[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.
____________________