not take this whole 
package off the floor and put it away for another day.
  Let me tell my colleagues exactly what is at issue. We have in North 
Dakota homeowners that face enormous costs of repair to their home 
before they can even move back in: $20,000 $30,000 $40,000. Their homes 
are in the floodway. If they throw that kind of investment back into 
their home, they may have to cash out and move their home in a year 
because of the arrangements being made to make sure this flood never 
happens again.
  Only by the passage of the Thune amendment and package of the 
disaster supplemental bill in its ultimate enactment do we get back the 
ability for people in Grand Forks to buy those homes, get them out of 
the floodway, give these people the means they have to room their 
lives. That is why, as the chairman suggested, it is important to move 
this disaster supplemental bill forward, it is important to move it 
immediately, it is important it be considered today, which is why the 
rule must pass so we can get under way with getting relief to people 
who need it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman who just left the microphone. 
We should take prompt action on it. But the Republican action of 
putting the CR in the bill, which is going to guarantee a Presidential 
veto, is not the way to put prompt action on this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez].
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased that the Committee on 
Rules realizes the importance of providing much needed additional WIC 
funding, I am disturbed by the politics of it. I am the ranking member 
on the committee that has jurisdiction over this program, and more than 
that, I visited several WIC programs in my district, and I know full 
well the value of this program to the women and children. Fortunately, 
the leadership of the Clinton administration and my Democratic 
colleagues have convinced the House to provide the extremely additional 
funding needed. However, I am extremely dismayed by the partisan 
bickering that kept us until the 11th hour to be convinced of the 
importance of adequate funding. Had my colleagues known the possibility 
of an amendment being offered by the distinguished Member from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur] has been discussed for over a week and this issue has 
received much attention since an amendment was defeated along party 
lines in the Committee on Appropriations.

                              {time}  1115

  I ask, why is it that it has taken the majority so long to see the 
importance of ensuring that the WIC Program can serve a full case load, 
and now the Members from the other side are supporting it. But I am 
troubled by the obvious partisan politics being played with the 
Nation's children and mothers.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], who really is the sponsor of the WIC Program, but 
her amendment was not allowed and the Republicans put some other 
person's name on the WIC bill, and the gentlewoman actually is the one 
that we look to for leadership regarding the WIC legislation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley], my distinguished colleague, for yielding me this time.
  I wish to say that I rise in opposition to this rule and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the 
rule.
  As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, let me 
point out to my colleagues that the only reason that the bill appears 
the way it does this morning is that the Republican majority has been 
embarrassed, embarrassed into including WIC funding to serve the 
current level of recipients. Over 180,000 women and children were going 
to be eliminated from this program, based on the votes taken on the 
record at the subcommittee level and the full committee level.
  I am usually not this partisan, but boy, this morning I am. They are 
so embarrassed at what has happened at the subcommittee level and the 
full committee level, they have hidden, attempted to hide their voting 
record and their handiwork inside this bill through a self-executing 
rule that will not permit us even to talk about WIC on this floor.
  Now, let me set the record straight as to who has been fighting for 
America's pregnant women and children. At the subcommittee level, not 
one Republican voted for WIC support at a level to serve current 
beneficiaries. Every single Republican voted to cut over 180,000 women 
and children from that program this year. Every single Democrat voted 
to protect pregnant women and vulnerable children in need of decent 
nutrition. My colleagues can look back at the voting record at the 
subcommittee level.
  Then at the full committee level of appropriations, of 34 Republicans 
out of a 60-member committee, only 2, only 2 voted to protect America's 
at-risk women and children. Only 2 out of 34. All Democrats voted to 
protect America's women and children.
  So the Republican Party, fearing a backlash, as they should, have 
tried to cover their tracks inside this rule, and how have they done 
this? They have muzzled the debate process through the self-executing 
rule and have moved funds from NASA accounts, if anybody here cares 
about NASA, into the WIC Program, but nobody has had a chance to even 
think about or debate at the subcommittee or full committee level where 
that money is supposed to come from. If it is coming from the wind 
tunnel projects, how is that going to affect our NASA exports, which is 
one area where we really do have a positive trade balance.
  In any case, I just wanted to set the record straight this morning 
and say we understand what is going on. We understand what is going on, 
and we understand the games they are playing, and my colleagues should 
be embarrassed.
  I just have to say I am sorry that the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], my friend and the chairman of the Committee on Rules, had to 
be strong-armed into this by the red-faced members of his own party. I 
am proud to be a Democrat this morning. I am proud to have been a party 
that fought for America's women and children at every single level.
  I also have to say, because I do not think she could say it for 
herself, I really think if anybody's name in the Republican Party 
should be associated with the WIC Program, it should be the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. Hers should have been the lead name 
because she was the one that circulated the letter on the Republican 
side of the aisle. I do not want to get her into trouble, but she 
should not be a second-stringer on this, she should be right up here 
with me today. It is too bad that a member of the Republican Party has 
to be handled that way.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote against the previous question and against the rule. 
We should be able to debate the WIC Program on the floor of this 
Congress.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I really take exception to what my good friend, and she is a good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] said about this 
amendment, because she and I work so closely together on so many issues 
when it really means family values, and I am a little surprised.
  Let me just say this. I have the amendment of the gentlewoman that 
she filed with us, and it is the identical amendment that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Early Childhood, Youth and Families, they both filed the amendment. The 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] was a second

[[Page H2605]]

amendment, I believe, that she had filed, and so we incorporated, self-
executed into the rule exactly what she is asking for.
  I do not think we need to talk about pride of authorship here, we 
need to get the job done. That is what I am attempting to do, is to 
recognize everybody in this effort. I commend her for all of her hard 
work on it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, whom I have great 
respect for.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is mutual.
  I understand what has happened here. In a way it is laughable, but in 
a way it is truly sad, because I remember the debates in subcommittee, 
I remember the debates in full committee, and I have to say that the 
amendment that we submitted was very different in terms of where we 
took the initial funding. We were trying to be somewhat flexible when 
we came before the committee. We feel that we were hijacked in the 
process, but I really feel that the name of the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] should be on there.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is the Kaptur 
amendment and I would be glad to submit it for the Record so that 
everybody could see it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families, for an additional explanation because he has done 
outstanding, yeoman work on this WIC Program and other programs that 
affect our families.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me this time.
  As I listened to the teeth-gnashing coming from the other side of the 
aisle, I am reminded of one of Ronald Reagan's favorite sayings: There 
is no limit to what an individual can accomplish in life, provided they 
do not mind who gets the credit.
  Let me say at the outset, I served on the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee in the last Congress. I am fully aware of the concerns 
associated with the administration of the WIC Program. There are 
questions on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle regarding 
why this program needs a $100 million carryover from 1 fiscal year to 
the next; why this program has spin forward and spinback provisions in 
the law; why the administration has now requested a $100 million 
contingency fund in their current budget proposal pending before 
Congress for this program, again, given the fact that it already has an 
estimated $100 million carryover.
  However, the time and place to debate these concerns, and perhaps 
make structural reforms to the program, is when we take up the 
authorization of WIC this fall in the authorizing Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families, which I chair, not in the context of a 
supplemental appropriation.
  So the reason that I offered my amendment, which is made self-
executing under this rule, is to put back the $38 million which the 
administration claims they need to serve current enrollees in the 
program, with the provision that we will look at all of these policy 
issues in the fall again when we take up the reauthorization of WIC and 
the other child nutrition programs.
  That is where I am coming from. This is not some sort of partisan 
rivalry. I do not understand why we have to turn this into yet another 
partisan food fight in the Congress. There is bipartisan support for 
the WIC Program, there has been historically for the WIC Program over 
the years. Members of both parties are concerned about reducing the 
number of low weight births and the number of birth defects associated 
with inadequate nutrition during pregnancy.
  So again, I take issue with what the gentlewoman has said, I thank 
the Committee on Rules for making my amendment self-executing, and I 
urge support of the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the outstanding 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just point out that the 
gentleman from California who just addressed this House never appeared 
before the subcommittee. The gentleman said he served on the Committee 
on Appropriations before.
  When the WIC issue was being hotly debated in the subcommittee, the 
gentleman never walked in the door. When we were debating this in the 
full committee, the gentleman never made his appearance. And when his 
colleague from his side of the aisle circulated the letter on WIC, he 
never signed the letter saying that he supported the current level, a 
level of funding to support current recipients. So it seems to me the 
gentleman truly is a Johnny-come-lately to the battle.
  As far as holding hearings this fall, the problem is the people being 
cut off today, not next fall. That is why we need the supplemental 
appropriation bill passed with that money in there. Waiting until next 
fall does not solve the current problem we are having, which goes to 
prove the gentleman really does not understand the program to begin 
with and what this fight is all about.
  I think to ice out one of your colleagues who has fought this hard on 
the issue is truly a disgrace to the institution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry as to 
whether or not the gentlewoman's words are a violation in regards to 
the Johnny-come-lately comments and so on, questioning the motives of 
the Member.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to that specific 
parliamentary inquiry at this time. Does the gentleman make a point of 
order?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I make that a point of order, the same 
comment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman making a point of order 
that her words be taken down?
  Mr. McINNIS. No. I will withdraw the point of order.
  Is it my understanding that the Chair will not take a parliamentary 
inquiry at this point in time, or the Chair will accept a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond specifically to a 
parliamentary inquiry as to whether her words were out of order.
  Mr. McINNIS. But in general?
  Mr. Speaker, let me ask, in general, is it in order to engage in 
personalities on the House floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule is that Members may not engage in 
personalities in debate.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the State of Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Along with the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek, the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the gentleman from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clay 
Shaw, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Nancy Johnson, and many 
others, we have been working on a bipartisan amendment to extend SSI 
benefits until September 30, and we are glad to see it in this bill.
  The Supplemental Security Income program, SSI, is designed to help 
the poor who are elderly, disabled, or blind. These folks who receive 
SSI now but are not U.S. citizens, even though they are U.S. residents, 
would normally be receiving their last SSI check very soon.
  August 22 is to be the last date of their availability for this very 
needed benefit. Now with this bipartisan amendment which is included in 
this bill, these poor, sick, elderly, law-abiding, legal U.S. residents 
will get an extension of this assistance.
  Through the leadership of the Republican Senator of New York, Al 
D'Amato, the Senate passed this SSI extension last week with an 
overwhelming vote of 89 in favor and only 11 against. On the House 
side, with the leadership of the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clay Shaw, 
and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jerry Solomon, these poor 
residents will also now get the same extension.
  This will give the Social Security Administration and other Federal 
agencies the time to implement changes in the benefits that we hope to 
be making soon, if we are successful in passing the balanced budget 
amendment and the plan which will restore Federal benefits for all 
legal U.S. residents who get now SSI benefits.

[[Page H2606]]

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, as a Representative and a resident of the 18th District 
of Florida, I encounter on a daily basis constituents who are legal 
residents who have resided in this country for many years, who have 
paid their taxes, many of whom served this country, whose children and 
grandchildren were born in this country, and who live in fear, constant 
fear of that August 22 date when their Social Security supplemental 
benefits, for many of them their basic sustenance, will be eliminated.
  How, then, do we justify this elimination of these benefits to those 
who are eligible? Congress is going to do the right thing to vote for 
the people, protect the people, and this bill does exactly that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. The 
Republican National Committee ought to be sending roses this morning to 
the Republican leadership of the House. The $1.7 million in emergency 
funding requested by the Federal Election Commission to conduct 
investigations has somehow disappeared. The only nonpartisan group that 
should be looking into these alleged abuses has just lost the funding 
it needs to get the job done.
  On the other hand, the Republican-controlled Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight just received $6 million to carry out its partisan 
probe. Now they have tied the hands of the only nonpartisan agency 
empowered to conduct an investigation and to find abusers.
  This is not their first stunt. Just last week the Committee on 
Appropriations actually granted the money, but tied it up by specifying 
it could only be used to buy computers, like the computers would just 
do the work themselves. Now the funding has just disappeared. First 
they give, then they limit, and now they take it away.
  I say to the Republican leadership, why are they doing this? Why are 
they taking the funding away from the one nonpartisan group empowered 
to conduct investigations?
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the fine and 
patient gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1990, while our fellow young 
Americans were being amassed in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, musket in 
hand, prepared to do battle when Desert Storm was about to erupt, the 
Government of the United States shut down. I ask the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] to recall with me, if he will, that here we 
are in Desert Shield, young Americans poised to do battle, and the 
Government of the United States shuts down. A Democrat Congress and a 
Republican President failed to agree on a budget and the Government 
shut down, while our young American colleagues, fellow citizens, are 
ready to do battle in Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful to contemplate even the possibility of 
the Government of the United States shutting down. It was organized and 
set into motion in 1789, and it was built to last forever. So long as 
time shall last, this Government of ours should never shut down. Yet, 
the people who oppose this rule actually favor the possibility of the 
Government shutting down. That is appalling to me.
  The CR that is part of the rule on which we are now passing 
consideration would guarantee that no shutdown would occur because of 
lack of will on the part of the Congress and the President to negotiate 
and agree to a final budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask every Member to consider this as a good government 
bill. This is one that guarantees the soul of our country remaining 
intact during a time of inability of the Members of Congress and the 
President of the United States to agree on a joint budget. This is not 
a partisan effort. We have had dozens of people contact us from both 
sides of the aisle, most notably the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Wynn], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and 
others who are interested in making sure we have a smooth transition 
when there is an impasse in budget negotiations, so we would never have 
the fallacy, the tragedy, the shame of the Government of the United 
States shutting down.
  I urge support of the rule, and particularly of the CR amendment, 
which I will be offering.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in answering the gentleman who just left the microphone, 
under the Democrats I think the Government shut down one day. Under the 
Republicans it shut down for 6 months. Government shutdowns can be 
averted by negotiation, but when one party does not want to negotiate, 
that is when the Government shuts down. I do not think that this is 
necessary in this vehicle. If they want to talk about it and discuss 
it, I think there are other vehicles that can be addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning as a supporter of a fully funded WIC 
program, and want to commend our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur], for her passion and leadership on this issue.
  I had hoped also this morning to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], but he has been called away from 
the floor, so I will make my point now and hope that he will get back a 
bit later and be able to make his point.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue is the deficit reduction lockbox, which, 
sadly, is not in order under this rule. A lockbox, as my colleagues 
know, assures that amendments cutting spending from appropriations 
bills are translated into savings, not reallocated to other spending. 
To quote from a current movie, ``Show me the money,''--lockbox shows us 
the savings.
  The House has on three occasions overwhelmingly passed the deficit 
lockbox, twice as amendments to appropriations bills and once as a 
freestanding bill. Regrettably, the other body failed to match our 
efforts and this measure died with the adjournment of the 104th 
Congress. If lockbox has been enacted during the fiscal year 1997 
appropriations process, almost $1 billion in spending could have been 
locked away for deficit reduction.
  The lockbox is a very simple mechanism, and will help restore fiscal 
responsibility to this body. I regret that the Committee on Rules could 
not make it in order as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations 
bill, but I hope that the chairman and the full committee will work 
with us, a bipartisan group of Members, to make it a regular part of 
the appropriations process, starting with the first appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
just felt compelled to come down to the well one more time and clarify 
for our listeners, and especially, of course, for our colleagues who 
will be making a decision on the rule here momentarily, just, again, 
the background behind my appearance before the Committee on Rules to 
offer my amendment to add an additional $38 million for funding for the 
Women, Infants, and Children Program during the current fiscal year, 
and why that was made self-executing under the rule.
  I want people to understand, and I cannot believe the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is actually suggesting that the chairman of an 
authorizing subcommittee cannot engage constructively with an issue 
like that. What kind of precedent would that create in the House? What 
kind of sour grapes have we heard down here? There is a majority party, 
there is a minority party.
  I suspect if the gentlewoman, who has served in the Congress for a 
number of years, goes back and searches her memory she might just 
recall a precedent when the Democrat Party as the majority party 
allowed a Member of the majority party who demonstrated an interest in 
this issue to take the lead.

[[Page H2607]]

  That was not intended to exclude other parties. We made an effort. We 
reached out to the gentlewoman. We reached out to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] 
as well to make our efforts bipartisan. So how do bipartisan efforts 
ultimately get reduced down to another political food fight down here 
on the House floor, with people squabbling over who gets credit and one 
colleague referring to another colleague as a Johnny-come-lately.
  Let me not stoop to that level. Let me offer the gentlewoman the 
opportunity to testify before our subcommittee this fall when we take 
up the reauthorization of WIC and the child nutrition program, so that 
together, in the best spirit and tradition of bipartisanship, we can 
address the concerns regarding the management of the program.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I would be 
delighted to appear before the gentleman's subcommittee. I thought it 
was very curious that when we were holding hearings on the WIC Program 
the gentleman did not appear before our committee, when 180,000 women 
were cut from the program by the gentleman's party.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that yesterday the 
Committee on Rules heard testimony from three Democrats who are in 
support of the automatic continuing resolution, talking about an 
amendment. One of them spoke very eloquently, I thought, on its 
effectiveness at the State level, and we should keep that in mind.
  Second of all, I think the key issue here is to get assistance to the 
women and children that need it, and not spend our very valuable time 
on this House floor arguing about the pride of authorship, which is 
exactly what I think has occurred on the other side of the aisle. I 
think it is best to step over that, and let us discuss the rule and let 
us pass the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to revisit the issue raised by 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] on the Crapo-Harman-Foley 
amendment for lockbox. Clearly, when I came to this Congress I had made 
an attempt to save money for the taxpayers from a wasteful program in 
this Chamber. We saved $25 million on one issue, but that money then 
became freed up for spending in another boondoggle program, so all of 
my work and effort in saving the tax dollars was swept away in one fell 
swoop by a person seeing free-up capital.
  The lockbox, much like a savings account, would allow us to earmark 
that money for deficit reduction. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Harman, myself, and the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, have had very, 
very good meetings with the gentleman from New York, Chairman Solomon, 
and others who agree with us on the premise of a lockbox, but now it is 
time to enact this mechanism to save dollars for the taxpayers, just 
like American families who decide they want a nice vacation. They 
forego expenditures and save that money up in an account, so at the end 
they can move forward in their life. Lockbox will provide fiscal sanity 
and integrity for the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] is recognized for 6\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that I will take the full time. But 
let me simply observe, we have had a budget deal announced by the 
President of the United States and the leadership of this Congress. 
That has been met with varying degrees by enthusiasm by different 
Members of Congress, and yet, whether we are for or against that budget 
deal, I would hope that every responsible Member would like to see a 
bipartisan attitude develop for the consideration of that and all 
others that we deal with this year.

                              {time}  1145

  It seems to me that a very important place to start with that 
bipartisan attitude is on this bill. I do not think we further that 
cause when this House inserts into this legislation provisions which 
they know the White House has already announced are poison pills.
  I do not much care which party gets credit for some of these 
provisions that we are going to be debating in the bill today. I do not 
think that either party gains or loses when we provide aid to regions 
of the country that are in distress. I think the country gains, and I 
think those regions gain.
  There is no partisan approach to disaster relief, and I personally 
was happy to see that there will be an amendment offered that tries to 
restore community development block grant funding to the disaster 
package which this Congress is going to support. I supported that 
proposition in the committee. We were stopped from, we were asked by 
the majority in the committee not to provide an amendment at that time. 
They promised they would keep an open mind during the process to see 
whether or not a consensus could develop around it, and that has 
happened. So the Thune amendment is going to be offered, and I think 
Members will see bipartisan support for that amendment and a number of 
others.
  I think it is especially dangerous for the House to insert totally 
extraneous material, including an amendment which would virtually trash 
the program which has enabled us to eliminate 4,500 nuclear weapons 
that were formerly existent in the former Soviet Union. I do not see 
any reason on God's green Earth why we ought to do that, especially on 
the basis of 5 minutes of discussion on both sides. That is simply too 
serious a matter to be handled in such a cavalier and thoughtless 
fashion.
  I also think that it is going to do nothing but delay this 
proposition when we add to that the CR provision which the White House 
has already indicated it is going to veto. And I do not think it was 
fair at all in the way the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] was 
treated on the WIC amendment. I find it interesting that some of the 
same folks who originally said that we were being disingenuous when we 
produced the numbers that indicated that we needed the full funding for 
WIC, those are some of the same Members who are now saying, ``oh, gee 
whiz, we have to support this through a self-executing rule.''
  I would also point out that this bill is not going to be paid for. 
When it left the committee, it was at least paid for on the budget 
authority side, but because of actions taken in the Committee on Rules, 
which they had a perfect right to take, this bill, in fact, will not be 
paid for on either the outlay side or the budget authority side as it 
leaves the House. I do not think that helps in getting aid to the areas 
of the country who most need it.
  I very regretfully urge that we vote against the rule so that the 
Committee on Rules can bring us a better rule which will deal with the 
WIC problem, which will deal with the immigrant problem, which will 
deal with the other disaster problems, but which will be stripped of 
most of the extraneous material that can only slow this much-needed 
proposal down.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me.
  I would say there are natural disasters and there are human 
disasters. Certainly a human disaster is one when we cut WIC programs 
that affect thousands of children and thousands of expectant mothers. I 
would just say to the Committee on Rules chairman and Members on the 
Republican side, why did they not allow a bipartisan amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] to share the credit, to allow debate rather than 
having a self-executing rule which will gag debate and limit the 
credit.
  I am delighted that the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is 
going to help us later on in the fall, but we have an immediate problem 
right now with

[[Page H2608]]

caseload and milk prices and a freeze on disability benefits for 
children. The problem is right now. I hope in a bipartisan way we would 
give credit where credit is due to the Members that have worked so hard 
on this.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply note that this rule also denies to 
the Republican chairman of the Committee on Appropriations the right to 
offer a very thoughtful and fair-minded substitute on the amendment to 
be offered on Bosnia. I think that alone is a very good reason to turn 
down this rule.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and 
urge Members to vote no on the rule; among other reasons, because it 
has a self-executing procedure that denies us an opportunity to debate 
WIC.
  It is not a bipartisan effort. It does not allow us to fully consider 
what is being done in the bill to tap NASA funds and shift those 
dollars to other places. I find it amusing but sad that there are some 
who are trying to hold this baby close to their breast but they were 
nowhere to be seen when the babies were dying in subcommittee and full 
committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say again, there has been a lot of conversation about the 
WIC Program in here. I will just say one more time to my very good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and she is a good 
friend, that we have taken her fallback position which takes the 
funding, the increased funding for WIC, and pays for it out of NASA 
funds. Here is the amendment. This is an identical amendment to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. We tried to self-execute into 
this rule the names of both the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] to make it bipartisan. Now 
there is some complaint about it. Nevertheless, it is in the bill.
  Second, let us talk about this continuing resolution for a moment, 
because again we all know that the Government was shut down 2 years ago 
and the American public were upset over that. This is an attempt to 
make sure that that does not happen again.
  If the President has changed his mind and he does not care about the 
Government being shut down, he can veto this supplemental bill. If he 
does, the bill will come back and no doubt we will take the continuing 
resolution out. Then it will be the responsibility of the President if 
the Gvernment is shut down. I do not know how much more fair we can be 
than this.
  Let me just say that the rule is an open rule. It is an open rule, 
plus we have made amendments in order, some of which may be offered, 
and some may not. I understand now that the Bosnia amendment may not 
even be offered, and it may be postponed and dealt with in the defense 
authorization bill. If that happens, I am opposed to that, but 
nevertheless, if that is the consensus viewpoint, then we would not 
offer the Bosnia amendment. And we would deal with that in coming weeks 
when the defense authorization bill comes up.
  Other than that, this is a totally open rule. It means that any 
Member of Congress on either side of the aisle can come and offer 
amendments to cut. They can offer amendments to add. They can offer 
amendments to cut and offset, but they are not being deprived in any 
way. That is why Members of Congress should come over, for one reason 
and one reason only, they should come over and vote for this rule, 
because it will expedite these moneys going into these areas.
  I can guarantee my colleagues that 13 Republicans from the State of 
New York are going to vote to help those people in North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and Minnesota that have been deprived, that have been hurt by 
this flooding, because we know that sometime the shoe may be on the 
other foot and we may be needing to ask for help, too, just as South 
Carolina was when there was a hurricane that went through, just as 
California was helped when they had the earthquakes. We need to help 
each other.
  Having said that, I would like every Member to come over to the floor 
and vote for this rule, which increases funding for WIC by $38 million, 
which is exactly what the President requested. We put it into the rule 
at his request. Come over here and vote to give these people this aid.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rulemaking 
in order the fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill. I must oppose it because this rule does not protect section 601 
of the committee-passed bill.
  For nearly 117 years, Crane & Co. has been awarded the contract to 
provide the Bureau of Engraving and Printing its currency paper. I 
certainly do not hold Crane & Co. at fault for that.
  However, in fiscal year 1988, a provision of law was added that 
required the Department of Treasury to purchase currency paper only 
from American-owned firms and that the paper be manufactured in the 
United States. The report language accompanying the fiscal year 1988 
continuing resolution stated that the company must be 90 percent owned 
by American citizens--a provision that essentially guaranteed that the 
family-owned Crane & Co. in Dalton, MA, would be the only company that 
could, under interpretation of this report language, compete for the 
currency paper contract. This provision would not allow American-owned 
companies that are public to compete because it is possible there may 
be greater than 10 percent foreign interest in the stock.
  During the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 hearing cycles, the Treasury 
Subcommittee heard from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing that the 
1988 report language limited competition for the procurement of paper 
and increased costs to the taxpayer. So, in report language which 
accompanied the fiscal year 1996 appropriation for Treasury, Congress 
promoted competition for the procurement of currency paper by 
clarifying that American-owned should include companies that are over 
50 percent American-owned.
  However, the Treasury Department, in a clear attempt to politicize 
this issue, caved into Massachusetts interests and determined that 1996 
report language does not supersede 1988 report language. I ask my 
colleagues to think about the implications of this Treasury General 
Counsel decision which says subsequent report language cannot alter 
earlier report language--a decision that states when Congress gives 
agencies direction through report language, the administration does not 
have to abide by that direction.
  Thus, we find it necessary to include section 601 of this bill to 
enforce the 1996 congressional intent through binding bill language.
  I am outraged that this rule does not protect section 601 and will 
allow only one company to compete for the procurement of currency 
paper. All American-owned companies--not just Crane & Co.
  My colleagues should know that the Treasury Department Inspector 
General has been conducting an audit of contracts between Crane & Co. 
and the BEP for over 5 years. Not until this week did Crane open up its 
financial books to the IG who is trying to determine if the taxpayer is 
getting the best value on procurement of currency paper. We have reason 
to believe that the profit margin for Crane & Co. is as high as 20 
percent--far exceeding the normal rate for Government contracts. In 
1996, Crane & Co. agreed to a $9.7 million settlement with the BEP over 
unallowable costs which it had charged against previous contracts. This 
settlement--by itself--should be proof that competition is needed to 
ensure the best price to taxpayers.
  There are more reasons why section 601 should be protected in this 
rule, but I am confident that this matter will ultimately be resolved 
in favor of competition between American-owned businesses, and in favor 
of taxpayers.
  I want my colleagues to know that, although this issue seems to have 
died with the supplemental, it won't be dead for long. I fully intend 
to pursue open competition among American-owned companies for the 
production of our Nation's currency and I will not stop until I have 
succeeded.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is important 
here is that the bill provides the full $76 million needed for the WIC 
Program to avoid cutting off mothers, infants, and children in the 
current fiscal year. This was done by a Rules Committee amendment that 
added $38 million to the original $38 million reported out of 
Committee--the very proposal that my Ohio colleague, Congresswoman 
Kaptur, and our colleague from New Jersey, Congresswoman Roukema, 
vigorously fought for over the past 2 months, with stiff resistance 
until this welcome change of heart on the issue. Due credit should go 
to Representative Kaptur and Representative Roukema for their hard work 
on WIC in this bill, and their strong support for WIC throughout the 
process. I thank them for ensuring that mothers and children are not 
thrown off the program and put at nutritional risk during the very time 
when other assistance is being scaled back.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H2609]]

  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 193, 
nays 229, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               YEAS--193

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Olver
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--229

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Buyer
     Cannon
     DeGette
     Flake
     Hefner
     Holden
     McHale
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Stark

                              {time}  1216

  Ms. ESHOO, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Messrs. PICKERING, SESSIONS, 
CHRISTENSEN, DAVIS of Florida, ROGAN, McINTOSH, Ms. GRANGER, and 
Messrs. NORWOOD, BRADY, GONZALEZ, and PARKER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COX of California and Mr. HERGER changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________