[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2687-H2696]
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 149 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 149

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 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. 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 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 the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment printed in 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 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. Collins). 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, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

[[Page H2688]]

                              {time}  1100

  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


                         Eliminating Landmines

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, in the 9 months between the declaration of 
the cease-fire last March and the signing of the final peace agreement 
last December, not a single shot was fired between the forces of the 
Guatemalan Government and the URNG guerillas. Nonetheless, the last 
death of the war took place just before the signing when a 17-year-old 
boy in San Pablo, San Marcos stepped on an antipersonnel landmine while 
walking home.
  In fact, every 22 minutes, someone is either killed, maimed or 
permanently disfigured by a landmine. Twenty percent of the victims are 
children. In Cambodia, where there are twice as many mines as there are 
children, there are 40,000 amputees resulting from landmines, and the 
figures continue to rise.
  The fact is that AP landmines continue killing long after the warring 
parties which laid them have settled their differences. Sometime early 
in the next century, the last victim of the Angolan civil war will 
probably be a child not even born when the war was fought.
  It is time for this Nation to take leadership and to write to the 
President and urge him to take the lead in implementing it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 149 provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 1469. It is called the emergency supplemental 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1997 under an open rule. In fact, 
this rule may be described as an open-plus rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate. It is equally divided 
and controlled between the chairman and ranking 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 
shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against the 
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2, which 
prohibits the unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general 
appropriation bill, or clause 6, prohibiting reappropriations in a 
general appropriation bill, of rule XXI are waived, except as specified 
in the rule, and I think all my colleagues are familiar with that.
  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 committees 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 authorizing committee 
objection was raised subject to a point of order, although there is a 
question whether a matter dealing with the U.S. Mint currency paper has 
the approval of all committees of jurisdiction. I personally have great 
concern with this matter being in this bill.
  As I read the bill right now, under existing law, companies that are 
allowed to bid to produce this paper that our American dollar is 
printed on have to be 90 percent owned by American citizens. This bill 
before us is going to lower that to 50 percent, and I do not know about 
the rest of you, but that raises tremendous concern to me because I do 
not want some foreign company, it might even be Lippo or some other 
Indonesian major conglomerate that might be coming in here and getting 
a bid on this. And it means that this print, even though the U.S. 
citizens might be more than 50 percent owning of this company, this 
printing may be done in Indonesia or someplace else. But what happens 
to security? What happens to counterfeiting? Have we really held 
hearings? Do we know what this is all about?
  Let me tell my colleagues something. There has been a lot of bad 
information put out on this, but my colleagues better know what they 
are doing or they are going to see counterfeiting running rampant 
throughout this country, and their dollar is not going to be worth a 
dime. My colleagues can tell I get a little exercised on this 
particular subject, but during the debate I might have a little bit 
more to say about that to some of our Republican colleagues on this 
side of the aisle.
  Now having said that, let us get back to the bill again. Specifically 
this rule leaves the following unprotected provisions relating to 
enrollment in the conservation reserve program, provisions establishing 
exemptions to the Endangered Species Act for disaster areas and 
unauthorized parking garage and rescissions of contract authority from 
the transportation trust funds. And let me tell my colleagues they 
better pay attention to that because what that might mean is that this 
bill is no longer paid for; and fiscal conservatives like me that came 
here 20 years ago and have been trying to bring some fiscal sanity to 
this country are expected to vote for this thing and it is not paid? My 
colleagues have got another guess coming.
  The rule also waives all points of order against each amendment 
printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules' report. It provides that 
these amendments may only be offered in the order specified. It shall 
be debatable for the time specified in this report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall be considered as 
read, shall be offered only by the Members designated in the report and 
shall not be subject to further amendment or a demand for a division of 
the question.
  Once these eight amendments have been considered by the House, the 
rule also provides, and this is very important, for consideration of 
the bill for further amendment under the 5-minute rule. What that means 
is the rule grants priority and 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 
rule. What that means is we could have clustering of votes to make it 
easier on Members to get some work done back in their committees or on 
the floor without having to run over here every 10 minutes and vote on 
a matter.
  The rule waives points of order against all amendments for failure to 
comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI which prohibits non-emergency 
designating amendments to be offered to an appropriation bill 
containing an emergency designation. I think all of my colleagues 
better pay attention to that too, because if they go down through this 
bill they will find that there is a lot of things in here that are not 
of an emergency nature, and my colleagues, get a hold of the Senate 
bill and see what kind of a Christmas tree they have over there and 
what we are going to be expected to vote on when coming back here on a 
conference report perhaps earlier this week.
  Finally the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 149 is similar to the rule 
considered yesterday, with three major differences. Are they listening 
over there? First, the rule makes in order as the first of the 
protected amendments a Kaptur-Riggs-Roukema-Roemer-Quinn amendment 
relating to the WIC Program. Secondly the rule drops from the list of 
protected amendments two amendments, the Gilman-Spence-Solomon 
amendment relating to Bosnia, and also it drops the other Solomon 
amendment dealing with the funding for the Nunn-Lugar Program. Again, 
we might get into this debate later on, but what we have got is $400 
million in a pipeline under Nunn-Lugar funding to help countries like 
Ukraine and Kazakhstan that have already been denuclearized. They do 
not even have any missiles pointed toward the United States with this 
$400 million in here to just hand out to them for whatever purposes.
  As I said yesterday, the bill is important, but there is a question 
of whether the bill is paid for. If that question remains at the end of 
this debate, I for one will not be voting for this piece of 
legislation, and I would advise other Members not to do so either.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H2689]]

  Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question on 
this rule. As the gentleman from New York said, some parts of the rules 
have been improved greatly, and I commend my dear friend, the chairman, 
for getting this new knowledge overnight and to improve the rule so 
that it is much more palatable to many of us. But some parts of the 
rule have been improved, but still, Mr. Speaker, others still need 
work, and if we defeat the previous question, we can get to work on 
those other parts.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with some of the changes my Republican 
colleagues have made to this rule. I am pleased to see the amendment to 
restore WIC nutrition funding for 180,000 women and children is now a 
freestanding amendment, and it gives credit, Mr. Speaker, it gives 
credit where credit is due. It is back to being called the Kaptur 
amendment, and justly so, because this Congressperson has worked so 
hard for so many years on the WIC Program, and it is justly named the 
Kaptur amendment, and that is the way it should be. Mr. Speaker, I 
thank my chairman of the Committee on Rules for acknowledging this and 
amending the rule to include it.
  But I am not pleased that the currency provision has been protected 
from a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think a lot of my colleagues 
agree with me and it is very important that American money should be 
made by Americans and made in America. Under this provision our money 
can be made overseas, and I am afraid that some countries might make 
just a little bit more than we order. So I hope that the previous 
question will be defeated and we can make those changes.
  But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, despite the changes and despite 
the greater number of votes this rule will get more than its 
predecessor, it is still headed nowhere, and that is the real shame of 
this whole matter, because Grand Forks, ND has been all but destroyed 
and its residents deserve every bit of help that we can give them not 
next week, not next month, but right now.
  But my Republicans colleagues have added a poison pill to the 
midwestern flood relief which all but ensures its doom. The poison 
pill, Mr. Speaker, is an automatic continuing resolution which is my 
Republican colleagues' way of saying please stop us before we shut down 
the Government again. My Republican colleagues do not trust themselves 
to get the Federal spending bills finished in time, and they are trying 
to get out of their constitutional responsibility to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, this automatic continuing resolution will cause all 
sorts of serious problems. For instance, each month, each and every 
month, it will keep an average of 500,000 women, infants and small 
children from getting food under the WIC Program. It will cut college 
aid by $1.7 billion which means that 375,000 students will be 
eliminated from the Pell Grant Program. It will also cut educational 
services for over 483,000 children and will cut up to 56,000 children 
out of the Head Start Program. It will keep 60,000 veterans from VA 
medical care. Mr. Speaker, the list just goes on and on and on.
  President Clinton has said in no uncertain terms; in fact a letter 
that he sent to the Committee on Rules yesterday stated that he will 
veto this bill if it contains an automatic continuing resolution, and I 
think that these students, these veterans, and these pregnant women 
will all agree with them. But this did not stop my Republican 
colleagues from inserting the automatic continuing resolution in this 
bill. Mr. Speaker, badly needed flood relief is no place for political 
gains, particularly when it endangers so many, so many important 
programs.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if the 
previous question is defeated, I will move to strike this poison pill, 
the automatic continuing resolution and the provision that threatens 
our children, threatens our students, and threatens our veterans, and I 
will expose the currency provision to a point of order in order to 
ensure that American money is made in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, once again I am just kind of taken aback by the 
statement of my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley]. He seems to be saying that we Democrats are opposed to this 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, during the hearing we held we had a number 
of Democrats come before the committee and ask us for this continuing 
resolution because they remember when 2 years ago the Government was 
shut down on two separate occasions for an extended period of time, and 
a lot of workers were put out, were put out of Federal workers were put 
out of work without pay, and this is an attempt to see that that does 
not happen again. We are actually trying to help the President, and 
that is why this continuing resolution which funds all matters that 
have not been dealt with after September 30 of this year, it keeps the 
Government functioning at this year, this current fiscal year's level 
of spending.
  Mr. Speaker, what more could one ask for?
  I doubt very much if the President is going to stand up and reverse 
himself, although he has been known to do that before, and veto this 
bill because there is a continuing resolution. If he does, I guess we 
would have no other choice but to bring it right back, repass it 
without it, but then, Mr. Speaker, whose fault is it going to be if the 
Government shuts down?

                              {time}  1115

  It is going to be the President of the United States of America, and 
I do not think that Mr. Clinton wants that to happen on his watch. I 
certainly would not think so.
  Having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the sponsor of this continuing resolution.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am astounded at the gentleman from Massachusetts. He deplores the 
fact that if we, in this continuing resolution, make sure that last 
year's programs would be funded at 100 percent, that the veterans, Head 
Start, and other programs will suffer. I ask him whether he, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], would agree that a shutdown 
causes a 100-percent cut in all of those programs. That is, if the 
Government shuts down, women, infants, and children get nothing in 
their programs. The veterans get nothing in their programs. The 
students get nothing out of the Pell grants. That is a 100-percent cut 
in their programs because of the possibility and actuality of a 
shutdown.
  My legislation is a good Government effort to prevent shutdowns 
forever. When our Founding Fathers in 1789 established this country, 
this Nation, this Government of ours, they proceeded to be for all 
time. We cannot tolerate a shutdown of 5 minutes, let alone 1 day or 20 
days.
  When the Desert Storm fracas began with Desert Shield, right in the 
midst of Desert Shield while our young people were over there with 
musket in hand ready to do battle, our Government shut down at the 
hands of a Democrat Congress and a Republican President who could not 
agree. Recently, a Republican Congress and a Democrat President could 
not agree, and the Government shut down again, a 100-percent cut, I say 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts, in all of the programs so near and 
dear to his heart and which he related now as being endangered by the 
continuing resolution.
  We preserve 100 percent funding from last year's appropriations, 
preserve Head Start, preserve women and children, preserve the 
veterans, preserve the students. And the gentleman from Massachusetts 
does not see, as I see, that a shutdown destroys those programs, puts 
people out of work, cuts the stream of funding to our Head Start 
children, cuts the stream of funding to our veterans, destroys the 
capability to deal with Head Start because the President and the 
Congress could not agree.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Government never has to be shut down if people negotiate in good 
faith.

[[Page H2690]]

 The last time there was a political decision made to embarrass the 
President, it backfired. We are not going to put this on automatic 
pilot, because what we do is we freeze the budget at last year's 
status, which means that they do not grow as a result of more people 
getting on those programs and inflation, and I think it is a bad idea. 
We can negotiate and we can come to a conclusion so Government does not 
have to be shut down.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my friend and the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, says that he is trying to do the President a 
favor. Well, if he read the same letter I read, the President said, one 
does not have to read between the lines, the President said that he 
would veto this matter if the automatic continuing resolution was 
included. It cannot be any simpler than that.
  Now, I do not know if my friend across the aisle has a crystal ball 
or tea leaves, but that is what the letter said.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, because I have all 
of the press clippings of 2 years ago when the President complained 
vehemently. I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts, why do we 
not go to the White House, and the gentleman from Massachusetts can get 
the appointment, and why do we not go and discuss it with the President 
and let us clear this matter up.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman 
admit that he received a letter from the President stating that he 
would veto this bill if this were included?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, yes; 
but I will say to my good friend, he knows that that was an 8-page 
letter, which is highly unusual. So one has to read between the lines, 
I would say to my good friend.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what lines the gentleman has 
read between, but I would just say, do not read between the lines, just 
read the lines.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Let me say that I think this rule is considerably improved from 
yesterday for the following reasons: First of all, it no longer 
contains the extraneous and, in my view, extremely misguided provisions 
which would have dragged this emergency proposal into a protracted 
argument on Bosnia and also would have effectively eliminated a very 
large amount of funding for the Nunn-Lugar program, which has 
eliminated 4,500 nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. I think it 
is not in the national interests of the United States for us to have 
bogged this bill down in either debate.
  The primary purpose of this legislature ought to simply be to get the 
emergency aid contained in this bill to the people who need it the 
most, and we should not drag in extraneous issues. I am pleased that as 
a result of the rule going down yesterday, adjustments have been made 
to eliminate those two provisions.
  I am also pleased that we have been told that in conference that the 
McKeon amendment, which is expected to be added, will be fixed so that 
we have a more equitably balanced commission to review the question of 
long-term rises in college tuition costs.
  I am also pleased to recognize that the amendment restoring full 
funding for WIC will be debated and that it will be offered by the 
person who has carried the ball on that issue for so long, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  I think there are still some problems with this rule, however. I do 
not personally intend to ask for a rollcall on the rule, I hope no one 
else does on our side of the aisle either. But we do intend to 
demonstrate our unhappiness with the rule by asking, as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts said, that my colleagues vote against the previous 
question so that we might offer an amendment that eliminates the 
protection in the bill for the otherwise nonlegitimate language with 
respect to U.S. currency printing and also, and most importantly, will 
eliminate the waiver of the rule, clause 2, rule XXI, without which 
this most troublesome amendment on a permanent CR could not in fact 
even be offered, because it is clearly not germane to this bill.
  Now, the question is asked, why are we against adding this proposal 
to this bill? For two very simply reasons: First, because it will again 
engage us in a protracted debate and it will prevent the emergency 
assistance from arriving in North Dakota, South Dakota and other areas 
where it is needed; and I think that that should not happen.
  Second, if that provision were to be adopted, as I say, it is not 
even germane under our normal rules. If it were to be adopted, what it 
would do is to reward Congress for inaction, it would enshrine thee 
status quo as permanent policy in the U.S. budget policy.
  What it would do, for instance, is to see to it that initiatives 
which are recognized on both sides of the aisle that need to be taken 
in the area of education or in the area of strengthened medical 
research at NIH would be wiped out. And yet the old, outmoded programs 
which the Congress has determined that we ought to cut below last 
year's level, those programs will still be protected. That is not a way 
to produce an intelligent budget. It is Government without thinking, it 
is Government without action.
  As the Washington Post said this morning in its editorial, the effect 
of this amendment would be to lock in place a new norm in which an 
agency's appropriation would be frozen from year to year unless 
Congress acted to raise or lower it. Because of inflation, the freeze 
is equivalent to a cut each year in real terms. The President wants the 
issue to be debated anew each year in the same way it has always been. 
The no-shutdown provision is an attempt to load the dice without quite 
saying so, a forcing device that has no place in a bill whose main 
ostensible purpose is to provide food relief in the Upper Midwest.
  I would simply say, lest there be any doubt about it, the President's 
message contains the following sentence: The President has indicated 
that he would veto the bill if such a provision were included in it. 
That is the direct letter which we received, statement of 
administration policy from the Executive Office of the President.
  So I would simply say, what we are going to be asking people to do is 
not to object to the rule itself, we will be asking people to vote 
``no'' on the previous question on the rule so we can eliminate what we 
consider to be two illegitimate waivers of the rules. If we eliminate 
that, we eliminate much of the controversy in this bill.
  Second, if the CR amendment is adopted, we will then be asking 
Members to vote ``no,'' because we feel that all that is, in addition 
to having all of the faults I just described, its major short-term 
problem is that it will simply delay for a significant period of time 
our ability to deliver the emergency aid to the parts of the country 
who need it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we not follow what has unfortunately 
become an all-too-regular process in this place of loading up these 
emergency supplemental with items that do nothing except slow the 
package down. This bill will not become law if that provision is 
attached to it. We ought to recognize it. If we are interested in 
bipartisan cooperation, that cooperation ought to start before 
legislation is brought to the floor, not only after we go through a 
protracted process, which incurs several vetoes and prevents needed aid 
from going to the States who need it so badly right now.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], one of the outstanding Members of this body 
from Miami, and he has an extremely important amendment that will be 
offered a little bit later on this bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is known how strongly I feel about the right 
of legal, taxpaying immigrants in this country to be treated in a 
nondiscriminatory way with regard to the receipt of programs, the 
eligibility for programs as essential as Supplemental Security Income.
  I am very pleased that the Committee on Rules has made in order an 
amendment, with the support obviously of the gentleman from New York

[[Page H2691]]

[Mr. Solomon] but also the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
the ranking Member, and the support of the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, an amendment 
to restore for the duration of the fiscal year the eligibility of legal 
immigrants in the United States to receive Supplemental Security 
Income.
  We owe a very special debt, Mr. Speaker, of gratitude to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] for fighting so eloquently, so 
selflessly and yet so tenaciously on behalf of this very vulnerable 
population that this amendment addresses.
  There are also a number of Members who have distinguished themselves 
for a long period of time fighting for this issue on behalf of this 
issue, on behalf of this very vulnerable population. This amendment 
would not have been possible were it not for the leadership and concern 
of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], as I have mentioned, the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], and the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] and others.
  I want to make a special recognition as well of the cosponsorship of 
this amendment and of the leadership and the critical support of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. He has been instrumental in making 
this amendment in order, in facilitating the process moving forward, 
and I wanted to publicly thank him as well for his cosponsorship and, 
as I say, his leadership.
  So I am very encouraged that this amendment did not receive any 
verbal opposition at all in the Senate. It was passed overwhelmingly 
with 89 votes in the Senate.

                              {time}  1130

  I look forward to a similar degree of support on a bipartisan basis 
in this House. I would hope that as contentious issues such as the CR 
question and others are debated, that issues such as those do not 
create a situation where a vulnerable population such as the legal 
immigrants of this country who are facing not a natural disaster, not a 
disaster by act of God, but rather by act of man, can be reassured 
today that they will be taken care of as the budget process takes place 
and a final solution is worked, a final resolution of this issue is 
developed for their tranquility and their benefit.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Collins]. The gentleman will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Was the President's message a veto on this bill if we do 
not knock out the continuing resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry the 
Chair can answer at this time. The message will be read in due course.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to read the statement of administration policy 
dated May 13, 1997, delivered to the Committee on Rules. On page 2 
under the title ``Automatic Continuing Resolution,'' and I quote, ``The 
President has indicated that he would veto the bill if such a provision 
were included in it.'' It does not need to be interpreted. That is a 
plain statement. That is what the President said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. Mr. Speaker, last night the 
Republican leadership ruled the bipartisan amendment I offered with the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], and the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. 
Roukema] to restore the Federal Election Commission funding and to 
unfence this money so it could be used for investigations out of order 
because the chairman said it was not an emergency.
  But what is more an emergency than restoring the faith of the 
American people in the election process? How can we restore credibility 
in our elections process when this same body, under Republican 
leadership, votes $12 to $15 million, including a slush fund, to the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for a partisan 
investigation, and then, on the other hand, turns around and denies the 
funding to the only nonpartisan, independent agency that is actually 
empowered to investigate election abuses, find election abuses.
  The Federal Elections Commission has come forward and said that they 
need this money to get the job done for the abuses before them. This 
money has been denied, yet this body has voted to give $12 to $15 
million to a partisan investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to appeal to both sides of the aisle 
to vote against this rule until we do the right thing, which is fund 
the independent agency that is empowered to investigate. They are only 
asking $1.7 million. They are saying they cannot get the job done 
unless they get the $1.7 million.
  Yet the leadership is denying them the money to get the job done and, 
on the other hand, voting for a slush fund and $12 to $15 million for 
the Burton partisan investigation. It is wrong. I would caution anyone 
not to vote for this rule until the funding for the Federal Election 
Commission is in the bill, and that the money is unfenced so that 
proper investigations can take place.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been around here a long time, and how many times 
have I sat here and listened to ``This only costs another $1.7 
million,'' or another $2 million.
  I would ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] how many times he 
has heard that?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Dan Burton], 
one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this body and a great 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, 
hundreds and hundreds.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill, is that an 
emergency funding matter? Look at the rest of what is in this bill, 
look at the Senate Christmas tree. How many times have we heard, this 
only costs an additional $1 million, $2 million, $3 million?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that 
the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, are not lost on the 
American people. They know that when you add $1.7 million, $10 million, 
$20 million, $50 million, pretty soon it starts adding up into some 
money. They get a little concerned about that.
  One of the reasons why the automatic continuing resolution provision 
at last year's spending level is so important is so we do not shut down 
Government, No. 1, putting a lot of people's jobs in jeopardy in the 
Federal work force, but in addition to that, to make sure that the big 
spenders in this place do not continue to escalate the cost of 
Government every single year, as they have in the past.
  If we cannot reach agreement on a spending bill, rather than shut 
down government, let us just fund it at last year's level for a while, 
100 percent of last year's level. That is not bad. We are not hurting 
anybody. They are still getting their paychecks. Government goes on. We 
are not cutting anything, we are just not increasing it. So the 
American people ought to know very clearly which side of the aisle 
wants to continue to increase spending, increase spending, more, more, 
more, all the time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the comments just made by the gentleman in the 
well were absolutely, totally incorrect. I would point out that one of 
the objections we have to this permanent CR provision is that it would 
also allow for the continuation of programs at 100 percent of their 
previous level, even if this Congress has a bipartisan agreement that 
these programs have outlived their usefulness, that they are wasteful, 
that they are low priority, that they ought to be reduced so you have 
more room for other programs that we have reached consensus on that 
ought to be raised.

[[Page H2692]]

  So this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with saving money. The 
only thing this amendment does is require the Congress to stop making 
tough choices. It requires the Congress to stop thinking. It puts 
Government on automatic pilot. It becomes the Bureaucracy Supremacy Act 
of 1987. It does not have diddly to do with saving one dime.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just tell the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely 
incorrect in his statement. He is trying to stand up here and say that 
if his Committee on Appropriations passes the Health and Human Services 
appropriation bill and it is signed into law, he is trying to say that 
that will be funded at something less than what is agreed to by the 
President.
  That is absolutely not true. Any appropriation bill of the 13 that 
are signed into law are not affected by this continuing resolution at 
all. It is only those appropriation bills that have not been signed by 
the President that would be affected by this continuing resolution, and 
would keep the Government functioning at 100 percent of this year, not 
last year or the year before, of this year's level of funding. That is 
a fact.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is going to quote me, I wish 
he would use my words rather than his. That is not what I said. I never 
indicated that this would apply at all to legislation which had already 
passed.
  My point is that with the bills that have not yet become signed into 
law, you require 100 percent funding, whether we want to continue 100 
percent funding or cut out those programs. Some of those old, outmoded 
programs that the Congress might like to eliminate or cut, this 
proposition requires that those programs be funded at 100 percent. That 
does not save any money, that costs money.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, which programs are 
those? I would like to hear them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, we are considering the rule on H.R. 1469, which is our 
emergency bill to assist victims of the floods in the upper Midwest. I 
rise to urge all Members to vote no on the previous question, as the 
ranking member of the Committee on Rules has urged us to do.
  I urge that no vote on the previous question because section 601 of 
this bill makes a major change in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing 
procurement law, a change which has not been considered by either of 
the authorizing committees that deal with such changes, neither the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], nor the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services, under the leadership of the chairman, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Clearly those changes in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing law are 
legislating on an appropriations bill and should not be part of this 
emergency flood victim relief bill.
  Section 601 does two things. First, it requires the Treasury 
Department to give capitalization subsidies to companies that are 
interested in becoming new suppliers of the American currency. 
Capitalization subsidies are cash payments for new equipment or a new 
facility to manufacture paper. They could reach as much as $100 
million.
  Second, 601 changes the legacy of my predecessor, the late 
Congressman Silvio Conte. The Conte law, adopted in 1989, requires 
American currency to be manufactured by companies that are no more than 
10 percent non-American owned, and 601 would allow the manufacturer to 
be up to 50 percent foreign-owned.
  That is not being done because American companies cannot compete. All 
of these solicitations are open solicitations. In fact, in the 
solicitation that just went out within this last month, I have a list 
here that 56 American companies, 56 of them, American companies who 
have been asked to compete and can compete on producing the American 
currency paper. The provision is really designed, and carefully 
designed, to allow the British currency maker, Thomas DeLaRue, to make 
the American currency.
  Thomas DeLaRue is a large company. It is more than a $1 billion 
company. It does not need capitalization subsidies to come from 
American taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, Thomas DeLaRue, that large 
British company, the maker of the British currency, has a monopoly on 
the supply of currency paper to the British Government. The policy of 
the British Government is that no American company, and not even any 
other British company, is allowed to bid on the British currency paper 
contracts.
  I think that the ultimate irony here of this combination of the 
provisions in section 601 of this legislation, the ultimate irony is 
that all of us are going to vote yes on an amendment that is being 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], which is a buy-
American amendment.
  Then we are asked, almost in the next breath, to allow capitalization 
subsidies that could reach as much as $100 million to go to the British 
currency maker so that they can make the American currency, albeit 
within the United States, that being a subsidy that goes to a very 
large company that is totally closed in its own processes within 
Britain.

                              {time}  1145

  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an extremely strange way 
to balance the budget. I think it is an extremely strange way to 
protect the integrity of the American dollar and the rest of our 
currency.
  I urge a no vote on the previous question so that the matter can be 
considered and hearings can be held by the committees of jurisdiction 
at the authorizing level, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tucson, AZ [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the Committee on Appropriations, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government, who would probably like to rebut this. I would be 
interested in what he has to say.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1469.
  I want to speak on the same contentious issue that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts spoke, about section 601, which at least in part caused 
the rule to fail yesterday.
  This provision would open up the bidding process in the Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing for the supply of paper, not the supply of 
currency, the supply of paper which is used in making the currency.
  Currently, and for the last 117 years, there has been only one 
supplier of that paper for the currency in the United States. We will 
have a full debate on this later when we get into the bill, and there 
will be a motion to strike this particular provision. And that is 
appropriate, because then we can have a debate on this issue.
  I just want to set the record straight on a couple of things. The 
chairman said earlier that there has been a lot of misinformation out 
there. He's right. I think there has been a lot of misinformation.
  The underlying bill that the gentleman from Massachusetts referred 
was authored by his predecessor, our late beloved colleague, Mr. Conte. 
It is Public Law 100-202, section 622. Section 622 of that law says 
that currency paper must be made by an American-owned company and it 
must be made in the United States.
  Neither of those provisions are being changed in section 601 of this 
bill. So this has nothing to do with ``Buy American'' provisions, which 
require that a product be made in the United States. That requirement 
applies here, and it must be an American-owned company as well.
  What this amendment would do is clarify something that we adopted 
last year, I might add, in recent language in our appropriation bill. 
What it would do is clarify that when Congress said American-owned, 
what it meant is that it had to be 50 percent or more

[[Page H2693]]

U.S. ownership. That ought to be an acceptable definition of American-
owned.
  We think that there ought to be more than one company that is 
permitted to bid on supplying paper. The gentleman spoke about 57 
companies to which the bid had been sent to. He did not say 57 were 
going to respond. Only one ever gets to submit a bid, and that's 
because of the way it is structured right now. We have had no 
competition in this process for the last 117 years, none whatever.
  And the fact of the matter is that I think, as the debate will bring 
out later here today, there is some real question about the current 
supplier of paper as to the amount of money they have been making, the 
amount of their profit and whether or not this is a reasonable profit 
given the fact that there is the possibility of having real competition 
here. We will be talking about that more.
  Let me make it clear, this does not change the underlying procurement 
law at all, does not change the provision that it has to be made in 
America, does not change the provision that it has to be an American-
owned company.
  One other thing I want to point out. It was said earlier that there 
had been no hearings. Here are some of the hearings that have been held 
in 1995, 1996, and 1997 on this subject. So there has been a lot of 
hearings held on this particular subject.
  We will get a change to refer to those hearings later. We will talk 
about the capitalization subsidy. All of that can be thoroughly 
discussed in this debate.
  I do not want anybody to be misled about this. We are not talking 
about foreign companies supplying our paper. We are talking about 
American companies doing it and making it here in America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support 
the efforts by my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], to deal with 
what I think is one of the more insidious provisions that I have seen 
contained within an appropriations bill in some time here on the floor 
of this House. To suggest that in an attempt to deal with the floods 
that have so devastated much of America that we are going to insert in 
some small area of this language an ability of the U.S. Government to 
come and provide a huge hidden subsidy to one particular company that 
is then going to have the ability to have ownership of this new company 
come from foreign lands, that is then going to go about printing our 
dollar bills, seems to me to be one of the most incredible attempts at 
trying to reach into the pork barrel of the taxpayer dollars that I 
have ever witnessed.
  The truth of the matter is that right now the dollar bill is made by 
a U.S.-owned company. The Treasury Department in many a meeting that I 
have had, I used to chair the Currency Subcommittee in the Congress, is 
very pleased with the work of Crane Paper. And for us to come in and 
create this huge new hidden subsidy program and try to stick it into an 
appropriations bill, I think, is unconscionable.
  If the basic provision is that, whenever there is a single-source 
contract that the U.S. Government has the capability of going out and 
providing a brand-new plant and equipment to anyone else that wants to 
come along and bid on that contract, I say, hey, maybe we ought to 
support that. But maybe we ought to support that for the guys that are 
bidding on the B-2 bomber. Maybe we ought to support that for people 
that are bidding on the M-1 tank. Maybe we ought to support that for 
the Bradley fighting machine. Maybe we ought to support that for all 
sorts of single-source contracts that go on in the Congress of the 
United States, not just one.
  I would go back to the fact that I have had several meetings with 
some of the highest levels of the membership of the Treasury Department 
who have indicated time and time again their support of the current and 
existing contract with Crane Paper. There has been no difficulty with 
Crane Paper. They feel that they are doing a good job. This is just an 
attempt by some group or another to come in and say, here is a contract 
that we, a foreign-owned company, can grab. We are going to ask the 
taxpayers of the United States to build for us, to pay us to build the 
new engraving machine. Then we are going to use those taxpayer 
subsidies to undercut a family-owned business that is doing a good job 
making the currency today. This is an outrageous pickpocket of the 
United States taxpayers' hard-earned money. I strongly oppose the 
provision.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune]. We are supposed to be dealing with an 
emergency supplemental here. One of the Members most affected by it in 
this Chamber or, I should say, his constituents is the gentleman from 
South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me the time.
  I thought as we had been going through this process, I have learned 
that we never take anything for granted. I hoped yesterday that we 
would be having a debate on this bill and then was very surprised to 
discover that the rule in fact had failed. I would hope that today we 
can pass the rule and get on with the business at hand, and that is to 
get badly needed disaster relief to those around this country including 
those in my own State who are desperately in need of it.
  We have worked very hard, and of course the Speaker of the House, the 
majority leader, and others of this body have toured to see firsthand, 
to have an appreciation for what we are talking about here. It is very 
important in my view that we get on with the business, and we have 
worked constructively in my judgment in a very bipartisan way to craft 
something that will bring badly needed assistance to the people in my 
part of the country as well as others.
  I would like to address a couple of questions that have been raised 
about our amendment because I think it is important that we clarify a 
couple of things. The first is there has been some question as to 
whether or not this is exclusive to the Midwest, and the answer is, it 
is not. If we will read the amendment, we will see that any area of the 
country which in this particular time period is afflicted by this type 
of a disaster or circumstance would be eligible for assistance under 
the amendment.
  The second thing I would like to address is there are some waivers in 
the bill. We have worked with the Governors, respective States, and 
local officials to come up with something that would provide them 
flexibility. There are some waivers that apply specifically to this 
particular disaster incident and also as well to this amount of money. 
We are not in any way changing the Community Development Block Grant 
Program in any way on a permanent basis.
  We have also done some things which I think tighten up concerns 
Members on my side of the aisle have had about this being misused. So 
the parameters are fairly narrowly drawn.
  Having answered those questions, I would be happy to answer other 
questions Members might have. But I would really hope that we can get 
on with this business and work in a very expeditious way. The clock is 
counting. We have mayors here from the affected areas who are waiting 
for this assistance, and I would hope that we can get to the passage of 
the bill today.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to do this at this time, 
but since the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] is here, I would 
like to get his attention to express a point of concern on his 
amendment.
  I do not intend to oppse the amendment of the gentleman when it is 
offered later on in the debate because on our side of the aisle we 
supported the President's original request for a supplemental 
appropriation for community development block grant funding, as well as 
funding for FEMA; and we were asked by the majority side of the aisle 
to withhold on that for the time being, and we did.
  I am happy that my colleagues have now seen fit to support the idea. 
But I am concerned about a couple specifics in the amendment. As I 
understand the

[[Page H2694]]

amendment, if reduces $1.2 billion for FEMA to $700 million, leaving 
FEMA with many valid claims on its disaster relief fund that it may not 
be able to pay.
  I would say, in general debate, I think there are a number of 
questions I need to ask the gentleman about his amendment, because if 
they are not fixed up in conference, they will cause a substantial 
problem for FEMA to FEMA's ability to deliver needed assistance around 
the country. So I would appreciate if the gentleman would be prepared 
to answer those questions.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Huntington Beach, CA [Mr. Rohrabacher], 
where they have the high surfs.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a lot of waves being 
created here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I will have to admit 
that there have been some arguments presented by the other side that 
deserve consideration today.
  One of my central reasons for supporting the rule is that it contains 
the Gekas amendment, and I know that some of my friends on the opposite 
side of the aisle oppose the rule for exactly that reason. The Gekas 
amendment is political insurance for the people of the United States. 
People have flood insurance and they have fire insurance and they have 
termite insurance. This is political insurance that the Federal 
Government will not close down because of the political impasse between 
the political parties.
  It makes all the sense in the world to ensure that the Government 
will continue even if there is a political disagreement of those of us 
on the floor, as happened in 1995, when we passed our appropriations 
bills; but because of the President's intransigence, he shut down the 
Government; and because of his ability to communicate, blamed it on the 
Republicans.
  This would prevent that scenario and that finger-pointing from taking 
place. However, let me add that I am very concerned that we will be 
providing $8 billion in this bill, $5 billion to flood insurance 
emergency funds, yes. That is understandable. Some more citizens are in 
trouble.
  But another $2 billion for Bosnia, $2 billion for Bosnia at a time 
when our Secretary of Defense is talking about closing down more 
military bases in our country? Our troops were supposed to be out of 
Bosnia a long time ago. Many of us did not want those troops in Bosnia 
in the first place. So that is very questionable.
  Of course, we have also questions raised on the floor today about the 
printing of the currency and whose company will be doing it, and I 
think those questions should be answered. But I will say that, overall, 
I will be voting for the rule. I think it is a good rule. But there are 
some questions that will need to be answered before I will support the 
bill on the floor.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and I oppose this bill 
because this emergency supplemental includes much more than 
emergencies. But, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, if there are going to 
be nonemergency items, then what was appropriated for the FEC, the 
Federal Election Commission, of $1.7 million should stay in this 
budget. This rule takes the money out.
  I strongly oppose taking out the money for the FEC if we are to in 
fact have nonemergency items in this bill. This rule would do that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware, Mr. Michael Castle, the former Governor of Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, and I will not take long here because this issue will carry on 
with this whole business of this section 601 and this applying for the 
paper of the currency of the United States.
  I have been involved with this argument as the chairman of a 
subcommittee that deals with this particular issue, and this issue is 
much more gray than it is black and white. Essentially what is 
attempting to be done in the legislation now, and the reason I support 
the rule, is it is an effort to make sure that we will have fair 
competition for this particular contract. It is as sole source a 
contract right now as we can have in the United States.
  There is a special sweetheart provision demanding 91 percent American 
ownership. This is far beyond the Traficant amendment. It would fit 
under the Traficant amendment the way it is trying to be fixed. It 
would still be an American-owned company that would have to do this, 
and it would be a company which would have its paper made here in the 
United States of America.
  What they are asking for, what they have had for several years now, 
is a super buy-America provision, and we are trying to eliminate that 
and provide a fair opportunity for everybody, including, I might add, 
the present contract with the Crane Paper Co.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Miami, FL, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, one of our great Congresswomen.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, several members of the south Florida 
congressional delegation have been working on an amendment that the 
Committee on Rules, under the leadership of the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Jerry Solomon, has made in order, that would postpone the 
August 22 cutoff date of SSI payments to U.S. legal residents and 
extend the payment of these benefits until September 30.
  My colleagues from Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart, and Mr. Clay Shaw, and many other Members of Congress have 
worked in a bipartisan manner to help legal residents who reside in 
this country legally, who pay their taxes, who came here seeking 
Democratic freedoms from tyranny or economic opportunity and prosperity 
for their children.
  It is these same individuals who are now members of our elderly 
population who live in terror that their sustenance, their SSI 
benefits, will be cut off. SSI benefits, as all of us know, apply only 
to those who are over 64 years of age, blind or disabled. They are not 
a free ride. They are a means of survival for our elderly and disabled 
who have no other way to sustain themselves.
  How can we, Mr. Speaker, as legislators and representatives of these 
same people, their children and their grandchildren explain to them 
that even though they have worked and paid their taxes and served their 
country they will have to fend for themselves?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I just want to say that I am very apprehensive anytime the gentleman 
from New York follows me, but I will try to make it.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer 
two amendments to the rule. The first amendment would remove the 
protection in the rule which would allow foreign companies to bid for 
the production of our paper for our currency.
  As I stated before, I believe that American money should be printed 
on paper made by American producers, and I feel that we in Congress 
have a duty to do all we can to make sure that our currency is printed 
on paper made in America.
  My second amendment, Mr. Speaker, would strike the waiver from 
amendment No. 7, which provides a continuing resolution. This emergency 
spending flood relief bill is not the place for these types of 
provisions.
  I urge Members to defeat the previous question so that we may fix 
this rule and move on to the vital emergency spending bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am providing for the Record information regarding the 
text of the previous question amendment to H.R. 1469.

            Text of Previous Question Amendment to H.R. 1469


                      supplemental appropriations

       Text:
       On page 3 line 4 of H. Res. 149, after ``waived'' add the 
     following: ``; except that points of order are not waived 
     against the amendment numbered 7 offered by Representative 
     Gekas and Representative Solomon''.
       On page 2 line 15 after ``15;'' insert the following ``page 
     25, lines 1 through 21;''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not

[[Page H2695]]

     merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the 
     previous question is a vote against the Republican majority 
     agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the 
     moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what 
     the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on 
     a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and, 
in doing so, let me just say that I have some concerns about this 
entire issue and how it is on the floor here today.
  But I just want all the Members to know, on both sides of the aisle, 
that this is a fair rule. It is a rule that allows any Member of this 
body to come on this floor and to offer amendments under free debate 
without any restrictions whatsoever under the rules of the House. So 
there is no question but what Members should come over and vote for the 
rule.
  As a matter of fact, on the continuing resolution, which seems to be 
some question, this is not in any way locked in. This is a freestanding 
amendment that will be offered, and every Member will have the 
opportunity to come over and cast their vote on this continuing 
resolution, which simply says that the Government will continue to 
operate should the Congress not deal with all of the 13 appropriation 
bills that fund the Government in the coming year. That, to me, Mr. 
Speaker, is certainly more than fair.
  I have two concerns about the bill itself, and that is that there are 
a lot of issues in here that did not deal in emergency funding at all; 
and, second, I am really concerned over this issue of the U.S. Mint 
currency.
  I want all my colleagues, when they come over, or if they are in 
their offices now, to read page 25 of the bill. In page 25 of the bill 
it says that we are lowering the requirement that companies that are 
successful in being able to print or make the paper that our U.S. 
dollars are printed on must be 90-percent American-owned, by U.S. 
citizens. Ninety percent. This lowers that to 50 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know how closely my colleagues have followed 
this, but I advise all Members to go upstairs here on the top floor and 
get some CIA briefings on what is happening throughout this whole 
country with this whole global economy situation. We have these 
megacompanies, some run by the Russian Mafia, others that are 
questionable that come out of Indonesia, others directly controlled by 
other foreign governments like China. I want my colleagues to 
understand what is happening here.
  We should all realize that if this is adopted and it becomes law, 
that any one of these sort of companies that I have talked about, 
Mafia-owned, that may be still U.S. citizens, that they can have access 
to this paper. What happens to counterfeiting? What happens to the 
value of the American dollar that people have worked so hard on?
  We need to start thinking about this. This is a matter that does not 
belong in this bill. It should be dealt with in an authorizing bill 
that comes before this House. That is only fair.
  Having said that, I want my colleagues to come over here and vote for 
this rule. It is a fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 196, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 129]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns

[[Page H2696]]


     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     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
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Berman
     Brown (CA)
     Hefner
     Hutchinson
     Mica
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Watkins

                              {time}  1229

  Messrs. OWENS, FLAKE, DAVIS of Illinois, McINTYRE, BOSWELL, and 
STARK, and Ms. PELOSI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WYNN, MORAN of Virginia, FORBES, and SMITH of Michigan 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269, 
noes 152, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               AYES--269

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Lampson
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brown (CA)
     Hefner
     Kaptur
     Kucinich
     Mica
     Peterson (MN)
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Watkins

                              {time}  1240

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________