[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2697-H2775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM 
  NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING 
                            THOSE IN BOSNIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 149 and rule

[[Page H2698]]

XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1469.

                              {time}  1244


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Combest in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to present to the House the fiscal 
year 1997 emergency supplemental bill, H.R. 1469, and I hope that the 
spirit of bipartisanship that has embraced the budget negotiations will 
carry forward on this emergency appropriations bill. This is the first 
bill the Committee on Appropriations has presented to the 105th 
Congress, and I look forward to a very productive year as we move 13 
appropriations measures forward.
  The bill, as reported, proposes $8.4 billion in new spending 
authority, fully offset, and I stress offset, by the rescission of 
previously appropriated funds and by including other offsets. Again, I 
say this bill is fully offset in budget authority.
  The supplemental bill before us provides the following major items: 
For disaster recovery we provide $5.509 billion; for miscellaneous 
appropriations we provide $113 million; and then we offset that 
spending with $5.622 billion of rescissions.
  In peacekeeping, in Bosnia and other areas, we repay the Pentagon for 
what they have already spent, $2.039 billion, and we offset that with 
rescissions of funds previously made to the Pentagon of $2.040 billion.
  Mandatory appropriations are included here as well in a third 
category, mostly for the veterans' pension benefits and other benefits 
for a total of $757 million.
  At the beginning of the 104th Congress, Republicans began a policy of 
paying for supplementals by rescissions of previously appropriated 
funds. I am very proud to say that, once again, the bill reported by 
the committee complies with this policy and is totally offset in budget 
authority. We have had to look far and wide for offsets to pay for this 
disaster recovery bill, as well as our international commitments in 
Bosnia, but I would hope that all of our colleagues would recognize the 
true national scope of this appropriations bill, and that finding 
different or substitute offsets of any major scope is nearly impossible 
this late in the fiscal year which began on October 1, 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, my objective is to get the disaster recovery money to 
the people who need it and to restore our national security funding to 
keep our troops safe and secure on the ground in Bosnia. Flood victims 
in some 35 States badly need the money in this bill. In addition, our 
troops in Bosnia and those men and women who have served our country in 
various wars are looking to us to pass this bill quickly as a sign of 
our support for them.
  So Mr. Chairman, the bill reported by the committee is an excellent 
disaster supplemental appropriations bill. It is one which enjoys 
tremendous bipartisan support, and there are now several amendments 
that, if adopted, could cause this bill to be vetoed. We are going to 
speak to them at the appropriate time, but I hope that the Members 
would understand that it is important that we get this bill on the 
President's desk and signed into law before we adjourn for the Memorial 
Day recess.
  So I hope that we will keep the bill clean and noncontroversial and 
that we will get it passed, conferenced with the Senate and signed into 
law as quickly as possible, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I would like to insert a 
table reflecting the programs and amounts in this bill, as reported. 

[[Page H2699]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.000

 

[[Page H2700]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.001

 

[[Page H2701]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.002

 

[[Page H2702]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.003

 

[[Page H2703]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.004

 

[[Page H2704]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.005

 

[[Page H2705]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.006



[[Page H2706]]


  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I am in the happy position of 
being able to say that at least as of this moment, unless we have 
amendments adopted that change the situation, I think we are at a point 
where we can have bipartisan support for this bill. I hope it remains 
that way.
  I would like to simply raise one concern I have about the Thune 
amendment. I had hoped that Mr. Thune would be on the floor. I had 
asked him to be here. I do not see him at this moment, but let me 
simply, because we will not have time on the Thune amendment, let me 
raise some concerns about it now.
  As the Chair of the committee understands, on the Democratic side of 
the aisle we were concerned about the committee decision not to provide 
community development block grant funding for the Dakota floods. We had 
urged that they do so. The decision was made by the majority party to 
withhold judgment on whether or not there ought to be any CDBG funding 
provided, and we respected that. Now I am happy to see that there will 
be an amendment offered, and I do not expect to object to it when it is 
offered today by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  I know that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and others are very concerned 
that that amendment pass, but I must say that there are some problems 
with that amendment that I believe are going to have to be fixed in 
conference.
  First of all, as I understand it, the amendment attempts to fund $500 
million in CDBG money by reducing the $1.2 billion contained in the 
original FEMA money to $700 million, which leaves FEMA with a very 
tight budget. I am concerned about the robbing Peter to pay Paul, the 
result that that might produce. I am also concerned that that amendment 
would run the risk of limiting the Federal response and delaying 
victims from receiving much-needed assistance through the regular FEMA 
account.
  In the Senate, the $500 million was added without reducing FEMA's 
disaster fund account, and I had hoped that we would be able to simply 
adopt that approach. I think it would be useful if we could do that in 
conference.
  I would also note that I am concerned because the gentleman's 
amendment apparently seeks to make permanent changes in law which would 
force the Secretary of HUD to waive the requirement that HUD's disaster 
assistance benefit only low- and moderate-income persons.
  I am also concerned about why it is necessary to force the Secretary 
to waive the requirement to hold local public hearings. I am also 
concerned that it appears to be the intent of the gentleman's amendment 
to allow HUD to make grants, not loans, to privately owned, for-profit 
utilities. I am actually unsure about what his intention is in that 
regard, and I would simply make this point: It has been Government 
policy that CDBG funds can be used to assist businesses damaged by 
disasters, to the extent that such businesses are declined loans by the 
Small Business Administration or because they need assistance above the 
SBA loan limits, and I am curious as to whether or not it is the intent 
of the gentleman in that amendment to change that long-standing 
practice.
  I hope that he can respond to those questions between now and the 
time that we deal with this in conference, because everyone wants to 
see this amendment go forward, but we want to see it go forward in the 
right way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Thune amendment is an attempt to provide maximum 
flexibility to the people who have suffered such devastation in the 
Dakotas and in Minnesota as a result of the flood. There was some 
concern that because the flooding was so extensive and had been on the 
ground for such a long period of time, that certain businesses and 
certain people who live in houses in that flood zone either would not 
come back or should not come back, and it has been hard to get a handle 
on exactly what should be done and whether or not the Federal 
Government, within the confines and restrictions of current law 
affecting FEMA, has the flexibility to deal with those questions.
  To his credit, the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] is 
attempting I think to answer some of those questions. Others in this 
Chamber, both on the Republican and the Democrat side, both the 
majority and minority side, have had different ideas on how to provide 
that flexibility, and I think this is an ongoing process. It is an 
ongoing process, so that we can talk it out and by the time we get to 
conference, hopefully we will provide the maximum amount of flexibility 
that really does help the people that need help, but without simply 
throwing the money at the problem and wasting taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I understand the gentleman's 
comments and agree with them. We do want to provide whatever amount is 
necessary through the CDBG process to enable them to meet their 
problems. We do also, because of our responsibility to the taxpayers 
and to other potential recipients from FEMA, want to make certain that 
in the process we do not hurt FEMA's ability to deliver aid. We also 
want to make certain that we do not unnecessarily make permanent 
changes in law that might come back to haunt us.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations for yielding time to me, and I hope I can do it in 2 
minutes. I want to commend the gentleman.
  I do want to say I was very disappointed, though, that the leadership 
in the Committee on rules chose not to protect from points of order a 
total of $1.6 billion in rescissions of contract authority. These 
rescissions are necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this 
bill is fully offset. Without them, this emergency Supplemental 
appropriations will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit, and I 
would have hoped, knowing that the gentleman has done such a good job 
and the committee did such a good job of offsetting it, that that would 
have been protected. I just thought it was a given, because we have 
been committed to making sure that all of this is offset.
  Second, and I have so much here, I would just submit it all for the 
Record, but I would say that I am concerned that the senate has added 
much more money in to this for highway spending to donor States, far 
beyond what the President or anybody else has even suggested that 
should be in. We wanted a bill that was totally offset, and now they 
have added so much more.
  Third, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations knows, and 
I would hope that we can resolve this matter, they have also basically 
put earmarking back in. This House, on both sides of the aisle, did 
away with earmarking. Some people call them pork projects, some people 
call them highway demonstration projects, others call them whatever 
they want to.
  As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive 
$21 million in additional highway aid funds in fiscal year 1997 and the 
State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money on one 
specific project, the Warrior Loop project.
  The House is well aware that we have gotten rid of these things, so 
therefore the other body has put in more money, well beyond what the 
President wanted, and at the very time both bodies are meeting, the 
budget committees are meeting, everyone is taking credit for reaching a 
balanced budget in the year 2002, yet we put more money into this than 
the President asked or anybody else asked for. So I hope as we get to 
conference both of these issues will be resolved.
  Lastly, this is not the place to rewrite ISTEA. The place to rewrite 
ISTEA is in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure this 
year.
  I again want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
for his outstanding job, and just hope that we can make sure this money 
is offset when we go back to committee.

[[Page H2707]]

  I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding me 
a few minutes so that I might discuss a few of the items in the 
Transportation Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  First, the chairman of the full committee needs to be congratulated 
for the yeoman's work that he has done in crafting this bill--an $8.4 
billion emergency supplemental bill that is fully offset. That was no 
easy task. He has been forced to make some difficult decisions and has 
done a commendable job under equally difficult circumstances.
  I am disappointed, however, that the leadership and the Rules 
Committee chose not to protect from points of order a total of $1.6 
billion in rescissions of contract authority. These rescissions are 
necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this bill is fully 
offset. Without them, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit.
  This action is disturbing and painful.
  In the area of transportation, the emergency supplemental bill 
includes $650 million in emergency highway program funds, $40 million 
for the FAA to procure additional explosive detection equipment, $22 
million for the National Transportation Safety Board, and $10 million 
for emergency railroad rehabilitation. These funds are needed 
desperately to respond to the devastating floods that occurred 
throughout our country this spring and to ensure safety in our skies.
  The bill also includes $318 million in additional fiscal year 1997 
obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway program. These funds 
were requested by the President and are intended to compensate those 
States that were given an expectation of what they would receive--a 
false expectation, based on an arithmetic error by the Treasury 
Department--which they then calculated into their State highway fund.
  The committee has been responsible and diligent in responding to the 
needs of the people in the flooded areas while being mindful of the 
desire of the American people to balance the budget and to offset this 
additional spending.
  I am concerned, however, that the other body has gone much further 
than is necessary or warranted. I want to alert my colleagues to the 
other body's actions on its version of the supplemental bill--
particularly with respect to two troubling issues. These issues have 
the potential to delay unnecessarily the emergency funding contained in 
this bill.
  The other body has provided a total of $933 million in additional 
fiscal year 1997 obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway 
program. Of this amount, $457 million was added to address the Treasury 
error that I alluded to earlier in my remarks.
  Moreover, the other body has provided almost a half a billion dollars 
more in additional fiscal year 1997 Federal-aid highway spending. This 
spending was not requested by the President and is not necessary as an 
emergency requirement.
  This funding has nothing to do with the arithmetic error. It has to 
do with providing a hold-harmless provision to donee States to address 
what the donee States now see as a problem in the highway authorization 
act of 1991.
  That act, ISTEA, contained a provision for donor States--those States 
that had traditionally received back substantially less than they had 
contributed to the highway trust-fund--that in the last year of the 6 
years of ISTEA authorization, which is this year, there would be 
inserted a 90-percent floor. That is, no State would get back less than 
90 percent of what it contributed to the highway fund. The 90-percent 
standard has been the holy grail of those States that have gotten less 
back than they have contributed to the fund.
  This program, the 90 percent of payments program, was part of the 
common understanding of the Congress and the States when President Bush 
signed the bill in 1991. It was the understanding of the donee States. 
It is now the law of the land.
  Well, now the donee States want more--more than what they have 
received in excess of their contributions over the last 6 years, more 
than what they would get under current law, more that what they are 
entitled to under ISTEA. The donee States would get a half a billion 
dollars more from the other body. This is not fair to the donor States.
  While the majority of the other body is represented by donee, States, 
the overwhelming majority of this House is elected from donor States.
  Mr. Chairman, this urgent supplemental appropriations bill is not the 
place--nor is it the time--to debate the donor/donee States issue. The 
reauthorization of ISTEA is the proper and appropriate legislation to 
debate this divisive issue.
  In addition to this item, the other body has taken the unprecedented 
step of earmarking seven highway demonstration projects from the funds 
provided to the States under the regular Federal-aid highway program.
  Rather than provide additional highway funds to the States without 
strings attached or to earmark funds in excess of the regular Federal-
aid highway program for specific projects, as has been the norm, the 
other body directs certain States to spend a portion--and in some cases 
all--of their Federal-aid highway fund on specific highway 
demonstration projects.
  As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive 
$21 million in additional Federal-aid highway funds in fiscal year 
1997. The State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money 
on one specific project, the Warrior Loop project.
  Now, under the provisions of the Senate's bill, the State of Alabama 
either uses its Federal-aid highway funds on this one particular 
project by the end of September, or it loses all of it.
  The State is afforded no elasticity as they have under current law.
  The process advocated by the other body will significantly change the 
manner in which the Federal Highway Administration manages the Federal-
aid highway program. It will also impact each of the States' ability to 
fund the projects of greatest need. And it eliminates the flexibility 
afforded the States and local units of government under current law to 
determine what project or program is best for them.
  This process undermines the planning process established by ISTEA and 
forces the States to give a higher priority on these projects than on 
other potentially more worthy projects.
  The House is well aware of our position on the earmarking of highway 
demonstration projects. As a result of not earmarking highway 
demonstration projects, the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation has been able to increase the Federal-aid highway 
program by almost $1 billion.
  In doing so, we have allowed the States and people at the local level 
to determine the appropriate use of these funds--not people here in 
Washington in their ivory towers.
  These issues are surely to be contentious in conference and I felt 
compelled to inform my colleagues at this stage of the process.
  I am afraid that a protracted debate on Federal-aid highway formulas 
and the underlying donor/donee State problem as well as the earmarking 
highway demonstration projects will delay the necessary funding to 
respond to the devastating floods that occurred this spring.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
1469, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, because it 
contains very important money for our region for the disaster that we 
just went through, a disaster like we have never seen in 500 years in 
Minnesota.
  In East Grand Forks, pictured here, in Breckenridge, in Ada, in 
Warren, and all the rural communities along the Red River, we were 
under water. Nobody can remember anything like this. We had snowstorms, 
ice storms, and then, last, the flood of 1997.
  There is the city of East Grand Forks, a town of 9,000 people, that 
got hit probably the hardest of any community in this flood. Everyone, 
the entire town was under water. It had to be evacuated because the 
water kept rising. In the end it just could not be stopped. Every 
street, every home, every business went under water, and the water did 
not go down for 2 weeks.
  In true Minnesota style, the people of Crookston, Thief River Falls, 
Red Lake Falls, Bemidji, and many other communities opened their doors 
and provided shelter and people to help us get through, and to help the 
people driven out by the floods.
  Now, although the water has receded, the damage and desolation that 
is everywhere is reminiscent of a nuclear blast. There are no children 
playing, and life is now just returning to normal. There is garbage and 
debris every place you look. People's entire lives are sitting on the 
berms waiting to be scooped up by payloaders. East Grand Forks has lost 
four of their six schools,

[[Page H2708]]

their city hall, their library, and neighborhood after neighborhood. 
Thirty-five to forty percent of this community is going to have to be 
rebuilt and moved to another part of the area so we do not do this 
again.
  Mr. Chairman, in all of the flood-ravaged communities in the Red 
River Valley, the challenge now is to rebuild. On behalf of all of the 
Minnesotans in the Seventh District, I want to thank the President, the 
Vice President, the Speaker, the majority leader and other Members who 
came out to look at the damage for themselves, and thank them for all 
the help they have given us to get to this point.
  The work of FEMA and the director, James Lee Witt, have been 
outstanding. I want to thank each and every one of the agency personnel 
who have been out in the Seventh District helping our people and 
communities get back on their feet.
  I also want to thank the National Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and 
the mayors. I thank them and I encourage everyone to support this bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I 
would like to urge our colleagues to do everything possible to expedite 
this bill. The money for the Department of Defense that we provide in 
this bill is offset from the Department of Defense budget. There is no 
new money here. It is basically a transfer within the department's 
funding. But if we cannot get this done expeditiously, the operation 
and maintenance accounts, the training accounts for all of the 
services, are going to be severely affected.
  I just urge our colleagues, however they intend to vote on the bill, 
help us expedite the consideration of this bill so we do not have to 
stand down any flight training or stand down any training on the part 
of any of the services, or affect any of the operations and 
maintenance, because that is what will happen if we do not get this 
funding resolution, this supplemental appropriations bills, through 
here quickly.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Reyes].
  (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today, but it 
was ruled not germane to the bill. The amendment would have provided 
for displaced workers affected by NAFTA, which I believe qualify for 
disaster relief. I appreciate the opportunity to enter my remarks, 
written remarks, into the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today but I've been told 
that, under the rule, my amendment is not germane so I'm not going to 
offer it but I would like to tell my colleagues about it.
  Last week, the New York Times ran a lengthy article about workers who 
have been dislocated by NAFTA. The dateline on the story was El Paso, 
TX, which I represent.
  Mr. Chairman, during the first 2\1/2\ years of NAFTA, Texas had 
almost 8,000 certified job losses as a result of NAFTA.
  More than half of those dislocated workers were in El Paso.
  Under current law, after these workers exhaust their unemployment 
compensation, they are entitled to cash benefits for 52 weeks while 
they are retraining.
  Many of these workers have exhausted those cash benefits and they are 
still jobless.
  My amendment would have appropriated an additional $10 million for 
these workers and extend their eligibility for benefits an additional 6 
months.
  My amendment would also have appropriated an additional $1.6 million 
for the retraining programs, which would bring the appropriation up to 
$30 million, the maximum amount authorized.
  Today we're considering a supplemental appropriations bill primarily 
for disaster relief.
  As far as I'm concerned, these dislocated workers need disaster 
relief, too. Unfortunately, under this rule, we're not going to be able 
to help them.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to these workers and I will be on 
this floor every chance I get to speak on their behalf.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank very, very sincerely the Committee on 
Appropriations chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations for their assistance in working up an appropriate 
disaster relief proposal, formed as the Thune amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have in North Dakota is an absolute disaster, 
the dimensions of which we have never experienced before. Grand Forks, 
ND, second largest town in the State, A town of 50,000, was under 
water, and the consequences of it are absolutely devastating for the 
businesses and the homeowners that reside there.
  What we are finding as we begin tackling the rebuilding component of 
this is the additional needs that are simply not met with the existing 
programs. For example, we literally have hundreds of homes in the 
floodway, a floodway that is proposed to be razed, and a permanent dike 
established so we do not have this problem ever again.
  These individuals need to know right now whether or not funds will be 
available on a home buyout proposal so they might have the means to 
build on higher ground while the city's enhanced flood protection 
program moves forward.
  The Thune amendment allows this to happen by transferring funds from 
FEMA into the Community Development Block Grant, to be more flexibly 
applied to the unique needs that this situation presents. The CDBG 
funds in the Thune amendment are not exclusively for the area, and 
other areas that have had disasters may also access these funds to 
augment the existing structure of disaster relief programs.
  What we have seen with the Thune amendment is a bipartisan response 
to a truly national disaster. President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, the 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, all have visited 
the area. The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] and the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] have worked at great length putting this 
together. Please support the Thune amendment and the bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], a new and valued member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1469, the 
Disaster Recovery Act of 1997, which will get money needed as a result 
of the floods to Kentucky residents. I am sorry for so many of the 
people that suffered in my community because of this extraordinary 
flood that occurred this spring. We had 12 inches of rain in 1 day. We 
had flash flooding, and then a major flood when the river overflowed as 
it drained off and the river flooded.
  This flood was the worst since 1964. There is no amount of personal 
insurance, of personal precautions, that would prepare a person or a 
community for this size flood. It is in this bill where we reach out to 
those people who were struck so badly.
  My constituents have said this is when Government should become 
involved in citizens' lives, when Government is truly the last resort 
for assistance. It is a bill which will help many States and citizens, 
and it was developed in a teamwork approach. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this bill.
  I hope the President will listen to the needs of my constituents from 
Kentucky, Arkansas, and throughout the Nation, and please, sign this 
bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations and our ranking member for their hard work to bring 
this legislation to the floor. When natural disaster strikes, the 
people of our country have a right to have a response from us, and a 
response that is quick and appropriate. That is why I hope that we can 
do that with this legislation, and why it is hard to understand why 
anyone would want to throw up an obstacle to the very quickest response 
to the needs of the American people.
  That obstacle is in the form, in this legislation, of having in order 
the Gekas amendment. President Clinton has rightfully said that if the 
Gekas

[[Page H2709]]

amendment is included in this bill, that he would veto the bill. So I 
urge my colleagues, when it comes time to vote on the Gekas amendment, 
to vote against it.
  Who wins under the Gekas amendment? I think just the House 
Republicans, because this month's balanced budget agreement includes 
several new investments in education and other priorities for American 
families, but Republicans are hoping they can ignore those bipartisan 
commitments by ramming through this amendment, which would allow them 
to impose automatic $25 billion cuts in education and other priorities.
  If the Gekas amendment passes today, here is what could happen: 
86,000 fewer children would be enrolled in Head Start, 360,000 fewer 
students would receive Pell grants for college or job training, 31,000 
fewer students would get college work study jobs. If you are a veteran 
you should be concerned, because 60,000 veterans could be denied 
medical care, 66,000 people would lose job training and job placement.
  The list goes on and on. If you are concerned about the environment, 
the cleanup of 900 toxic waste sites could be delayed, 500,000 fewer 
at-risk pregnant women and children would get milk, cereal, and other 
foods. We will be debating that under the WIC provision that our 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], is proposing. It is 
hard to understand how the Republican majority rejected the WIC 
funding. It is hard to understand why they would allow the Gekas 
amendment to stand in the way of the quickest possible aid to people 
suffering from disaster in America.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment today. Our 
amendment adds $38 million to the supplemental food program for 
nutritionally at-risk pregnant women, infants, and children under the 
age of 5. We propose to take unused dollars from a NASA wind tunnel 
project to offset the cost of the additional dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the interest from Members on both sides 
of the aisle. If we do not include these funds, 180,000 women, infants, 
and children will be removed from the program. Because of an increased 
need, food price inflation, along with an underestimated caseload for 
fiscal year 1997, a serious reduction of women, infants, and children 
served through the WIC Program this year is inescapable.
  The WIC participation for 1996 fiscal year exceeded the initial 
projection by 100,000 women, infants, and children. Innocent children 
are facing unique and challenging circumstances at this time. We should 
be there to help them. For instance, the flooding in North Dakota has 
caused 3,000 additional caseloads with the WIC Program.
  There has been some controversy surrounding our request for these 
additional funds, there is no question. However, if we cannot continue 
to serve these people who need our help, who are experiencing temporary 
difficulty with maintaining a healthful diet at their most critical 
time of growth and development, if we cannot do this, we are 
essentially cutting the program.
  WIC is a well-managed program that would put these additional 
dollars, I believe and others believe, to efficient use. In fact, it 
includes the most successful cost-containment system of any Federal 
health-related program. We all know, and it has been justified, it has 
been talked about, that for every dollar WIC spends on prenatal care, 
we save $3.50 spent on Medicaid.
  WIC is one Federal program that I believe and others do that is truly 
deserving, and it delivers what it promises to the American taxpayer. 
Medical evidence shows that the WIC Program reduces low birthweight, 
infant mortality, and child anemia. This amendment is proof that we can 
do what we want when we work from both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time, and also the 
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. Chairman, I stand to lend my support to the bill as reported by 
the committee, and I want to thank them for their skill and sensitivity 
in bringing this before the floor.
  On behalf of myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida, 
Mr. Diaz-Balart, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clay Shaw, and the gentleman from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, our amendment, which has been allowed as a 
part of this particular exercise here this morning, it takes through 
the fiscal year the cutoff of SSI income and Medicaid checks to legal 
immigrants, including refugees and asylees. This delay will give 
Congress a chance, Mr. Chairman, to agree on a permanent solution to 
help and assist these vulnerable people.
  Our amendment provides an offsetting rescission in budget authority 
that will allow us to do this, so that when Congress takes its recess, 
these very worthy legal immigrants will continue to receive their 
benefits. Our amendment, which they have been so helpful in letting us 
offer this morning, is identical to the one that has already been 
passed by the Senate on May 7.
  We all know that the Social Security Administration has sent out over 
800,000 letters to people letting them know they may or may not have a 
cutoff of their benefits. We know they have let them know, and this has 
caused quite a bit of consternation with the many people who received 
them.
  But now, because of the sensitivity of this Congress and because of 
this supplemental bill, we will hopefully, with our amendment, be 
allowed to help these people. This cutoff was required by the welfare 
law that was enacted last year.
  SSI checks, as we know, they go to needy people, they go to aged and 
frail people and disabled people. They are the most vulnerable people 
in our society. These people, most of them are over 64 years of age, 
blind or disabled, and certainly this Congress does not want to see 
their SSI cut off. We want to thank this Congress, Mr. Chairman, for 
this wonderful act.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  I would simply like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida. The 
history of this provision is that when we first marked up the 
supplemental in the Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from 
Florida tried to offer an amendment which would have provided for a 
long-term extension of the restoration of the benefits that this 
amendment covers. She understood fully that it was not the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Appropriations, and she understood why the 
gentleman from Louisiana and I had to oppose that amendment.
  But she then offered this amendment in committee which would provide 
in essence for a 1-month bridge so that we would not have people lose 
their benefits in August, be out of benefits for a month, only to then 
have them resume if the budget agreement passes which restores these 
benefits. So she agreed to withhold offering that amendment in 
committee, so long as her right to offer this amendment was protected 
on the floor, as in fact now has occurred.
  I simply want to say that this is the responsible way to approach 
this problem. It would be ludicrous for these people to be bounced off 
the rolls for one month and then go back on. I appreciate her 
commitment on the issue. That is why this matter is before us today.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I agree with everything that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin has just said but would add that this 
amendment became necessary because of a shortfall created in the 
welfare reform program.
  I want to say that I totally agree with, concur with and support the 
welfare reform activities that this Congress entered into in the 104th 
Congress. But when we reduced welfare, in effect we created savings in 
the entitlement side of the equation or the mandatory portion of the 
budget, and now we are making up for the differential out of the 
discretionary portion of the budget.
  For the average person throughout America, they do not know the 
difference between mandatory spending

[[Page H2710]]

and discretionary spending, and they do not care and they need not 
care. It does not matter to them. But for us who have to work with the 
numbers day in and day out, we know that we are making great gains in 
the discretionary portion of the budget pie, saving the American 
taxpayers money, and we are not making significant or we made less 
gains on the entitlement side.
  Hopefully with this budget agreement we will make significantly more 
gains. But it just seems unfortunate that we have to make up for the 
shortfall on the discretionary side of the budget that was created on 
the entitlement side of the budget recognizing that what I just said is 
inside-the-Beltway jargon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh], the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Legislative. He did an outstanding job previously on the Subcommittee 
on the District of Columbia.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], for the terrific job that he is doing under very difficult 
conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the intent of the provision included 
in this bill by the Committee on Appropriations that would place a 14-
million acre limitation on the number of acres that could be enrolled 
in the Conservation Reserve Program in 1997.
  First of all, I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of 
the CRP program, and I support efforts to ensure a full 36-million acre 
enrollment. However, my purpose in placing this limitation language in 
the bill was to ensure that only the most environmentally sensitive 
land is enrolled in the CRP. USDA maintains that they plan on enrolling 
acreage that provides the greatest environmental benefit for the dollar 
spent. Our language merely was giving USDA breathing room to do the job 
right in accordance with the 1995 farm bill.
  Currently, over 75 percent of the acres enrolled in the CRP is 
concentrated in nine States. Much of this acreage was enrolled back in 
the mid-1980's, when the CRP program was a price support program. Our 
bill language was meant to ensure that the USDA did not re-enroll some 
of these highly productive lands when world stocks of grain are 
exceedingly low. Idling productive acres is not what Congress intended 
when it passed the farm bill last year. Taxpayer money should not be 
used to re-enroll productive lands in the CRP program.
  One of the problems with this new sign up is that this year's bidding 
occurred only 3 weeks after the new rules were finalized by USDA. This 
did not leave sufficient time for outreach to farmers who had not 
previously participated in the program. It is only reasonable to assume 
that most of the States need some time to disseminate information about 
the new program.
  Even more troubling to us was the fact that USDA policies on rental 
rates discouraged enrollments in the East and the West coastal regions 
while USDA administrative policies also discouraged Western rangeland 
from participating in the program.
  We also wanted to ensure that adequate CRP acreage was provided for 
the continuous enrollment of buffer strips which are perhaps the most 
effective way of controlling farm runoff.
  A final point is that tight Federal dollars must buy maximum 
conservation benefits. Our appropriations bill language was fiscally 
responsible in that it saved, in fiscal year 1998, $31 million, and in 
1999, $177 million. These moneys could have been available to spend on 
other critical agricultural programs that we will not otherwise be able 
to fund at sufficient levels in the upcoming bills.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me the time on this important issue 
to express the intent of the CRP bill language. I look forward to 
continued work with the committee and with USDA to ensure that regional 
inequities in the administration's CRP program are addressed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I appreciate the gentleman's 
concern for his region. It is perfectly appropriate.
  I would simply say that I think there are many in Congress who have a 
different view of the provision in the bill at this point with respect 
to the CRP. It seems to me that on an emergency supplemental, we should 
not be making this kind of change in basic law. It insures to the 
detriment of a good many farmers in the upper Midwest. I trust that at 
the time it will be properly stricken on a point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We are concerned 
in the Northeast, the Southeast, the Southwest and the far West that 
all of the acres will be enrolled within this year in one section of 
the country. This was meant to be a national program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is a national program. 
it should be allowed to proceed the way the department and farmers 
expected it to. If other regions of the country are behind, I suspect 
over time that will be a self-correcting phenomenon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Boswell].
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in support of this emergency supplemental appropriations bill. 
As many of my colleagues have done, I, too, have been an appropriations 
person in another life. I realize there is a temptation for Members on 
supplementals to want to do other things. But I want to remind my 
colleagues that the intended target of this funding would be the people 
affected by the flooding which has devastated parts of North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Minnesota, and California.
  We need to help our neighbors in their time of need, and it is the 
right thing to do. Nearly 4 years ago my State of Iowa suffered from 
the great flood of 1993, a 500-year flood. I remember the assistance 
the Federal Government provided us in our communities in our time of 
great need. There may be provisions in this massive funding bill that 
we may find objectionable; that will always be the case. But please do 
not derail this because of wanting to attach to a supplemental 
something that would actually delay the needed relief.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in extending a neighborly helping hand 
to the affected States and provide them with the help they need to 
improve their situation. Anyone who has been through a devastational 
flood can attest it takes time, money, and a lot of sweat and hard work 
to get back to some semblance of normalcy. Let us provide one part of 
that equation by adopting this emergency funding bill. It only makes 
sense.
  Hopefully, no amendments will be adopted that will cause a veto or 
delay this much needed assistance. We owe it to our neighbors. Let us 
pass this and get this help to them right away.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the great 
gentleman from the Great State of Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a great 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], the great chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for his great introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here pleased to support the work of the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations and working with the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to bring to the 
Congress, to the House, a wonderful effort to meet the needs of the 
flood victims of last year. It is absolutely critical that we pass this 
bill today, and I totally support it.
  I also appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh], my colleague who was here a moment ago, speaking with regard to 
CRP. I want my colleagues to understand that, as a member of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations, we really resisted the amendment of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh] to cap CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, acres at 
14 million acres. We want it to

[[Page H2711]]

be the 19 million acres that are intended to be enrolled in 1997.
  This is supported by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. It 
is supported by people who care deeply about agriculture across this 
country, not the least of whom are in my own district, the Fifth 
District of the State of Washington. CRP is a great program. We should 
not fool with it in an appropriations bill, especially an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  I happened to be pleased to join with the chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture today in raising a point of order to have the cap lifted 
and the language that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] was able 
to insert in the subcommittee and full committee and have that language 
removed from the bill, because it is bad policy on an emergency 
supplemental. It is also bad policy for agriculture.
  The Conservation Reserve Program helps habitat, it helps the 
environment, it helps agriculture, it does all of those things for the 
good of the Nation. The program has been fairly distributed. I am happy 
to work with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and anybody else 
to get the Department of Agriculture to enroll acres that are properly 
to be enrolled, highly erodible acreage.
  So I will offer this point of order with the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. Smith] today, and I urge the support of my colleagues.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  (Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill that is under 
consideration and the Thune amendment. The area of Minnesota which I 
represent is one of the hardest hit by this spring's flooding. The 
work, the spirit of the local officials, the residents, the volunteers, 
State and local officers, and others have prevailed in our area's 
recovery. This is a tribute to all of this hard work.
  I also wish to signal my support for the Smith point of order that 
would strike the limitation on the Conservation Reserve Program. This 
is an important program for our country. It ought to be allowed to move 
ahead as the U.S. Department of Agriculture is implementing it.
  I rise today to commend the community leaders, volunteers, and public 
servants of flood ravaged communities along the Minnesota River. The 
flooded communities in my district will begin to put their lives back 
together with the passage of the fiscal year 1997 emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill before the House today.
  From treacherous November windstorms, to unprecedented January 
snowstorms, to the flood of the century, Minnesota weather has 
certainly tested our wills. Cleanup and recovery efforts from the 
floods have just begun. I have held numerous town meetings in flood-
ravaged areas along the Minnesota River, and I have seen that, in the 
true Minnesota spirit, folks are moving on with their lives with their 
heads held high. The passage of this bill today is a long-awaited, 
important step toward recovery.
  This disaster experience has summoned an unprecedented level of 
commitment from all levels of government starting at the local level. 
Mayor Jim Curtis and City Manager Jim Norman of my hometown of 
Montevideo, as well as Granite Falls' Mayor Dave Smiglewski and City 
Manager Bill Lavin; Dawson's Mayor Al Schacherer and City Manager David 
Bovee; Redwood Falls Mayor Sara Triplett and City Manager Jeff Weldon; 
New Ulm's Mayor Bert Schapekahm and City Manager Richard Salvati; St. 
Peter's Mayor Jerry Hawbacker and Daniel Jordet; Morton's Mayor David 
Mude and City Clerk Shirley Dove; Appleton's Mayor Hugo ``Bob'' Roggatz 
and Coordinator Robert Thompson; Ortonville's Mayor David Ellingson and 
Clerk Administrator John Jenkins; and Beardsley's Mayor Glenn Burgess; 
Boyd's Mayor Gary Steinke and Clerk Karen Schmitt; Clara City Mayor 
Todd Prekker; Maynard's Mayor Richard Groothuis; and Odessa's Mayor 
Donald Teske, along with numerous county commissioners and emergency 
management officials, are just a few of the many community leaders who 
showed remarkable courage and perseverance when their communities were 
under crisis.
  The Federal Government worked together with these officials as well. 
When our region was devastated with drastic winter storms, Federal 
employees from the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] were on 
hand to assess the damage of our public roads, buildings, and 
utilities. Other employees worked efficiently to open roads after 
unprecedented winter snowfall. During the flooding of the Minnesota and 
Red Rivers, FEMA employees were immediately disseminating information 
and helping flood victims get back on their feet. I even heard from 
several of our local county officials that FEMA responded so quickly, 
local officials had to speed up their assessment of the damage so that 
the Federal employees could proceed with their response.
  These are but a few examples of good government and cooperation we 
have witnessed throughout this disaster. City mayors to local emergency 
teams, to county and State representatives, to Federal officials have 
demonstrated that government can be effective.
  I am pleased that the Speaker recognized the extent of the damage in 
our area and vowed his assistance. According to Minnesota Gov. Arne 
Carlson's office, the Speaker has promised Minnesota Federal 
reimbursement aid at 90 percent when that level is accorded to the 
States of North Dakota and South Dakota. This would allow the Federal 
Government to cover 90 percent of the costs while the State and local 
governments would be responsible for 10 percent. Minnesota's counties 
who were ravaged by the unprecedented floods should not be excluded 
from this reimbursement ratio that recognizes the severity of the 
damage, and I commend the Speaker for lending his support to Minnesota.
  I would also like to voice my strong support for the inclusion of 
Community Development Block Grants [CDBG's] in the supplemental 
appropriations bill. After consultations with the FEMA and local 
officials in Minnesota, I agree that CDBG's will effectively serve 
flood victims and I urge my colleagues to support Representative 
Thune's amendment that provides the inclusion of Community Development 
Block Grants [CDBG's]. This is the best way for the Federal Government 
to quickly and efficiently aid flood victims and restore our devastated 
communities to economic vitality.
  Unfortunately, this bill came before the House with several 
extraneous provisions and its consideration was delayed because of 
several superfluous additions. I was disappointed that the bill was not 
brought to the floor as a clean, emergency appropriations bill. The 
extraneous provisions took the focus away from providing aid to the 
victims of the flood.
  I am pleased, however, that the Speaker allowed my colleague, 
Representative Ray LaHood and I to bring forward an amendment to strike 
one of the extraneous provisions. The bill called for a cap on 
enrollment of the Conservation Reserve Program [C.R.P.]. The C.R.P. has 
enabled Minnesota to protect environmentally-sensitive land and has 
revitalized the wildlife habitat in our region. Our amendment would 
maintain C.R.P. enrollment at the current level and allow farmers and 
landowners to continue to take advantage of this popular, efficient, 
conservation program.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency of our situation in 
Minnesota and allow the House to come to the aid of the flood victims 
in the Midwest immediately. The passage of this bill will enable local 
governments to continue to help the people in their flood-ravaged 
communities put their lives back together.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I am in a similar 
position as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. I had seven 
Members who desperately wanted to speak, none of whom are now here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
  (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate 
the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this bill to the House 
so we can help and assist the flood victims and also provide more 
financial aid to the troops in Bosnia.
  There are two issues that I would like the House Members support. One 
issue deals with WIC. As you know, it should be the objective of this 
House to fully fund WIC. In my former political life as a county board 
supervisor and being in charge of an indigent hospital, we would see 
that women who came in and were enrolled in the WIC Program delivered 
children that were healthy and probably the children would have a 
better life of quality, where women who were not enrolled in the WIC 
Program delivered a low-weight baby and we found the children would 
experience problems.

                              {time}  1330

  So it makes good sense to support WIC because it is humane and also 
it will save costs in the future.

[[Page H2712]]

  The second issue that I would ask support for deals with the Diaz-
Balart-Meek amendment, and this is to extend the social services that 
will be denied to legal immigrants.
  What is happening today, Mr. Speaker, is that legal immigrants, 
people who have lived in this country for many years, have raised their 
children, have paid their taxes, and because of the new welfare reform 
legislation, will be denied social services.
  Many legal immigrants today are receiving notices that they will no 
longer receive social services due to their status of not being 
citizens. That is causing a lot of problems, especially to the elderly; 
people who are in nursing homes, people who need the assistance of food 
stamps because they are not making enough on their pensions, and also 
young people will be affected.
  So I would ask the Members to support the Meek amendment. All it does 
is extend the services until the end of the fiscal year so that the 
people will continue to receive services and, once we pass the budget, 
hopefully all those services will be restored to the legal immigrants.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just take a minute to say that this is an important bill. The 
President initially requested about $2 billion for disaster relief for 
people devastated in California and various other States, and then the 
incredible flooding of the Dakotas and Minnesota occurred in the 
interim. All of these people, not only in those States I have 
mentioned, but all told in some 35 States, have suffered the ill 
effects of terrible weather and the tremendous adversity of nature.
  Unfortunately, in recent years, the American taxpayer has become the 
insurer of last resort. So it seems that year after year we have to 
come up with these supplemental appropriations bills to deal with this 
devastation. We are happy to do that. We want to make sure that we try 
to repair some of the damage. There is no way on God's green Earth we 
will be able to repair all of the damage but, at the same time, we owe 
the taxpayer the responsibility to make sure that the money is spent 
wisely; that it is not wasted; that it is simply not just thrown at the 
problem.
  In addition to the disaster relief, President Clinton, of course, has 
detailed troops to Bosnia and to Haiti and other places throughout the 
world and those expeditions have exceeded their budget and have 
exceeded the money previously appropriated to the Defense Department, 
and so we have to pay for those ventures. Unless we, at some point, 
pull our troops out of those places, that expense goes on from day to 
day. We cannot simply tell our troops to go out and do the job, but we 
will not pay for it.
  So it is important, I think, that we pass this bill, that we pay for 
the troops, that we pay for the devastation, but that we offset it 
within the existing budget. We have done that in this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
yielding.
  I wanted to mention for the Record that there are a number of 
colleagues who will have colloquies with myself regarding some items on 
the emergency side of this bill. There are some complicated 
difficulties we are having on housing programs. I want my colleagues to 
know that we are very aware of those circumstances and plan to work 
with our colleagues.
  In view of the fact that many were not able to be here at this 
moment, I would suggest that the gentleman has done fabulous work on 
this bill, I congratulate him for his efforts, and certainly those 
people facing disasters across the country owe him a good deal of 
gratitude.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I want to 
say this is a bipartisan bill. We have gotten this far in joint 
agreement because Members across this House of Representatives, working 
in tandem with the other body, have decided that these items must be 
paid for, and yet we have also joined forces to make sure that we find 
the budget authority within our previously appropriated items to offset 
the increased costs.
  So right now there are no additional costs to the U.S. taxpayer for 
what is spent in this bill. I think that makes it a reasonable bill, a 
bill that meets the demands of the American people and a bill that 
should be passed with as few amendments as absolutely possible.
  I do hope that we can get this bill passed without undue political 
wrangling, that we can put it on the President's desk and that we can 
get his signature within the next few days, certainly before we leave 
on the Memorial Day recess. In fact, I would encourage all of our 
Members on both sides of the aisle and the leadership to make sure they 
do everything possible to assure that this bill becomes law before the 
Memorial Day recess.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to announce my support for 
H.R. 1469, the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. 
Included in this bill are several components, which, if enacted, would 
greatly assist the residents of southeastern North Carolina in their 
further recovery from last year's hurricane. The night of September 6, 
1996, the district that I represent, North Carolina's Seventh, was 
battered by hurricane Fran. Less than 2 days later, my entire district 
was declared a disaster area by the President. Yet, we were ready to 
rebuild our lives and repair our environment.
  That is why the $150,700,000 appropriated in this bill for the 
Emergency Watershed Program [EWP] is so important to the fine people 
who live, work, and vacation in North Carolina. This money will be 
available nationwide to all qualified applicants. The EWP provides for 
the restoration of creeks and rivers that were clogged by downed trees 
and other storm debris. I have had many constituents contact me by 
phone, letter, and in person about the need to clear our rivers now in 
order to prevent flooding later. The greater the potential for 
flooding, the more likely the Federal Government will be called upon to 
assist those whose homes, businesses, and crops are damaged or 
destroyed by flood waters.
  The Seventh District faces another threat H.R. 1469 seeks to address: 
economic disaster. North Carolina's economy continues to suffer after 
Hurricanes Fran and Bertha. Fran damaged 891 nonagricultural businesses 
with $50 million in repairs still needed. Our agricultural and timber 
industries were nearly overwhelmed by $2 billion in damages. It makes 
good sense that one of the highest priorities of North Carolina's 
economic recovery plan is support for the Economic Development 
Administration's efforts to assist our communities.
  Finally, I thank the entire North Carolina congressional delegation 
for working together to make sure that this bill addresses many of the 
unmet high-priority needs in my State. In the House, Congressmen, 
Hefner, Price, and Taylor along with my other colleagues worked to 
ensure that North Carolina's unmet needs were addressed in this 
legislation. I also want to thank our State's Senators, who have been 
instrumental in coordinating our efforts to support these important 
components. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1469.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the automatic 
continuing resolution amendment to H.R. 1469, the so-called 
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997.
  Nestled within all the rhetoric and debate surrounding H.R. 1469, the 
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997, is an amendment 
offered to fund national government operations throughout Fiscal Year 
1998. Funding that is, at 100 percent of the current level of 
overspending. This amendment abdicates the responsibility of Congress 
to legislate and appropriate; that for which Congress was elected by 
citizens of this country. Rather than accepting the responsibility and 
corresponding accountability to constituents for voting in favor of or 
against particular appropriations, this amendment allows Congress, in 
the name of strategizing against the President and averting blame for a 
government shutdown, to approve in an autopilot-type approach, Federal 
spending through the end of fiscal year 1998.
  This strategy sets a dangerous precedent of bypassing the 
constitutional checks on governmental powers by minimizing the separate 
roles of the executive and legislative branches. Rather than a 
Presidential veto on congressional appropriations--thus demanding a new 
consensus between the Congress and the Executive--the veto power of the 
President becomes merely the power to continue funding at a level 
already burgeoning with spending on constitutionally suspect programs. 
Once again, Congress grants to the executive branch, powers never 
intended by the Constitution.
  The amendment also introduces a dangerous ratchet-up feature in 
Federal Government spending. For should this precedent be later 
followed and should Congress ever decide to make amends for its habit 
of spending

[[Page H2713]]

beyond its means, the Presidential veto power then becomes a tool by 
which the President can ignore the will of Congress absent a two-thirds 
majority to override the veto. Recent history suggests that Congress is 
rather unlikely to decrease its spending and this certainly would be 
much more unlikely in the event a two-thirds majority is required.
  For these reasons and others, I oppose abdication of congressional 
responsibility, putting the Federal Government appropriation process on 
autopilot, and, therefore, approval of the automatic continuing 
resolution amendment to H.R. 1469.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, included in the fiscal year 1997 
supplemental appropriation bill which we are considering is language 
that makes available to the State of California, emergency relief 
funding for the repair or reconstruction of highway 1 at Devil's Slide 
in San Mateo County.
  For decades the residents of San Mateo County have dealt with the 
ongoing problem of Devil's Slide. The current highway runs along the 
coast and is prone to damage from mudslides and vulnerable to long 
closures. An original proposal to construct a bypass road further 
inland ran into several problems, with opposition from local residents 
concerned about its impact. However, last year the people of San Mateo 
County voted overwhelmingly to endorse the building of a tunnel bypass.
  The tunnel alternative has the strong support of local officials, 
business owners, the environmental community, and residents. After a 
long and difficult process, we are ready to move forward to solve this 
problem and provide reliable access to those who visit, live, and drive 
in San Mateo County.
  I congratulate Representatives Lantos and Pelosi for their hard, 
effective work that will allow us to finally move forward.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
legislation that provides supplemental funding for emergency flood 
assistance. Much of the massive flooding from winter storms occurred in 
four counties in Ohio that I represent. I personally visited these 
areas many times and have seen the devastation firsthand. The damage is 
simply staggering.
  Farmland in our area was affected severely by the floods. The 
legislation we are considering today provides needed funds to restore 
damaged agriculture. Especially important to my district are the 
Emergency Conservation Program, which provides cost-sharing assistance 
to farmers whose farmland was damaged as the result of flooding; the 
Conservation Reserve Program, which provides meaningful benefits for 
watershed-based approaches that achieve environmental benefits such as 
water quality, flood control, wetlands conservation and wildlife 
habitat; and the Natural Resources Conservation Program, for emergency 
watershed and flood prevention operations to repair damage to waterways 
and watersheds resulting from flooding.
  Funding is also provided in this legislation for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]; for repair of transportation 
systems; for hazard mitigation, infrastructure and to rebuild levees; 
and to rebuild other flood control works and highways that were damaged 
by floods.
  I join with my colleagues today in support of this needed emergency 
disaster assistance legislation.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express 
concern about one of the provisions contained in the bill we are 
considering today. It is a provision that most Members probably aren't 
even aware is in this bill. That is the redirecting of $11 million from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserves operations account to help pay for 
these programs.
  I am extremely troubled by the irresponsible way the administration 
and our appropriators continue to use our national energy emergency 
stockpile.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in the 1970's in response 
to the severe energy shortage that plagued this Nation, harming our 
productivity and our economy. Since 1975, the Federal Government has 
spent over $200 billion building and filling a national oil reserve so 
Americans would never again be held hostage by foreign governments 
because of our reliance on imported petroleum.
  In the 104th Congress, the first of three budget raids were made on 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the first initiated by the Clinton 
administration and the second and third by Congress. When the first 
ever oil sale for nonemergency purposes was made we were told it would 
be a one-time sale that was only occurring because the Reserve itself 
needed repairs. Unfortunately, two more sales were made for other, we 
were assured, equally worthwhile purposes. My Commerce Committee 
colleagues and I objected to each one of these sales.
  The United States is now more than 50 percent dependent on foreign 
oil to meet its daily energy needs. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 
our first line of defense in an energy emergency. During the Persian 
Gulf crisis, President Bush announced oil from the Reserve would be 
sold, immediately calming oil markets and protecting Americans from 
shortages and the economic effects of oil price spikes.
  Unfortunately, if we continue to sell oil from the reserve and use 
the proceeds from those sales as we are today, the next time there is 
an energy crisis, there will be no Reserve to protect us. And all 
Americans, including those who will benefit from this bill today will 
look to Congress to ask what happened to the $200 billion Reserve they 
paid for to protect them from an energy emergency.
  I feel it is important to note this obscure provision in the bill we 
are considering today, because I know in a few short months the 
Interior Appropriations Committee will begin to work on a bill to pay 
for operating and maintaining the Reserve another year. And I know that 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will again be lower on their list of 
priorities than it should be. I hope that no more oil sales are 
proposed, but if they are I plan on again opposing such a sale. There 
is not enough oil in the Reserve to pay for every worthwhile program 
that comes along and if we don't stop these oil sales soon, there won't 
be enough oil in the Reserve to protect Americans from another energy 
crisis.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1469, the 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. This 
legislation is necessary to deliver much needed relief to victims of 
natural disasters and to ensure our military preparedness through the 
replenishment of critical defense accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the contribution made to this bill by the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. The Energy and Water 
Development chapter is narrowly targeted to address the urgent needs 
created by devastating flooding nationwide. Earlier in the year, 
California and the Pacific Northwest were ravaged by the fury of 
uncontrollable flood waters. Then nature trained her sights on the Ohio 
River Valley and the States of America's South. And the devastation has 
continued in the Great Plains, particularly North Dakota, where 
dramatic images of abandoned cities have reminded us all of the 
tremendous power of natural forces.
  Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Development chapter includes $585 
million for the Corps of Engineers and $7.4 million for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to begin the arduous process of rebuilding flood control 
works for the protection of communities nationwide. Funds are provided 
to repair Federal projects, rebuild levees and perform emergency 
dredging across the country. Time and again, Americans have 
demonstrated their great resilience in the aftermath of natural 
disasters. This assistance will help them rise to their feet once more.
  To partially offset these emergency supplemental appropriations, the 
bill includes a rescission of $22.5 million from the energy supply 
research and development account of the Department of Energy. This 
rescission, amounting to less than 1 percent of the $2.7 billion 
account, represents unanticipated carryover balances brought forward 
into fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, as one who has witnessed firsthand the devastating 
effects of rising floodwaters, I appreciate the importance of 
delivering Federal assistance on a timely basis to communities in need. 
Accordingly, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water has kept this chapter 
largely free of riders unrelated to emergency flooding. I hope that the 
House will follow the example of the subcommittee and pass this bill 
quickly and without the added weight of extraneous material. We must 
make every effort to accelerate the delivery of this critical 
assistance.
  One of the great strengths of this sprawling and diverse Nation is 
its capacity to unify in times of disaster. This legislation provides 
relief to those who find themselves in dire need due to circumstances 
beyond their control. Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this vital measure.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the House was wise to prohibit yesterday's 
recommendation of the Rules Committee which was to consider the Gilman 
amendment setting a date--certain for withdrawing United States ground 
troops from Bosnia. I sympathize with those who demand closer and more 
comprehensive consultation with Congress before major commitments of 
U.S. military power are made. We are elected by the people to represent 
their interests. We control the purse strings. We have a constitutional 
role in participating in such important decisions.
  The issue of prior congressional consultation and approval of 
military action has been of long-standing controversy between Congress 
and the President. Democratic Congresses have had issues with 
Republican Presidents, Democratic Congresses have had disagreements 
with Democratic Presidents,

[[Page H2714]]

and now the Republican Congress is demanding prior approval of military 
activity from a Democratic President.
  This issue needs a careful and thorough airing. It ought to be done 
in the proper forum with considerable thought. I would urge the 
authorizing committees to proceed with such a process.
  But having said that, we must also recognize that we are talking 
about affecting an ongoing, major operation on the ground in which over 
8,500 U.S. troops and hundreds of other personnel are doing an 
important job in a very dangerous place.
  This is not just an academic, inside-the-beltway exercise about the 
role of Congress versus the President. The Bosnia operation is a major 
commitment of United States prestige, power, money, and most 
importantly, people.
  It involves commitments to our most important international 
alliance--NATO.
  It involves the most serious outbreak of violence in the European 
theater since World War II.
  It threatens to ignite a regional conflict possibly involving Greece 
and Turkey.
  It has attracted dangerous elements from Iran and other places 
seeking to exploit terrorism.
  Bosnia seems like a far off place to most Americans. But as history 
shows, the Balkans have been a flash point of major global events for 
centuries. One should not forget that the border of Bosnia is only 105 
miles from the border of Austria, 175 miles from the border of Greece, 
and 102 miles from the shores of Italy. History teaches us that 
sticking our head in the sand and letting a conflagration go unabated 
this close to the heart of Europe is playing with fire.
  And make no mistake about it, the reason that the fragile peace in 
Bosnia has been achieved is due to one reason and one reason only--the 
leadership of the United States of America.
  The U.S. military in particular has implemented its peace enforcement 
mission with skill and courage. They came into a situation and 
controlled a situation that many thought hopeless.
  They have shown strength.
  They have shown compassion.
  They have shown competence and integrity.
  They have earned respect from all parties.
  And once again they have demonstrated clearly why they are the best 
in the world.
  I have been to Bosnia six different times in the last 6 years. The 
change in this country over this period has been simply remarkable. I 
have seen the country at the beginning of the war, during the period 
that UNPROFOR tried to control it, during the period that the U.S.-led 
IFOR force was deployed, and now we have the SFOR force. Americans 
broke the 4-year long cycle of violence in this country and established 
a fragile peace when others had given up.
  Bosnia has become an important symbol of American leadership and 
support for peace around the world. What we do or don't do here will 
have worldwide implications.
  So we can't consider this amendment in the abstract. We must consider 
the broader implications.


                          safety of the troops

  Foremost in our minds must be how legislating a specific withdrawal 
date will affect our troops on the ground in completing their mission. 
And that is where I have a major problem with the gentlemen's 
amendment.
  I have had hours of conversations with our senior commanders in the 
field. And the one thing they have told me in no uncertain terms is, 
``give us the flexibility to do the job you want us to do.''
  They are experts on the law of unintended consequence, and I can tell 
you, they think that legislating a date certain for withdrawal is a big 
mistake that might actually affect the safety of our personnel. They 
say, set a goal for withdrawal, but give us the flexibility and the 
discretion to manage it according to our best professional judgment. 
That is what we should do.
  Let me give you one example of how things might go wrong under the 
requirements of this amendment. One of the best means our troop have of 
keeping the peace and deterring attacks from rogue elements is the 
promise that retaliation against any attackers will be swift, sudden, 
overwhelming, and deadly. We have the biggest stick and the meanest dog 
on the block. Let's say some extremist group hasn't read every caveat 
of this amendment. Instead they miscalculate and think that since 
Congress has mandated that all troops be gone from Bosnia by a certain 
date, they could attack our personnel near this date with little chance 
of retaliation. Now I am sure that we would swiftly retaliate, but 
little good for the people who suffer the initial attack. Congress 
should do nothing that might encourage these kinds of actions.
  There are scores of other scenarios that might develop ranging from 
bad weather to terrorist threats to unknown political events that might 
necessitate deviations to the basic operation. I believe our military 
leaders deserve the flexibility to deal with them.
  That is what General Shalikashvili and Secretary Cohen are saying as 
well. Here is what they say about legislating a withdrawal date in a 
May 13 letter to the House leadership:

       A fixed withdrawal date will constrict U.S. commanders' 
     flexibility, encourage our opponents and undermine the 
     important psychological advantage U.S. troops enjoy. Our 
     forces must be able to proceed with a minimum of risk to U.S. 
     personnel: legislating their redeployment schedule would 
     completely change the dynamic on the ground and could 
     undercut troop safety.

  You can't say it any more clearly than that. I think we should heed 
the professional advice of our military leaders.


                                somalia

  Proponents of this amendment say that we should accept this amendment 
because it is patterned after the Somalia amendment we passed some 
years ago. Somalia was a completely different situation. President Bush 
went into Somalia without a blue print. Our forces had a murky and 
undefined mission in Somalia. There was no goal for withdrawal. There 
was mission creep. There was an ill-defined chain of command. In the 
case of Somalia, as more or less a last resort, Congress set the 
withdrawal date for the Administration, and it was justified.
  The Bosnia situation is wholly different. There is a blue print in 
the form of the Dayton agreement. The President has a plan and a 
timetable that we know about. Our forces know their mission and they 
have been successful in carrying that mission out. If in June 1998 we 
see that things have changed, we may want to consider legislating a 
withdrawal if it is necessary. But there is simply no overriding need 
to do it now when we might have the unintended consequence of 
jeopardizing the safety of our own personnel.


                           serbia and croatia

  There are many other ramifications of this amendment as well. We have 
potentially volatile situations in Serbia and Croatia. Leadership in 
both countries is aging and there are serious signs of unrest in 
Serbia. The symbol of abandonment that this amendment sends could 
bolster the extreme elements inside those countries who are more 
interested in continued ethnic fighting than in building their 
countries.
  Mr. Chairman, America's effort to bring peace and stability to Bosnia 
and the Balkans has come at a high cost. But we must recognize the 
responsibility our country has around the world and we must recognize 
how much other people around the world have come to depend on us. This 
amendment sends the wrong signal. It is a signal of abandonment, rather 
than engagement to attain a lasting peace.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Kaptur amendment to H.R. 1469, the supplemental appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1997, to add $76 million for the special supplemental food 
program for women, infants and children [WIC]. Failure to approve this 
amendment would force States to cut the number of those receiving WIC 
by 180,000 women, infants, and children.
  The $76 million supplemental request submitted by President Clinton 
and his administration was cut in half by the Appropriations Committee 
to $38 million. This drastic cut would have pushed 180,000 women, 
infants, and children out of the WIC program.
  My State of Hawaii would suffer greatly if these funds are not 
restored. It would mean that 9,300 individuals, one-third of the 
caseload, would be refused food at a time when good nutrition is 
critical for healthy babies.
  WIC provides essential food and nutrition to our low-income prenatal, 
postpartum, and nursing women, infants, and children. Poor nutrition 
causes low-birthweight babies and neural and other physical 
underdevelopment, which seriously impairs the child's later growth. At 
the critical, early stages in a child's life, WIC provides nutrition 
that assures healthy physical and mental development.
  The WIC program, in its support of nutrition risk assessments, 
special vouchers and food packages, has been shown to work. Its 
successes have been lauded by medical professionals, social workers, 
State and local governments, and millions of mothers whom WIC has 
helped.
  WIC represents one of the best early investments toward a good future 
for America's poor children. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this important and necessary amendment to restore full funding to WIC.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this supplemental appropriations bill is very 
important to the thousands of people in Minnesota and


[[Page H2715]]

the Dakotas who have had their lives turned upside down by an 
unprecedented flood this spring.
  As the only member of the Appropriations Committee from these three 
States, I have a very strong interest in moving this legislation 
quickly. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee responded to 
the region's needs by adding an extra $200 million to earlier requests 
for funding. But that action was taken before we knew the full cost of 
this disaster.
  I had the opportunity to tour the flood-ravaged areas recently with 
Majority Leader Armey, Congressman Pomeroy of North Dakota, and several 
other Members, and we were all astounded by the devastation. Since that 
time we have heard that preliminary damage estimates for Minnesota 
alone are likely to exceed $1 billion.
  The Senate has responded by providing $500 million in CDBG funds in 
its flood relief bill. Today, I urge my House colleagues to support an 
amendment that will provide the same level in the House bill.
  The flood assistance in this bill will help families, individuals, 
businesses, and local governments that have suffered losses, and will 
also pay for flood prevention and control efforts. The aid--combined 
with the persistence, creativity, and heroic spirit we have already 
seen from area citizens--will go a long way toward getting the region 
back on its feet.
  Additionally, we have the chance today to remedy the problems we 
created for legal immigrants in last year's welfare bill. Congresswoman 
Carrie Meek is offering an amendment to delay these problems until a 
more permanent solution can be effected. I urge my colleagues to do 
what's right and support our efforts to restore fairness for legal 
immigrants.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, the new welfare law, will deny legal 
immigrants supplemental security income [SSI], food stamps, and 
Medicaid benefits starting in August of this year. Many of the people 
affected by the new law are elderly people who have lived in this 
country, worked hard, and paid taxes for many years. many of these 
people came here to escape political or religious persecution.
  The new law is unduly harsh on these people, and the States, 
localities, and private charities have not had nearly enough time to 
find ways to soften the blow. In my State of Minnesota alone, the new 
law will deny food stamps to 16,000 legal immigrants, supplemental 
security income to 5,400 elderly and disabled legal immigrants, and 
Medicaid coverage to 470 immigrants. Nationally, millions more will be 
hurt by these changes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the flood relief efforts in this bill 
which are so important to my State and region. I also urge that we 
begin to restore fairness to legal immigrants that was unwisely taken 
away in last year's welfare legislation.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, an amendment striking lines 8 through 17 on 
page 24 is adopted. Before consideration of any other amendment, it 
shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in House Report 
105-97. 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 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.
  During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.

  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in the House 
Report 105-97.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. A quorum is not present.
  The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he will 
vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the Committee 
appears.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.

                              {time}  1350


                          Quorum Call Vacated

  The CHAIRMAN. One hundred Members have responded. A quorum of the 
Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, 
further proceedings under the call shall be considered as vacated.
  The Committee will resume its business.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 105-97.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire if the gentleman from Wisconsin 
is the designee of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Mr. OBEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 5, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $38,000,000)''.
       Page 35, after line 25, insert the following:

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                    national aeronautical facilities

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1995 (Pub. L. 103-327), $38,000,000 is rescinded.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
   Mr. Chairman, let me simply say I am offering this amendment on 
behalf of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and I very much 
appreciate the cooperation that we have had from a number of people on 
both sides of the aisle on the amendment.
  Basically the situation is this: The administration indicated that 
based on numbers it was receiving from the various States around the 
country, that there would be a shortfall of approximately $100 million 
in the WIC program, which would necessitate knocking a large number of 
women and children off the rolls. When they were asked to rescrub those 
numbers, they came back with a hard estimate that they would need about 
$76 million. The committee chose to refuse to fully fund the 
administration request. The instead provided $38 million.
  Since that time, a number of us have been trying to get that number 
up to the number estimated by the States as being necessary in order to 
prevent people from being knocked off the rolls. That means that we are 
asking today to provide an additional $38 million above the amount 
provided by the committee. Very simply, without this action, unless the 
administration goes through elaborate actions that would in fact 
shortchange other important programs to rural America, the fact is that 
some 180,000 women and children would be knocked off the payroll.
  When we offered this amendment, we were at first told that our 
numbers were disingenuous and that we knew it. The fact is these are 
not our numbers. These are the numbers which to the best of our 
knowledge are accurate based upon estimates that we received from the 
various States around the country. I would point out that most of

[[Page H2716]]

the States who would suffer the shortfalls if this funding is not 
provided are States being run by Republican Governors. They have not 
handled this in a partisan fashion. I do not think we should, either.
  It seems to me that the question is very simple. If Members want to 
make the early investments that are necessary to protect the health of 
pregnant mothers and their young children, they will support this 
amendment. If they do not, they will oppose it. I would urge support 
for the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations as it relates to wanting to help 
children. Republicans want that as deeply as Democrats do. There should 
be no dispute about that.
  However, I think we also, Democrat and Republican, should expect 
efficiency. We should demand efficiency. As I hear the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations talk about numbers, numbers 
changing, the best estimate of our numbers, the best knowledge of 
numbers of people needing WIC is uncertain, Mr. Chairman. That is what 
troubles me about this desire of the sponsors of this amendment to add 
more money to more money that has already been added, to more money 
that is carried over, $100 million carried over in a $3.7 billion 
annual program, in addition to the $50 million that is available 
through the Secretary of Agriculture in the fund for rural America.
  My point is this: We owe our constituents, all of us, efficiency. I 
would expect, and I would expect there to be a commitment on the part 
of both the Democrat leaders and Republican leaders, if we do not know 
the numbers, if we are speculating, and I believe we are, we ought to 
have a study that can be done in 2 or 3 months, signed, sealed and 
delivered. Let us find out what the numbers are. But let us not gamble 
with the taxpayers' money at this time when we are adding an additional 
$38 million.

                              {time}  1400

  Should we not feel that that is adequate? And the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], one of the sponsors of this amendment, has testified 
in our Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies that she has some concerns about 
the adequacy and accuracy of the program and the numbers. One final 
point, and no, I do not have time, I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur].
  Mr. Chairman, one final point. In 1995 and 1996, the Inspector 
General, with the Department of Agriculture, did an audit of the Food 
and Consumer Services Agency that administers these food programs in 
the Government. It found that $13 billion, one-third out of $39 billion 
appropriated, could not be located. That is the inefficiency that 
exists, and I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding this time to me, and I would say to my colleague on the 
committee that, yes, we do have questions about this program, the most 
important question being will we maintain the people on the program who 
are already on it in this fiscal year? And the Department of 
Agriculture has given us excellent numbers; they have surveyed every 
Governor. States like California, without these funds, will be cutting 
thousands of recipients. California alone needs over $26 million just 
to complete this fiscal year.
  So we know what the challenge is. In the amendment, the $38 million 
that is provided out of this major, major emergency appropriations bill 
will merely keep current beneficiaries on the program, pregnant women, 
low-birth weight babies and young children. That is the purpose of 
this. Without the amendment States will have to cut over 180,000 
current beneficiaries from the program.
  So it is somewhat disingenuous to say that we do not believe the 
numbers, because in fact the U.S. Department of Agriculture in April, 
this April, surveyed the various States.
  I only have a minute and a half so I cannot yield to the gentleman, 
but I wanted to clarify what the prior speaker had said. I want to urge 
my colleagues to pass the Kaptur-Riggs-Roukema-Roemer-Quinn amendment, 
and I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] very 
much for her leadership on this, not just this year but in prior years. 
I think her commitment is clear. We know that this prevents sick 
children from being admitted to hospital rooms across this country.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, I have 
always supported our numerous feeding programs. In fact, there are 26 
different feeding programs funded by the Federal Government. I 
sincerely believe there is no need for anyone in the United States to 
go hungry.
  I can tell my colleagues that our committee has funded the WIC 
Program as our No. 1 priority. All other programs in our bill have 
suffered because of our emphasis on WIC. The Nation's research needs, 
low-income housing for the poor, conservation programs that protect our 
lands for future generations, have all had to take reductions because 
of our interest in assuring healthy children.
  In spite of that we must maintain a balance of all these programs. 
Instead, the ugliness of grandstanding and demagoguery have crept into 
the WIC Program this year. This has never happened before and my 
committee has held hearings on WIC and deeply analyzed the President's 
WIC request. We find no basis for an increase except malfeasance.
  I personally believe that the States have more than enough money to 
carry the existing caseload for the rest of the year, but in a very 
concerted political move to show who loves children more, we have State 
WIC directors telling misleading stories of how people will be released 
from the WIC rolls. I am disappointed WIC is being used this way.
  If there is a shortfall and people are let off the rolls, then either 
the USDA personnel or State WIC directors should be investigated for 
malfeasance. The appropriations bill for WIC was passed last August 
containing $3.7 billion which is $1.8 billion more than 1989. The 
Department and the States had more than ample time to figure out how to 
manage their funds for the year. If my colleagues currently believes 
USDA, which I do not, States will run out of money or put people off 
the WIC Program before the end of the year. Why? Only because of 
malfeasance or incompetence on the part of the managers of the program.
  WIC is now a $3.7 billion program. Almost $1 billion more than 25 
percent goes for management and overhead. This not about protecting 
children; this is about protecting a large and rapidly growing 
bureaucracy.
  Every month I get a check and I must manage it for the month. If I do 
not, I bounce checks and am held accountable. WIC should operate in the 
same manner, and someone should be held accountable, and if the States 
are unable to manage their funds with as much advanced notice as they 
had, then we in Congress should hold them accountable. In the real 
world, banks are not held responsible for their clients' incompetence.
  Simply put, if every private citizen in America must live within 
their budgets, then this program should also. We cannot allow 
incompetence to be rewarded with a raise, and so my colleagues have a 
choice. Vote for the committee's fact-based recommendation or vote out 
of fear for an increase.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman I, am certainly happy to be here with the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] because they have provided wonderful leadership in helping 
us to get this issue resolved.

[[Page H2717]]

  Mr. Chairman, I wish we did not have to be here today. This should 
not be a partisan issue. This is about funding poor children who need 
food in their mouths, and I must say to my colleague from New Mexico 
this is about taking food out of the mouths of little babies and 
183,000 of those children who genuinely qualify.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not about profligate government spending. The WIC 
Program is a program that works and in the longer term actually saves 
money. For every dollar we use in this program, there are untold 
returns not only in Medicaid savings but in the productive lives and 
healthy lives of children, and that cannot possibly be measured in 
dollars and cents.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know who was saying that we are pulling for 
efficiency here. I am saying I do not know what they mean by 
efficiency, but I use the old adage ``Let's not be penny-wise and 
pound-foolish.'' Every current research, up-to-date research, 
demonstrates the returns to society on the health of children when 
those investments are made in the early years of life such as the WIC 
Program gets.
  So I must also remind my colleagues, and I am as fiscally 
conservative, if not more so, than many of my colleagues, before it 
became popular, before it became popular, and I must say it is budget 
neutral and we should support it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
know personally how important the WIC Program is to our community and 
our State. I was part of the Southern Initiative for Healthy Women and 
Children throughout a number of years, and we used the WIC Program as a 
basis of helping to raise the level of nutrition and health services 
for those most at risk, women and children.
  But this argument today is not about healthy mothers and children. It 
is about demagoguery and elections. We have today $100 million that we 
expect to be carried over in the WIC Program. Those are tax dollars 
that will be unspent and carried over.
  When the President asked for the $78 million increase in WIC funding, 
it is not because anybody expects the WIC funds to run out. We agreed 
to a compromise of half of that money in this supplemental 
appropriations bill. Furthermore, we agreed to put language in the bill 
that would allow $47 million that is currently in the fund for rural 
America to be transferred over in the unlikely event that the funds in 
the WIC Program should begin to run short.
  All estimations are there are more than enough funds, more than 
enough funds; in fact, $100 million, more than enough funds to fund the 
WIC Program.
  Every week when I go home, Mr. Chairman, I am confronted by the 
tremendous needs of the people in my community, the women who are 
trying to move from welfare to work, who need more day care, who need 
more transportation moneys, and I am confronted by the limitations on 
the amount of money we have.
  Please do not let us fund a program that already has excessive funds, 
that has a backup, and turn our backs on the real needs and the 
questions that are put to us every week. Not one person has asked me 
for more WIC funds, but thousands of people have asked me to find the 
money for the programs that are truly needed every day.
  This is not free money. This money comes from taxpayers across this 
country who wrote a check and on April 15 got in their cars and drove 
to the post office and paid money out of their hard-earned income to 
fund our necessary programs. Please do not put this money in a program 
where it is unneeded, where there are excessive funds now, where there 
is a reserve to draw on, and fail to address and leave ourselves the 
opportunity to fund the programs that are really most needed today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a very big difference between carryover funds 
and surplus funds. There are no surplus funds in the WIC Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] to explain why.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the WIC Program is structured in such a way 
to allow approximately 2 percent of total funding to be carried over 
from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year because in the act, in the 
statute, WIC cannot create any deficits. So those dollars are dollars 
that pay for current beneficiaries.
  I am sure that the gentlewoman that just spoke is unfamiliar with the 
program, being a new Member, but there is absolutely no way that WIC 
can overspend its dollars, and in addition to that, the fund for rural 
America is already over subscribed. We are going to have to cut water 
projects, sewer projects all over this country, housing projects. To 
throw the WIC's dollars in there makes absolutely no sense because 
there is not enough money to begin with.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it is too bad that 
everything has to be reduced to rhetoric and emotionalism here. The 
respected ranking member herself has asked a lot of questions about the 
WIC numbers. We all have questions about it. It was just said, a 2-
percent carryover is what is needed. That is $75 million. We already 
have $100 million in there. We do not need the additional. However, we 
asked USDA on April 17, last month, less than a month ago, what would 
happen if they put another $36 million in there. The participation 
would be approximately 7.4 million children or people.
  Now the question is how will that number change if we put another $36 
million in there, run up to $76 million, and again the USDA, which my 
colleagues keep quoting, and I respectfully disagree with the numbers; 
I have got them right here from the USDA. They say the participation 
level will not increase from 7.4.
  So we are not talking taking children off.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman refuses to be unconfused by the facts. 
The fact is if we are wrong, all that happens is we can appropriate 
less money next year. If you are wrong, 150,000 kids are going to get 
hurt.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I want to salute the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] 
and the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and all the 
Democrats and Republicans that have voted and supported this program in 
the past and urge them to support it in the future. This is a 
bipartisan program that if my colleagues are for families first and 
balancing the budget this returns $3.54 for every dollar we invest.
  Now I am getting tired of hearing the arguments that we have $100 
million sitting around that is going to be wasted or going to be thrown 
around in this program that is some kind of supplemental or reserve 
fund. It is coming from people that I respect on the other side, but 
they either do not support WIC or they do not understand it.

                              {time}  1415

  People getting vouchers take the voucher from the urban center where 
they get the food to a grocery store. The grocery store takes the 
voucher to a bank, the bank takes it eventually to the State for 
repayment. Vouchers that are then taken into the State in August and 
September before the fiscal year October 1, are not going through the 
system, so money has to carry over. It is one of the sound management 
principles that WIC has to run on. There must be carryover funds. That 
is one of the ways that the voucher system works.
  So food prices are going up, milk prices are going up, we froze 
disability payments for children in this country for a number of 
months; that money is for these children and these women. This helps 
from throwing 180,000 people off this program. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I think I have about got this thing figured 
out, but I have not gone over it yet with the sharp eye of opposition, 
but this is the way I see it.

[[Page H2718]]

  We have had, since the start of the great society, this compassion in 
our country that we must take care of women, infants and children, and 
people with disabilities and unfortunates, and we started on the right 
track, but somewhere in this deal we have gotten into this one word 
called ``more.'' Every year we want more and we want more.
  Elected officials have been caught in this, we might say this spirals 
upwards because they want to be reelected. The liberals have been in 
the majority, so they go from one year to the next and say, if we do 
not bring more into this program, then we are going to fail. If we 
fail, we are going to have criticism and criticism might mean that we 
will not get reelected.
  Now, I think down in the heart of hearts of the liberals on the other 
side of the aisle is this relief that we are finally going to stop what 
has been so white hot and so excessive over all of these years and we 
are finally going to stop it. But the unfair part of it is that as we 
are standing up here and saying we are not against women and infants 
and children. We are for them. We do not want anybody to go not being 
fed or taken care of.
  The liberals are taking the advantage politically and saying, yes, 
those people do not care, and what they will do is they will drag the 
perfectly justifiable cases to center stage, draw the spotlight to it 
and they will say, these are the folks, the conservatives are, in fact, 
against as they are trying to slow down the growth of the WIC Program.
  I think that is the reason I am for this for more reasons than have 
been stated before, but I know this.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman obviously knows, being a 
member of the subcommittee, that the money for this is coming from an 
offset in another account, and in fact, there is no committee that has 
taken more cuts than the Committee on Agriculture. The gentleman from 
the State of Arkansas knows that. So the gentleman obviously knows that 
this is not new money. This is money that is being shifted from other 
programs, because we all have a commitment to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, but the 
gentlewoman knows what is going to happen, and this is what is 
happening in these programs. Everybody takes what the figures are for 
this year. They know they have to spend them whether they are there or 
not. We spend to that point and then it becomes the floor for the next 
year.
  What I am worried about is if we are going to save these programs, if 
we are going to help these people, we are going to have to start 
cutting because the balanced budget is in fact a necessity security for 
people like this. We cannot keep spending and spending and spending on 
the basis that we are compassionate and we are the only people who are 
right, because if we do, we are not going to have a program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations for 
yielding to me.
  I feel like I am in a little bit of a quandary in this debate. I feel 
like I ought to lift this podium up and move it over here to the center 
aisle, although I am mindful of the admonition that the only thing one 
gets by being the middle of the road in Washington is run over.
  Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, point out that this bipartisan 
amendment, with the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] in the lead is, 
as the gentlewoman from Ohio pointed out, fully paid for. It is offset 
with $38 million out of the $365 million in unobligated funding from 
the NASA national aeronautics facilities account.
  Second, let me tell my colleagues that I accept on good faith the 
administration's claim that we need at least $76 million more in this 
program to maintain the current caseload, ensure full participation for 
this year, and that is as a result of the caseload being higher than 
what is projected at the beginning of this current fiscal year and, as 
I think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] alluded to, the 
increase in food prices, primarily dairy prices.
  Last, let me assure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as the 
chairman of the authorizing subcommittee that has jurisdiction of the 
WIC Program, we are going to look at all of these management and fiscal 
year issues later this year, probably in the fall, when we take up the 
reauthorization of the WIC Program. We will be looking at ways to 
achieve greater efficiency and more accountability in the WIC Program, 
but the time and the place to debate those structural changes to the 
WIC Program, which, again, are going to require bipartisan support in 
the Congress and support from the WIC community across the country is 
in the fall when we do the reauthorization bill, not in the context of 
this supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, on April 24, the Republicans voted to 
reject the administration request for WIC funding, a program that feeds 
poor women, infants and children.
  When Democrats protested, the Republicans proudly defended 
themselves. One after another they marched to the well and said, we are 
not really cutting WIC, we are not really throwing poor babies off the 
program.
  Nobody was fooled. The phone started ringing and the mail started 
pouring in. The American people were outraged. Now, some brave 
Republicans are jumping off that sinking ship.
  I would like to commend those Members across the aisle for 
understanding that the Republican leadership was terribly wrong. I 
would also like to make it very clear that it took a steady drumbeat of 
opposition by my Democratic colleagues to help the Republicans to see 
the light.
  The Kaptur amendment will restore full funding for WIC and keep 
180,000 women, infants and children from being denied proper nutrition.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people are much smarter than the 
Republican leadership thinks. Support the Kaptur amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
amendment to restore funding for the women, infants and children's 
program, WIC. I had originally introduced my own amendment, but I am 
going to withdraw it to support the Kaptur, et. al. amendment.
  In my State of California alone, 1.2 million low-income and 
nutritionally at-risk pregnant women, infant and children benefit from 
WIC. To suddenly strip 180,000 of these women, infants, and children 
from this essential program is cruel and without reason.
  I am proud that California operates the largest WIC Program in the 
country, as it is one of the most successful programs ever established 
by Congress, and I am proud to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment to restore 
funding for the women, infants and children program [WIC]. I had 
originally introduced my own amendment to restore full funding for WIC, 
however, I will withdraw my amendment to support the Kaptur-Riggs-
Roukema-Roemer-Quinn amendment.
  In my State of California alone, 1,225,800 low-income and 
nutritional-at-risk pregnant women, infants, and children benefit from 
WIC. To suddenly strip 180,000 of these women, infants, and children 
from this essential program is cruel and without reason.
  Programs that are not only cost-effective, but produce such 
impressive results are precisely the programs we need to keep, not cut. 
The Government saves $3.50 for each $1 spent on WIC for pregnant women 
in expenditures for Medicaid, SSI for disabled children, and other 
programs. More importantly, research has demonstrated how effectively 
WIC reduces low-birthweight babies, infant mortality, and child anemia.
  I am proud that California operates the largest WIC Program in the 
country as it is one of the most successful programs ever established 
by Congress. And I am proud to support the full restoration of funding 
for WIC.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H2719]]

  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the 
women, infants and children nutrition program. WIC is one of the most 
successful and important Federal programs ever undertaken, and is it 
crucial that it receive the funding necessary to continue serving 
eligible mothers and children. Last year, the WIC program served 7.4 
million pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and children under 
age 5. These beneficiaries must demonstrate their eligibility based 
both on financial need and nutritional risk, and participants are 
screened every 6 months to ensure their continuing need for enrollment 
in the program.
  Quite simply, WIC saves lives. The program has been invaluable in 
helping to reduce infant mortality and improve health by decreasing 
anemia, low birthweight, and prematurity. It has also been linked to 
better cognitive development among children. WIC is not an entitlement. 
It has also been linked to better cognitive development among children. 
WIC is not an entitlement. It is an investment in our future, and one 
which has continued to prove itself for more than a decade.
  Sadly, as many as 180,000 current WIC participants will be forced out 
of the program if it does not receive full funding for fiscal year 
1997. After so many assistance programs were cut last year, WIC is the 
last remaining source of assistance for some some of our most 
vulnerable citizens. It would be a tragedy to limit this strikingly 
effective program, leaving thousands of women and children with no 
assistance at all. I sincerely hope that I can count on my colleagues' 
continuing support of WIC, and I urge that it receive funding in the 
full amount of the administration's request.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding me this time.
  Let me simply say in my community there are 109,596 women, infants, 
and children in the 18th Congressional District on the WIC Program. 
Over 683,000 WIC recipients reside in Harris County and will have a 
$1,255-million shortfall if this amendment is not passed.
  I appreciate the bipartisan effort of the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. I withdrew 
my amendment on restoring WIC funds because of the leadership of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and I appreciate her efforts.
  Let us realize that we had a $300-billion deficit and we are now down 
to $100 billion. Who better to spend the money on than women, infants, 
and children who only have the good sense of this Congress to rely. I 
support this amendment and the restoration of the $38 million for this 
very vital nutrition program that helps feed needy families.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to H.R. 1469, the 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill on behalf of the 1.6 million 
women, 1.8 million infants and 3.7 million children who participate in 
our Nation's Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children [WIC] as authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act 
of 1966.
  This amendment would address the projected shortfall in funds by the 
close of fiscal year 1997.
  In the 18th Congressional District a total of 109,596 women, infants 
and children receive WIC services each month. This means that in Harris 
County, TX 12,917 pregnant women, 5,259 breast-feeding mothers, 9,448 
postpartum mothers, who have recently given birth, and 29,934 infants, 
and 52,038 children can receive the help that they need.
  One-seventh of the State of Texas' 683,000 WIC recipients reside in 
Harris County, TX. If the State of Texas' WIC program does not receive 
additional funds it will have a $1.255-million shortfall by the close 
of fiscal year 1997.
  This would require an additional $76 million in funding for this 
program for fiscal year 1997.
  This program is not as glamorous as others--the WIC program is 
formula, milk, juice, and bread. The majority of those served are 
infants and children.
  To cut the WIC program does not materially reduce the numbers of 
women, infants and children who are in need. This program is one of the 
best run, most efficient and effective programs that the Federal 
Government has initiated.
  According to the Government Accounting Office for every dollar spent 
on the WIC program the taxpayer saves $3.50. This is the reason the WIC 
program received very strong bipartisan support throughout its history.
  I would ask that my colleagues would join in support of this 
amendment so that we may meet a clear and present need in the WIC 
program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
because I think this is a terrific amendment and I am very much in 
support of it.
  Mr. Chairman, hunger is caused by poverty. Poverty and hunger are a 
violence against humanity, whether they our in the streets of 
Washington, DC, or the villages of Iraq and Bosnia. Fortunately, the 
pain and violence of hunger can be reduced by appropriating additional 
money to the WIC Program. That is exactly what this amendment does. I 
am strongly in support of it, and I hope this whole body will approve 
of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the Kaptur-Riggs 
amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that would add $38 
million for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].
  WIC is an effective prevention program that saves on future health 
care costs. WIC provides food, education, and child care to poor women, 
infants, and children. It is estimated that one in five children in our 
country is living in poverty, and five million children under the age 
of 12 go to bed hungry each month. No child in our country should go to 
bed hungry. Only well-nourished children reach their full potential and 
become productive, contributing members of society.
  Hunger is caused by poverty. Poverty and hunger are a violence 
against humanity, whether they occur in the streets of Washington, DC, 
or in the far-off towns and villages of Bosnia or Iraq.
  Fortunately, the pain and violence of hunger can be reduced by 
appropriating additional money to the WIC Program. This increase would 
provide supplemental food and nutrition education for thousands of 
women, infants, and children who are eligible for the WIC Program. 
Without this additional money, these eligible participants will be part 
of the growing childhood hunger epidemic that plagues us.
  Under the Kaptur-Riggs amendment, $38 million would be taken from the 
money that was appropriated in fiscal year 1995 for a new National Wind 
Tunnel Complex [NWTC]. Only $35 million of this appropriation has been 
used by NASA for research into wind tunnel testing. The remaining $365 
million has never been used. This amendment would not impact negatively 
on NASA.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against hunger by voting 
for the Kaptur-Riggs amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I want to commend the authors of this amendment. I cannot 
tell my colleagues how distressed I was to learn that the Committee on 
Appropriations did not put in the request by the administration for the 
full funding of WIC.
  I have been involved in this program my entire life in the Congress 
of the United States. I have probably visited more WIC clinics, more 
site visits, conducted more investigations, asked for more studies and 
investigations by universities and others of this program, and the 
result is always the same: This program works.
  This program saves healthy pregnancies. This program helps make 
healthy babies. These pregnancies do not know fiscal years. They do not 
know carryover budgets. They do not know any of that. What the WIC 
directors have done historically year in and year out is provide us 
credible information to run this program. They have done it again this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot interrupt this funding, because if we take 
away this program in a late-term pregnancy, if we take away the program 
for a newborn, we change the manner and the ability of that child's 
brain to develop. We change the manner and the ability

[[Page H2720]]

of that fetus to develop during that pregnancy, and we ought to listen 
to the WIC directors and provide for full support of this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is not a liberal issue. This is not a 
conservative issue. This is an issue of values. Who are we and what do 
we stand for in the United States of America? We are talking about 
cereal, we are talking about milk, and we are talking about formula, 
and we are talking about pregnant women and children.
  What the Kaptur-Roukema amendment does is to provide necessary 
funding to prevent 180,000 women, infants, and children from being 
kicked out of the WIC Program. These numbers are not administration 
numbers, they are not Democratic numbers, these are numbers that come 
from the States. The process of seeing people thrown off of this 
program has already begun in States like Arizona and Nebraska.
  In the last several weeks, Members have taken the case for WIC to the 
American people. We have explained that WIC is a program that works, 
that it saves the Federal Government $3 for every dollar that it has 
invested, and that it provides assistance to those in our society that 
need it the most: Pregnant women and young children. I thank my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for joining. Support Kaptur-
Roukema. Let us not gamble with our children's lives.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
   Mr. Chairman, 45 years ago Franklin Roosevelt said, ``The test of 
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who 
have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too 
little.'' That is the simple test before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
bipartisan Kaptur-Roukema-Riggs-Roemer-Quinn amendment. It provides 
enough support to maintain the current participation level of pregnant 
women and low birthweight children around this country. The support is 
paid for then by an offset to the NASA accounts, the wind tunnel 
accounts, which are being canceled.
  Keep in mind, for a few hundred dollars per participant we save, on 
average, $20,000 for children who would be admitted to hospital rooms 
across the country with anemia, with all kinds of conditions, that are 
a direct result of poor nutrition.
  This is a wise investment for America, fully paid for, fully proven. 
Support the bipartisan Kaptur-Roukema amendment. I thank my dear 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Marge Roukema, for 
working so hard on this. It is an honor to work with her.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewomen 
for speaking to the issue. They believe differently than we do, but at 
least they spoke to the issue and did not demagogue, did not do 
anything.
  We on this side feel that the money was put in, the $38 million we 
put in, and then the additional $40 million to bring it to $78 million. 
The President asked for $76 million, and then they say, what if USDA is 
wrong and there is not enough money in there? Will we hurt the 
children? We do not think we will. They believe one way and we believe 
the other.
  But I appreciate my colleagues on the other side. They do not stand 
up and demagogue. They are speaking to the issue. We truly feel there 
is enough money in there to cover without increasing and increasing and 
increasing.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle for debating this without throwing in the rhetorical 
information.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are not here to talk about the merits 
of WIC, we are not here to talk about feeding children. Indeed, this 
committee has supported WIC to the tune of full funding last year, $3.7 
billion. This committee has supported increasing WIC $36 million. This 
committee has supported increasing funding in the carryover up to $147 
million. Also this committee, to make sure, has asked the USDA what 
their numbers are. I have the numbers here. They are open to anybody. 
The number of participants at the additional $36 million is 7.4 
million. The number of participants at the $76 million is 7.4.
  In addition, we even had an April 11, 1997, memo from Mary Ann 
Keeffe, the Acting Undersecretary of Food and Consumer Services, that 
states that she believes the State projections of 7.4 million is 
optimistic, and that the USDA budget assumptions of 7.2 are more 
realistic.
  In either case, Mr. Chairman, we are covered without spending 
additional dollars. My question would be, to my friend across the 
aisle, would she support an amendment to make sure we are only feeding 
children and not bureaucrats, that stipulates that none of this money 
can be used for the bureaucracy?
  Because it is time we start talking a little bit about the WIC 
bureaucracy. It is 25 percent of the overhead, which means they will 
get $15 million of this vote today, $15 million goes to bureaucrats, 
not children. It is a program that already 33 percent of the 
participants are not documented or verified as being eligible, Mr. 
Chairman. Six percent have been called ineligible, but they are still 
on it. Yet, the Democrats have not supported a study in the committee. 
I would love the gentlewoman to support a study. Would the gentlewoman 
support a study?
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record points against the Kaptur-
Riggs amendment.

                  Talking Points Against Kaptur/Riggs

       We asked USDA to give us information on impacts to the 
     program with a $36 million supplemental and a $76 million 
     supplemental.
       According to USDA, participation will not change whether 
     they get $36 million or $76 million--remains at 7.4 million.
       The $38 million we are providing is a supplemental 
     appropriation. It is in addition to the $3.7 billion the 
     program has already received for this fiscal year.
       We have not reduced or cut the program. WIC got $3.7 
     billion in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill and will 
     get $38 million more in this supplemental bill.
       Program participation fluctuates monthly. The Dems want to 
     keep using the October monthly participation rate of 7.47 
     million because it is the highest number. We should counter 
     with the December participation rate of 7.28 million.
       We know participation dropped from October to December, 
     went up in January, and dropped again in February.
       In a memo dated April 11, 1997 from Mary Ann Keeffe the 
     Acting Under Secretary for Food and Consumer Service, she 
     states that her agency continues to believe that state 
     projections of maintaining 7.4 million participants is 
     optimistic and the USDA budget assumptions of 7.2 million are 
     more realistic.
       USDA plans to carryover $100 million with a $38 million 
     supplemental. It plans to carryover $135 million with a $76 
     million supplemental.
       In addition, States are allowed to spend forward or 
     carryover funds on their books. We know states spent forward 
     over $60 million into fiscal year 1997.
       The program needs a certain amount of carryover because of 
     the way the program operates. USDA has said that about a 2% 
     carryover would be needed. 2% of the program would be about 
     $75 million, so there's a $20 to $25 million that could be 
     used if it was really needed.
       In this bill we give the Secretary the authority to use the 
     Fund for Rural America for WIC. There is a $47 million 
     unobligated balance in the Fund for Rural America. The 
     Secretary could use these funds for WIC if it's that 
     critical.
       The President's budget submitted in February said carryover 
     funds from FY96 to FY97 would be $145 million. In a USDA 
     table sent to the Committee on April 16, 1997, we now find 
     out that it was $202 million.
       A USDA study of WIC income documentation and verification 
     policy indicates that 33.3% of state agencies allow the 
     participant to self declare income levels without 
     documentation or verification.
       Another USDA study indicates that 5.7% of WIC participants 
     receive WIC benefits, but are not eligible. This is over $200 
     million that could be saved and used for those that truly 
     need to be in the program.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree that the Governor 
of California needs the money to maintain current participants in this 
program?

[[Page H2721]]

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
additional funding for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, 
Infants and Children [WIC] under H.R. 1469, the Supplemental 
Appropriations bill for FY 1997. Hawaii is among the twelve states that 
would have to reduce current WIC caseloads without the approval of $76 
million in supplemental funds. Nearly one-third of Hawaii women and 
children who receive WIC, or 9,300 participants, would lose their 
access to nutritional assistance. Without the additional funding, the 
increasing numbers of Hawaii women and children who qualify for WIC may 
not receive it.
  Hawaii's WIC program has long served the low-income population of 
children and pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women who are at 
risk for nutritional deficiencies. In the last year, Hawaii's WIC 
program has been providing nutritious supplemental foods, quality 
nutrition education, high-risk counseling, breast-feeding promotion, 
and referrals to health care and social services to 30,532 
participants. This is a 13 percent increase in caseload over the past 
year. Considering the slow recovery of Hawaii's economy and the impact 
of welfare reform, the WIC program becomes an even more valuable 
resource to the 50,000 women, infants and children estimated to be in 
need of the services.
  Earlier this month, the State of Hawaii implemented major cost 
containment strategies to stay within the budget provided. Current WIC 
participants are being told to make ``best buys'' to do more with less 
money, like buying powdered milk. These cost saving adjustments may be 
difficult to implement but they are much less costly than the long-term 
consequences of forcing 9,300 low-income women, infants and children 
out of the program.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Ms. Kaptur and 
Mrs. Roukema for their considerable hard work and perseverance in 
bringing this amendment to the floor today.
  I rise to express my strong support for this amendment which would 
provide a $76 million supplemental appropriation for the Special 
Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The 
passage of this amendment will ensure that over 180,000 pregnant women, 
infants and children across the country will not be terminated from 
participation in the WIC program.
  As a member of the House Agriculture panel which has authorizing 
jurisdiction over nutrition, I have been a longtime supporter of the 
WIC program. Numerous studies, including one by the GAO, have reported 
that a dollar spent on WIC saves as much as $3.54. Because of the 
preventative nature of the WIC program, these savings are primarily 
Medicaid savings. Simply put, this supplemental appropriation amendment 
is just too important to the continued health of far too many 
disadvantaged women and the infants and children they care for.
  Again, I rise in support of this amendment and encourage my 
colleagues to join me in doing likewise.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
bipartisan amendment offered by my colleagues Marcy Kaptur, Frank 
Riggs, Marge Roukema, Tim Roemer and Jack Quinn, which would restore 
full funding for the Woman, Infants and Children Program, or WIC.
  WIC provides basic foods like milk, juice, and cereal to needy 
children through age 5 and nutrition education and supplements to 
pregnant and nursing women. The program serves 7.4 million women and 
children, and enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  As well it should: a spate of recent studies has shown the profound 
significance early nutrition has on child development. These studies 
back up twenty-two years of scientific research demonstrating that WIC 
is an excellent investment in our nation's future.
  Study after study has shown that each dollar spent on pregnant women 
in the WIC program saves up to $3.13 in Medicaid costs for mothers and 
infants in the first 60 days after birth and that pregnant women on 
Medicaid receiving WIC are less likely to deliver premature or low 
birth-weight babies. Volumes of scientific research have shown that 
poor child nutrition leads to health problems and can slow learning.
  As the mother of four, I find these results utterly unsurprising. 
Simple common sense tells us that kids are our future, and they need 
all the help they can get. That's why this amendment, which provides 
the WIC program with the minimum amount of funding it needs to continue 
serving needy children, is so important. In my home state of California 
alone, WIC will be unable to serve about 169,000 moms and kids if this 
amendment fails.
  Mr. Chairman, the facts are clear. This amendment is vital for our 
nation's children, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur amendment to 
increase funding for the WIC Program by $38 million, and I commend my 
colleagues Ms. Kaptur and Ms. Roukema for their diligent efforts to 
obtain these funds.
  WIC is a program that works. Medical research has found that WIC 
reduces low birthweight, infant mortality, and anemia and improves 
diets. WIC has also been linked to improved cognitive development in 
children. At a time when early childhood development has become an 
issue of great national attention, it makes no sense to withhold 
funding from a program that successfully addresses these development 
issues.
  Both WIC participation levels and per participant food costs have 
increased, yet funding for the program has not increased to meet this 
need. The $38 million supplemental will still throw more than 180,000 
needy women and children off the program. That is 180,000 pregnant 
women, malnourished infants, and vulnerable children lacking cereal, 
milk, formula--an astounding number of vulnerable people forced to find 
other means to meet the most basic nutritional needs for survival.
  At the current funding level, many States have had to begin cutting 
participants from the program. California WIC agencies are currently 
cutting participants from the program because of lack of sufficient 
funds to meet last year's participation levels.
  There is nothing, nothing more important than feeding our most 
vulnerable, than basic subsistence for the needy in our country. I urge 
my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have always said that in this 
country no concern should be more bipartisan than the issue of hunger--
especially as it affects our children. In that spirit, the WIC Program 
has long enjoyed strong support from both sides of the aisle, for the 
crucial role it plays in helping to ensure a healthy start in life for 
all kids and moms. So, no one was more pleased than I was to see an 
arrangement worked out for this amendment to be offered on a bipartisan 
basis, providing the additional $38 million needed to ensure that 
mothers and children are not dropped from the WIC Program in the coming 
months. We still have a great deal of work to do, as a country, to 
tackle the problem of childhood hunger and infant mortality. Most 
people are surprised to learn that 19 industrialized countries have 
lower infant death rates than the United States. It is hard to believe 
that in our rich Nation proportionally more babies die before reaching 
their first year than in Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Western 
Europe, and even Hong Kong and Singapore. There is no reason why this 
should be the case. We have the wherewithal and the know-how to address 
the problem of infant mortality, and part of the solution is a strong, 
effective WIC Program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and keep the WIC Program on solid footing.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of, surely, the most 
vulnerable sector of our society: women, infants, and children. And, I 
rise in strong support of restoring the funding request of $76 million 
to the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children; known as WIC.
  I am deeply concerned with, and I did not support, the decision of 
the Appropriations Committee to cut the funds requested for the WIC 
Program in the fiscal year 1997 supplemental appropriations bill. By 
slicing in half the $76 million in funding needed to avert 
participation reductions of approximately 360,000 women, infants, and 
children, this bill will cause 180,000 eligible participants to be 
dropped from the rolls. I ask my colleagues to reconsider.
  This year in New York City, for the first time ever, the 
appropriation was less than the preceeding year. Therefore, we began 
the fiscal year 1997 $6 million in the hole. According to WIC Program 
directors in the Bronx, the impact of cuts to their budgets may be 
devastating. I do not understand how a Congress that seems eager to 
support tens of billions of tax cuts to many of the wealthiest 
individuals in America through large reductions in capital gains taxes 
and taxes on the very largest estates cannot find $38 million to 
prevent poor children from going without the nutritional supplements 
they so desperately need. I ask my colleagues to reconsider.
  This bill paints a very ugly picture and the families of the South 
Bronx, New York City, and indeed, of our great Nation deserve more. In 
this picture, we see families already being turned away from food 
pantries and soup kitchens in the Bronx. In this picture, we see a 
pregnant woman who is receiving WIC benefits for her unborn baby, and 
herself, but her 2-year-old is placed on a waiting list. Of course, she 
will use her WIC foods to feed her 2-year-old, she is a mother, she 
will protect her child. In this scenario, everyone suffers: the mom, 
the 2-year-old, and the unborn baby. This debate should not be about 
fiscal conservatism or policy differences with State officials over 
management of the WIC Program. Simply, this debate should be about 
providing poor women, infants, and children with milk, eggs, and juice.

[[Page H2722]]

  Again, I ask my colleagues to reconsider and exhibit real leadership 
on this issue. Let us renew our commitment to the families of this 
Nation by ending a strong message that avoiding potential human 
disasters is just as important as providing funding to respond to 
natural disasters.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 338, 
noes 89, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 131]

                               AYES--338

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--89

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehrlich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Shadegg
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Andrews
     Hefner
     Mica
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Watkins

                              {time}  1502

  Messrs. MANZULLO, PAXON, and LARGENT changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. LEWIS of Kentucky, CRAMER, BACHUS, RILEY, ADERHOLT, and 
EVERETT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on the following rollcall Nos., had I been 
present I would have voted: No. 128--``Yes''; No. 129--``Yes''; No. 
130--``Yes''; No. 131--``Yes.'' I was unavoidably detained.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 105-97.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mc KEON

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McKeon:
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following new title:

               TITLE IV--COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION REVIEW

     SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Cost of 
     Higher Education Review Act of 1997''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) According to a report issued by the General Accounting 
     Office, tuition at 4-year public colleges and universities 
     increased 234 percent from school year 1980-1981 through 
     school year 1994-1995, while median household income rose 82 
     percent and the cost of consumer goods as measured by the 
     Consumer Price Index rose 74 percent over the same time 
     period.
       (2) A 1995 survey of college freshmen found that concern 
     about college affordability was the highest it has been in 
     the last 30 years.
       (3) Paying for a college education now ranks as one of the 
     most costly investments for American families.

     SEC. 4002. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE COST 
                   OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

       There is established a Commission to be known as the 
     ``National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education'' 
     (hereafter in this title referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 4003. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 7 
     members as follows:
       (1) Two individuals shall be appointed by the Speaker of 
     the House.
       (2) One individual shall be appointed by the Minority 
     Leader of the House.
       (3) Two individuals shall be appointed by the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate.
       (4) One individual shall be appointed by the Minority 
     Leader of the Senate.
       (5) One individual shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Education.
       (b) Additional Qualifications.--Each of the individuals 
     appointed under subsection (a) shall be an individual with 
     expertise and experience in higher education finance 
     (including the financing of State institutions of higher 
     education), Federal financial aid programs, education 
     economics research, public or private higher education 
     administration, or business executives who have managed 
     successful cost reduction programs.
       (c) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The members of the 
     Commission shall elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairperson. In 
     the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson will 
     assume the duties of the Chairperson.
       (d) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       (e) Appointments.--All appointments under subsection (a) 
     shall be made within 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

[[Page H2723]]

     In the event that an officer authorized to make an 
     appointment under subsection (a) has not made such 
     appointment within such 30 days, the appointment may be made 
     for such officer as follows:
       (1) the Chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce may act under such subsection for the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (2) the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce may act under such subsection for 
     the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives;
       (3) the Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources may act under such subsection for the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate; and
       (4) the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Labor 
     and Human Resources may act under such subsection for the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (f) Voting.--Each member of the Commission shall be 
     entitled to one vote, which shall be equal to the vote of 
     every other member of the Commission.
       (g) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the manner in which 
     the original appointment was made.
       (h) Prohibition of Additional Pay.--Members of the 
     Commission shall receive no additional pay, allowances, or 
     benefits by reason of their service on the Commission. 
     Members appointed from among private citizens of the United 
     States may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem, in 
     lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving 
     intermittently in the government service to the extent funds 
     are available for such expenses.
       (i) Initial Meeting.--The initial meeting of the Commission 
     shall occur within 40 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4004. FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Specific Findings and Recommendations.--The Commission 
     shall study and make findings and specific recommendations 
     regarding the following:
       (1) The increase in tuition compared with other commodities 
     and services.
       (2) Innovative methods of reducing or stabilizing tuition.
       (3) Trends in college and university administrative costs, 
     including administrative staffing, ratio of administrative 
     staff to instructors, ratio of administrative staff to 
     students, remuneration of administrative staff, and 
     remuneration of college and university presidents or 
     chancellors.
       (4) Trends in (A) faculty workload and remuneration 
     (including the use of adjunct faculty), (B) faculty-to-
     student ratios, (C) number of hours spent in the classroom by 
     faculty, and (D) tenure practices, and the impact of such 
     trends on tuition.
       (5) Trends in (A) the construction and renovation of 
     academic and other collegiate facilities, and (B) the 
     modernization of facilities to access and utilize new 
     technologies, and the impact of such trends on tuition.
       (6) The extent to which increases in institutional 
     financial aid and tuition discounting have affected tuition 
     increases, including the demographics of students receiving 
     such aid, the extent to which such aid is provided to 
     students with limited need in order to attract such students 
     to particular institutions or major fields of study, and the 
     extent to which Federal financial aid, including loan aid, 
     has been used to offset such increases.
       (7) The extent to which Federal, State, and local laws, 
     regulations, or other mandates contribute to increasing 
     tuition, and recommendations on reducing those mandates.
       (8) The establishment of a mechanism for a more timely and 
     widespread distribution of data on tuition trends and other 
     costs of operating colleges and universities.
       (9) The extent to which student financial aid programs have 
     contributed to changes in tuition.
       (10) Trends in State fiscal policies that have affected 
     college costs.
       (11) The adequacy of existing Federal and State financial 
     aid programs in meeting the costs of attending colleges and 
     universities.
       (12) Other related topics determined to be appropriate by 
     the Commission.
       (b) Final Report.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission 
     shall submit to the President and to the Congress, not later 
     than 120 days after the date of the first meeting of the 
     Commission, a report which shall contain a detailed statement 
     of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, including 
     the Commission's recommendations for administrative and 
     legislative action that the Commission considers advisable.
       (2) Majority vote required for recommendations.--Any 
     recommendation described in paragraph (1) shall be made by 
     the Commission to the President and to the Congress only if 
     such recommendation is adopted by a majority vote of the 
     members of the Commission who are present and voting.
       (3) Evaluation of different circumstances.--In making any 
     findings under subsection (a) of this section, the Commission 
     shall take into account differences between public and 
     private colleges and universities, the length of the academic 
     program, the size of the institution's student population, 
     and the availability of the institution's resources, 
     including the size of the institution's endowment.

     SEC. 4005. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this title, hold such hearings and sit and act 
     at such times and places, as the Commission may find 
     advisable.
       (b) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission may adopt such 
     rules and regulations as may be necessary to establish the 
     Commission's procedures and to govern the manner of the 
     Commission's operations, organization, and personnel.
       (c) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) Information.--The Commission may request from the head 
     of any Federal agency or instrumentality such information as 
     the Commission may require for the purpose of this title. 
     Each such agency or instrumentality shall, to the extent 
     permitted by law and subject to the exceptions set forth in 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred 
     to as the Freedom of Information Act), furnish such 
     information to the Commission, upon request made by the 
     Chairperson of the Commission.
       (2) Facilities and services, personnel detail authorized.--
     Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head 
     of any Federal agency or instrumentality shall, to the extent 
     possible and subject to the discretion of such head--
       (A) make any of the facilities and services of such agency 
     or instrumentality available to the Commission; and
       (B) detail any of the personnel of such agency or 
     instrumentality to the Commission, on a nonreimbursable 
     basis, to assist the Commission in carrying out the 
     Commission's duties under this title.
       (d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.
       (e) Contracting.--The Commission, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, may enter 
     into contracts with State agencies, private firms, 
     institutions, and individuals for the purpose of conducting 
     research or surveys necessary to enable the Commission to 
     discharge the Commission's duties under this title.
       (f) Staff.--Subject to such rules and regulations as may be 
     adopted by the Commission, and to such extent and in such 
     amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, the 
     Chairperson of the Commission shall have the power to 
     appoint, terminate, and fix the compensation (without regard 
     to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and without regard 
     to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 
     53 of such title, or of any other provision, or of any other 
     provision of law, relating to the number, classification, and 
     General Schedule rates) of an Executive Director, and of such 
     additional staff as the Chairperson deems advisable to assist 
     the Commission, at rates not to exceed a rate equal to the 
     maximum rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5332 of such title.

     SEC. 4006. FUNDING OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any money 
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fiscal year 
     1997 for carrying out this title, $650,000, to remain 
     available until expended, or until one year after the 
     termination of the Commission pursuant to section 4007, 
     whichever occurs first.
       (b) Rescission.--Of the funds made available for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--Federal Family Education Loan 
     Program Account'' in the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(e) of 
     division A of Public Law 104-208), $849,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 4007. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall cease to exist on the date that is 60 
     days after the date on which the Commission is required to 
     submit its final report in accordance with section 4004(b).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon] and a Member opposed will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKeon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In today's technology and information-based economy, getting a high 
quality postsecondary education is more important than ever. For many 
Americans it is the key to the American Dream.
  That is why it is truly alarming to realize the cost of pursuing a 
postsecondary education has increased three times as fast as family 
incomes over the last 15 years. This trend is especially alarming in 
that it only seems to apply to higher education. There are many 
endeavors and many businesses that must keep pace with changing 
technologies and Federal regulations. However, in order to stay 
affordable to their customers and stay competitive in the market, they 
manage to hold cost increases to a reasonable level.
  The amendment I am offering today will establish a commission on the 
cost of higher education. This commission will have a very short 
lifespan. Over a 4-month period, it will study the reasons why tuitions 
have risen so quickly and dramatically, and report on what schools, the 
administration and the

[[Page H2724]]

Congress can do to stabilize or reduce tuitions.
  Time is short. Over the coming year we will reauthorize the Higher 
Education Act, which will provide $35 billion in student financial aid 
this year alone. We need this commission up and running now so that its 
recommendations will be useful for the reauthorization.
  The amendment I am offering provides $650,000 maximum for the 
commission to carry out its work. My amendment would fully pay for the 
cost of the commission by using administrative funds provided for the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program. In return, we will get the 
answers to the questions my colleagues and I hear all the time from 
parents and students: ``Why are college prices rising so quickly and 
will I be able to afford to go to college?''
  This legislation was reported from the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce by a unanimous-voice vote and passed by the whole House in 
the same way yesterday. It is bipartisan, revenue neutral, and 
essential if we are to reauthorize the Higher Education Act in a way 
that truly helps parents and students afford higher education.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] opposed to 
the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I do not support the amendment as it stands because, while I 
certainly have no objection to reviewing ways to control the cost of 
tuition in college, I think that the makeup of the commission as it is 
presently constituted in the gentleman's amendment, frankly, is a very 
unbalanced one, and I think because of that the commission would have 
virtually no credibility as it now stands.
  Nonetheless, I am willing not to press this matter to a vote at this 
time because of understandings that we have reached with the majority 
on the committee that the makeup of this commission will be addressed 
in conference to assure that we have an acceptable balance by the time 
we leave conference.
  I know there is substantial concern on this side of the aisle about 
both the source of the funding for that commission and the makeup of 
that commission.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First of all, with all due respect to the gentleman and my friend 
from California, I think many of us are very, very concerned about the 
cost of tuitions at our colleges. I just had a bipartisan hearing back 
home in Indiana with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], and we 
heard that parents are concerned about this. But we also want to make 
sure that the commission that studies it is equitable, fairly balanced, 
and includes the administration.
  Back in 1986, when a similar study was put together, with Democrats 
in control of the House and a Republican President, five of the 
appointments, Mr. Chairman, five, were given to the Republican 
President. Today, the White House gets one appointment. Now, that is 
not balanced. That is not equity. That is not fairness. So I would 
strongly oppose the composition of this commission and urge us in 
conference to change that.
  Finally, if we cannot change that, Mr. Chairman, $650,000 for a study 
would provide for 382 Pell grants at the average Pell grant of about 
$1,700. So if we cannot fix this, instead of studying it, maybe what we 
should do is put the study money toward real people of 382 Pell grant 
recipients and do it the right way.
  So, while the study and the intention is probably good, the 
composition is bad and it is unfairly biased against the White House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green].
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I join in the comments of my colleague from 
Indiana in my concern about the makeup of the commission. I am glad 
there is an agreement to fix it.
  I do have some concern, however. In fact, I was one of the original 
requesters of the GAO report when I served on the committee that the 
gentleman from California chairs that detailed the increases in higher 
education last year.
  I have some concern with the reduction and where the money is coming 
from, the $849,000, in the Federal family education loan administrative 
account. I am concerned it will undercut the Department of Education's 
effort on debt collection efforts.
  The FFEL administration currently funds a major portion of the 
Stafford Perkins Data Systems contract, which processes default claims 
from lenders and guaranty agencies and supports the defaulted loan 
collection program. So that is why I am so concerned.
  I know typically in our process, if we provide additional oversight, 
for every $1 we provide we get back $5 in debt collection. But if we 
are taking away $849,000, I worry, are we losing a corresponding amount 
of $5 million in not having the $849,000?
  So I have some concern about the outcomes of that and I hope we can 
judiciously look for that money that does not hurt our efforts to 
collect on debt service that is owed on the student loan program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McKeon], and, of course, the ranking member on this side of the aisle, 
and thank even the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for his 
leadership.
  The commission is certainly needed, but I also have some of the same 
reservations and concerns, and I am hopeful that the gentleman from 
California, to whom I have expressed my support for this commission, 
and we will all be able to work some of these differences out.
  Certainly the representational issue, the composition of 
administration officials and of congressional appointees is one of 
concern. I am hopeful, as I am sure the chairman is, and I take the 
liberty to speak on behalf of him because I know he shares a deep 
concern about the rising cost of tuition in this Nation, that we can 
begin to study and to look at ways to curb some of that so we make sure 
families and young people have these opportunities as they move 
forward.
  So I appeal to the chairman, and I certainly say to the leadership on 
my side, that I thank them for their leadership and I hope we can work 
many of these differences out.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  First, I want to point out that this commission idea was run by the 
administration. The administration did not ask for any more people and 
did not want any more people because they thought it was a 
congressional investigating committee, not an administrative one.
  Second, I want to point out that there is $46 million in the FFEL 
administrative account. All we are asking is for $650,000. There is $46 
million there.
  Let me say there are two things we hear as we travel around on the 
reauthorization of this program. One, the parents say that if we let 
them keep more of their money, they will take care of financing. And 
the college people say over and over again, and this blows my mind, 
that the reason the costs have gone up 200-and-some percent for the 
cost of a college education, and inflation has only gone up 70 percent 
and take-home pay 80 percent, is because they have to have a sticker 
price and then they have to have a discount price.
  What that has to do with the cost of increasing college education 
blows my

[[Page H2725]]

mind. They ought to get rid of their discount price and stick to their 
sticker price.
  McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle], the former Governor of that State.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  To help put this in perspective, I obtained Consumer Price Indexes 
for selected items between 1984 and 1994. In this 10-year timeframe, 
the price of cereals increased by 34.8 percent, the price of sirloin 
steaks increased by 37.5 percent, the price of coffee increased by 40.4 
percent, the price of housing increased by 44.8 percent, the price of 
transportation increased by 34.3 percent, the price of energy by 4.6 
percent, medical care increased by 111 percent, and the price of 
college tuition increased by 149 percent.
  Clearly, the issue of rising tuition as it relates to affordable 
higher education needs serious and careful consideration. H.R. 914 
would do this. It would lay out the problem for us and the solutions, 
and I encourage each and every one of us to support it and to help all 
of our young people get a college education.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. 
McKeon's amendment to authorize the establishment of the National 
Commission on the Cost of Higher Education, and provide it with 
$650,000 in funding.
  It is important to note, of course, that Mr. McKeon fully offsets the 
funding for this new Commission by rescinding $849,000 from the Federal 
Family Education Loan Program account. We should also note that the 
House has actually already cleared an authorization for this Commission 
with passage, under suspension of the rules this past Tuesday, of H.R. 
914, the Higher Education Technical Amendments.
  Normally, I'm not thrilled with the idea of commissions as I said 
last Tuesday, in this case, the fact that the Commission has to provide 
Congress with its findings within 4 months, means Congress will have an 
opportunity to review its recommendations during our consideration of 
the Higher Education Act.
  As I indicated earlier, since 1980, the cost of 4-year public 
colleges and universities has increased by 234 percent, and tuition at 
private 4-year institutions has risen more than 8 percent annually.
  Yet the causes for these increased tuition costs, and whether Federal 
policies or programs contribute to these increases, are very complex 
and deserve study. Parents and students deserve to know what can be 
done by colleges and universities, States, and the Federal Government, 
to help bring these costs under control, before the dream of going to 
college slips away from our best and brightest.
  I congratulate Subcommittee Chairman McKeon, full Committee Chairman 
Goodling, for working to put the Commission to work so that we may have 
the product of that work, during the debate on reauthorizing the Higher 
Education Act later this year.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Normally, I am against commissions. I am a strong fiscal 
conservative, and I think we have to be very careful how we spend our 
money. But the problem has been outlined, and what we have done is 
tried to keep a small efficient number in the Commission. We have seven 
people, four appointed by the majority, three appointed by the 
minority. We think that we will be able to get the work done 
efficiently on a cost-effective basis and come back with some ways that 
we can help to solve this problem.

                              {time}  1515

  I think it is something that the people of this country are really 
paying attention to. They have real concerns, those who have students 
in college, those who are students in college, those who have children 
who will be going to college, something very important to the people of 
this Nation. I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 105-97.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Dingell: page 23, line 2, 
     insert before the period the following:

     : Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, of the unobligated balances under this heading from 
     amounts made available in this or any other Act for fiscal 
     year 1997 or any prior fiscal year, $300,000 shall be made 
     available to Monroe County, Michigan, as reimbursement for 
     costs incurred in connection with the crash of Comair Flight 
     3272

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and a Member opposed will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. There are $23 million 
to cover two major air crashes which occurred in the United States, the 
ValuJet crash in Miami and the TWA crash off Long Island. This would 
treat another crash in the same fashion, making available $300,000 for 
the costs incurred by the county of Monroe, a small county in Michigan, 
for their cooperation in terms of assistance, rescue, search and other 
activities including cleanup.
  It would treat Monroe no differently than it would treat the other 
communities and States which were involved in cleanups of this kind and 
it would afford them no benefits not available here to others. It is 
simply a plea for equity to my colleagues in the Congress, that they 
would treat another small county on a small item in the bill but a very 
big item to that county. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which would make 
available up to $300,000 to reimburse Monroe County, MI for costs 
associated with the crash this past January of Comair flight 3272, 
which claimed the lives of 29 passengers and crew.
  When Comair flight 3272 fell from the sky late in the afternoon 
January 9, an emergency situation befell local officials in Monroe 
County, MI which called for immediate and swift response. Like some 
counties its size, Monroe County had trained personnel who performed 
ably and admirably in the hours following the crash. The first mission 
was to determine how to help the victims' that mission was quickly 
surpassed by the stark reality that there were no survivors. At that 
point attention was turned to the grim task of victim and wreckage 
recovery, along with the collection of data and other clues to 
determine the cause of the accident.
  For the first few hours after the tragedy, local authorities took 
control of the scene and attempted to secure the site. After several 
hours, Federal officials from the National Transportation Safety Board 
[NTSB] arrived in Monroe County and took command of recovery and 
investigation efforts over the next several days. Much of their work 
was performed outdoors under extremely cold and windy conditions, 
necessitating special efforts to procure mobile morgues, heaters, and 
other equipment so Federal efforts could continue.
  Just a few weeks ago, I received from Monroe County a summary of the 
costs associated with the crash. It is important to note that some of 
the outstanding costs are subject to continued negotiation with the 
airline and its insurance carrier. I believe very strongly that Federal 
taxpayers should not be made liable for costs legitimately belonging to 
air carriers, and I hope that Comair and other air carriers do not 
misconstrue this amendment to mean relief from their financial 
obligations to the victims and families of air disasters. I have been 
informed that underwriters have recently been prevented from meeting 
with the NTSB by their air carrier clients. If true, such action 
contradicts the intent of Congress, which had hoped that air carriers 
would be more responsive, not less responsive to families. If such a 
move signals a lack of cooperation on the part of air carriers, 
Congress may have to send a stronger--and perhaps a more stringent--
signal to the airlines to gain the cooperation we anticipated last 
year.
  Last year Congress approved legislation, the Aviation Disaster Family 
Assistance Act, which required the National Transportation Safety Board 
to coordinate more help for air disaster victims and families. I was an 
early and strong supporter of this act, which became law in response to 
many horror stories shared with Members regarding poor treatment of 
families by airline and airport personnel, government officials and 
lawyers. Thankfully, this new law corrects some of those abuses. 
However, we instructed the NTSB to take on this mission without 
providing the funding necessary to support the new tasks, while failing 
to make more clear the responsibilities of air carriers and their 
underwriters following such disasters.

[[Page H2726]]

  The crash of Comair flight 3272 was the first real test of the new 
family disaster assistance law, and I would agree with those colleagues 
who have concerns about the manner in which the liability and cost 
issues are being settled. I believe that the proper authorizing 
committee, working with the Appropriations Committee, should review the 
Comair case to determine how to make certain the new law works as 
intended. Also very important is clarification to determine how 
disaster costs will be settled and paid by responsible parties in a 
consistent, swift, and fair manner.
  The legislation before us attempts to help remedy the problem by 
providing more than $23 million in emergency assistance to communities 
which have suffered these disasters. My amendment simply tries to make 
certain that Monroe County is dealt with in a manner that is consistent 
with the existing situation.
  Mr. Chairman, when disaster struck Monroe County in January, local 
officials and citizens responded in a selfless and heroic way to come 
to the aid of those in need. This Sunday, a memorial service will be 
held in Monroe to remember those who died, give comfort to the 
families, and provide a chance for those local people whose lives were 
touched by disaster to reflect on a tragic experience. I believe that 
when the Federal Government plays a role in addressing the needs and 
concerns of aircraft accident victims' families, as called for in 
Federal law, we should not expect local communities to pick up the tab. 
I would hope that Congress will show its support and solidarity with 
Monroe by making certain that Federal assistance pays for Federal 
requirements associated with investigating the Comair crash.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to provide a small 
measure of assistance to a county that responded without hesitation to 
the urgent requests for help from a Federal agency. Once that job is 
done, I look forward to sharing my views with the chairman and ranking 
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee so that 
disasters of the sort which struck Monroe County will be handled with 
the utmost care, efficiency, and accountability.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. 
Fairness dictates that if we are going to do this for the people in 
Florida after the devastating crash of ValuJet in Florida and if we are 
going to do it in New York after the devastating crash of TWA there, we 
ought to treat the gentleman's district the same. We have no objection 
to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say that on this side of the aisle we 
also have no objection to the amendment and are willing to accept it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 105-97.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thune

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. THUNE:
       Page 27, after line 23, insert the following:

                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

                Community Development Block Grants Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Community development block 
     grants fund'' as authorized under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974, $500,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000, for use only for buy-
     outs, relocation, long-term recovery, and mitigation in 
     communities affected by the flooding in the upper Midwest and 
     other disasters in fiscal year 1997 and such natural 
     disasters designated 30 days prior to the start of fiscal 
     year 1997: Provided, That in administering these amounts, the 
     Secretary may waive, or specify alternative requirements for, 
     any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary 
     administers in connection with the obligation by the 
     Secretary or the use by the recipient of these funds, except 
     for statutory requirements related to civil rights, fair 
     housing and nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor 
     standards, upon a finding that such waiver is required to 
     facilitate the use of such funds, and would not be 
     inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall publish a notice in the Federal Register 
     governing the use of community development block grant 
     funds in conjunction with any program administered by the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 
     buyouts for structures in disaster areas: Provided 
     further, That for any funds under this head used for 
     buyouts in conjunction with any program administered by 
     the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     each State or unit of general local government requesting 
     funds from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     for buyouts shall submit a plan to the Secretary which 
     must be approved by the Secretary as consistent with the 
     requirements of this program: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall 
     submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations on all disbursement and use 
     of funds for or associated with buyouts: Provided further, 
     That, hereafter, for any amounts made available under this 
     head and for any amounts made available for any fiscal 
     year under title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 that are in communities affected 
     by the flooding and disasters referred to in this head for 
     activities to address the damage resulting from such 
     flooding and disasters, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall waive the requirement under such title 
     that the activities benefit persons of low- and moderate-
     income and the requirements that grantees and units of 
     general local government hold public hearings: Provided 
     further, That, hereafter, for any amounts made available 
     for any fiscal year under the HOME Investment Partnerships 
     Act that are used in communities affected by the flooding 
     and disasters referred to in this head to assist housing 
     used as temporary housing for families affected by such 
     flooding and disasters, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall waive (during the period, and to the 
     extent, that such housing is used for such temporary 
     housing) the requirements that the housing meet the income 
     targeting requirements under section 214 of such Act, the 
     requirements that the housing qualify as affordable 
     housing under section 215 of such Act, and the 
     requirements for documentation regarding family income and 
     housing status and shall permit families to self-certify 
     such information: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development may make a grant from the 
     amount provided under this head to restore electrical and 
     natural gas service to areas damaged by the flooding and 
     natural disasters: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount made available under this head is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       Page 28, line 5, after the dollar figure insert the 
     following:
     (reduced by $500,000,000)

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune] and a Member opposed will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For those who have seen the extent of the damage in the Upper 
Midwest, in the States of South Dakota, Minnesota, and North Dakota, 
they will understand the need for this amendment. For many areas there 
they experienced a 500-year flood.
  Without question, the time to act is now. $500 million may seem like 
a lot of money, but we are talking about a very extreme situation. We 
are also talking about a people with a pioneer spirit that ask only 
when in dire need. They are now in dire need.
  The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis estimates the Red River 
Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota has sustained between $1.2 and 
$1.8 billion in damages. Minnesota alone estimates up to $375 million 
in damages as a result of the flooding.
  In my State of South Dakota, the City of Watertown estimates damages 
at over $60 million. Flooding there has forced 5,000 families from 
their homes. The State of South Dakota has already tacked on an 
additional 3 cents per gallon fuel tax to help address highway funding 
needs.
  The Speaker, after viewing the damage, asked me and other Members 
such as the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Ramstad], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], many of us who 
toured the area, to come up with a solution that might somehow deliver 
in the most expeditious fashion assistance to the area that really 
needs it. Many models were examined.
  Because of the demands of time, we agreed that the most effective 
means

[[Page H2727]]

of delivering relief to those that need it would be through 
modifications to the Community Development Block Grant program. The 
CDBG program would allow Washington to get the tools of recovery into 
the hands of State and local officials to address their most immediate 
and urgent needs.
  While the process brings important streamlining provisions to 
disaster relief, it does provide sufficient accountability by requiring 
reports to be submitted from applicants. The amendment requires 
submission of a use and recovery plan, quarterly reporting by the 
Secretary of HUD and the Director of FEMA to House and Senate 
appropriations committees.
  CDBG provides a faster, more efficient approach to hazard mitigation. 
The region of the country we are dealing with has an extremely short 
construction season. The amount of work that must be done to 
rehabilitate the area is massive. The FEMA hazard mitigation program 
has too much of a time lag for people to rebuild.
  The CDBG would allow these communities to complete their hazard 
mitigation plans. CDBG would also allow State and local economic 
development organizations to supplement aid to small businesses, 
allowing them to give hope to the thousands who have been out of work.
  The waivers that apply under our amendment only apply to the disaster 
relief effort outlined in this package. The waivers would also allow 
the Secretary of HUD to waive the traditional reporting requirements. 
The waivers would allow alternative reporting and compliance for this 
disaster situation only.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had the opportunity to deal with the governors, 
the mayors, the officials from around there as well as with the many 
people who have been affected. We have seen the disaster firsthand. We 
need to act, and we need to act in an expeditious fashion to get the 
money into the hands of those who really need it.
  They need flexibility. The governors have asked for as much 
flexibility as possible in delivering this assistance so that they can 
fashion programs that will, again, identify the highest needs. We feel 
fully confident that we have come up with a delivery mechanism that 
will accomplish just that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who rises in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I must confess some concerns about this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I told the gentleman earlier, we tried in the full 
committee to provide funding for CDBG. We were asked to withhold, and 
we have been. I will not press this issue to a vote as well, but let me 
simply suggest I do think there are some problems with the gentleman's 
amendment that are going to have to be fixed in conference.
  I do not understand, for instance, why it was necessary to make a 
permanent change in law, forcing the Secretary of HUD to waive the 
requirement that HUD's disaster assistance benefit only low and 
moderate income persons. I am also concerned about forcing the 
Secretary to waive the requirement to hold public hearings. I am also 
concerned about what appears to be an intent to allow HUD to make 
grants, not loans, to privately owned for-profit utilities. Lastly, I 
am concerned about what appears to be the intent of the amendment to 
change the longstanding process of assuring that CDBG funds can be used 
to assist businesses damaged by disasters, to the extent such 
businesses are declined loans by the SBA administration or because they 
need assistance above the SBA loan limits.
  I do not want to hold up this amendment, so I will not object at this 
point, but I think that these are problems that are going to have to be 
worked out, I would say to the gentleman, before people are going to be 
comfortable; in addition to the fact that I think the money is taken 
out of what we would consider to be the wrong pot, because it also 
means that FEMA will have less than $200 million available for any 
pending hurricanes that occur for the rest of the year which could 
cause considerable problems to other parts of the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, our 
entire town of East Grand Forks has been under water. This is the 
residential area, where it shows the devastation and all the belongings 
out on the berm.
  I would also like to talk about the business situation. One of the 
reasons we need this through an amendment is so we can have some 
flexibility to deal with the problems we have in the business 
community. The entire business community of East Grand Forks was under 
water, some of it for 2 weeks.
  Under the current FEMA program there is really no way to deal with 
this situation because it is all loans, and these people, loans are not 
going to work for them. I can tell my colleagues of business person 
after business person where their inventory, their equipment has been 
wiped out, they have got debt. There is no way, putting more debt on 
top of that, that it is going to solve their situation.
  We need this CDBG money so we can have the flexibility to rebuild 
these communities. I very much encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], the Speaker, the chairman 
and everybody else for helping on this.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would also say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that we would be 
happy to work with the gentleman in conferences to address concerns he 
might have. The objectives here is to get the assistance as quickly as 
we can into the hands of the people who need it, with as much 
flexibility to the Governors and the local officials that are involved.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THUNE. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague 
yielding.
  I am rising really to compliment the gentleman for the work that he 
is doing, bringing the critical problem here to our attention the way 
he has. FEMA, under current law, has some difficulty in terms of 
providing the sort of money flows that are needed in this case. The 
gentleman has given us an opportunity at least to solve this problem by 
way of the conference. We intend to review a number of the technical 
questions that were raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I want to 
compliment the gentleman, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] 
and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] for their work on this 
matter.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THUNE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. When a 
group of us with the Speaker toured the devastated Red River Valley to 
see the flood firsthand, the Speaker put it best when he said we need 
CDBG funding to allow these States and communities maximum flexibility 
to help homeowners and small businesspeople recover. He said we need 
CDBG funding because we need to give funding to these people as boldly 
and rapidly and as efficiently as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, this means the Thune amendment. Let us give local 
officials some more control and more resources to help these people 
recover from this flood of a century which literally destroyed two 
cities. This flexibility is absolutely necessary. Let us get help to 
them now without Washington strings attached.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would simply say that, again, we support the idea of using CDBG 
money. The President requested this money the right way. I think there 
are some problems with this, but I hope we can correct it in 
conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota 
[Mr. Pomeroy].

[[Page H2728]]

  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is impossible in 50 seconds to describe what our 
area has been hit with, but pictures tell 1,000 words. A flood. A flood 
of a 1,000-year dimensions. A flood to the signposts, causing more harm 
than one can possibly imagine. Water destroys everything it touches, 
and so now the businesses and the homes, virtually all of the City of 
Grand Forks, 50,000 people, is devastated.
  The second picture, anguish. This is a woman being evacuated from her 
home in the dead of night. The anguish and the pain that these people 
have experienced defies description. This anguish has given way to 
pain. Pain realizing the permanent loss of business, permanent loss of 
house, permanent loss of possessions.
  This cries out for a bipartisan response. I so salute the gentleman 
from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] for the work he has done. I appreciate 
the support of the Speaker and the majority leader, I appreciate the 
support of the appropriations chairman in bringing this matter before 
us. Please pass this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price].
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Thune amendment. This transfer of funds to the Community Development 
Block Grant Program from FEMA will help communities, including many in 
North Carolina, complete the difficult task of cleaning up, rebuilding, 
and ensuring that destruction like what we have just experienced does 
not happen again.
  FEMA funds are limited in their uses. When the Mississippi River 
flooded in 1994, CDBG funds were used to relocate homes out of the 
flood plain and to allow people to start their lives again without fear 
of losing everything again. There are still many unmet needs in North 
Carolina where CDBG funds can be used in conjunction with FEMA hazard 
mitigation funds to avoid future disaster and heartbreak.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlemen from North Dakota 
and South Dakota writing this amendment in such a way that those 
affected by Hurricane Fran can benefit from these funds, and I urge 
Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, to the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill. This amendment would redirect $500 
million for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to be 
used for buyouts, relocation, long-term recovery, and mitigation in 
communities affected by this year's devastating spring floods and other 
recent disasters.
  This funding will greatly assist with relief efforts in my 
congressional district in southern Indiana. My district was hard hit by 
the flooding of the Ohio River this March. President Clinton declared 
13 river counties to be a federal disaster area, and several 
communities were completely flooded out.
  I have been working closely with local, state and federal officials 
to assist homeowners and business owners adversely affected by the 
flooding. FEMA has already provided emergency relief for infrastructure 
repair in the impacted communities and has helped homeowners repair 
damaged housing or move to temporary shelter.
  I am concerned, however, about long-term relief to communities and 
residents. Many constituents have asked me about the possibility of 
buyouts of their homes so that they can relocate permanently out of 
flood-prone areas. Several hundred homes have been identified for such 
buyouts, but federal and state relief funds available for this purpose 
are inadequate to address the problem.
  The Thune amendment would help provide the necessary funds to 
complete buyouts in my district and in other districts throughout the 
central and upper Midwest affected by flooding this spring. The buyout 
program is an important option to many residents in my district because 
it gives them an opportunity to start over again while limiting the 
government's exposure in the event of future floods.
   Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from South Dakota for his 
amendment. He has done an important service to his constituents and to 
others affected by recent flooding, including those in southern 
Indiana. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in the House Report 105-97.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following new section:


                       buy-american requirements

       Sec. 3003. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act. (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], and a Member opposed, will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an ad in a national magazine that said the 
Navy Seals bring our knives on every one of their underwater missions; 
it is a Swiss Army brand knife, and they say now they will be carrying 
their sunglasses.
  In addition to that, right out here, the east side of the Capitol, 
the south security gate, it is heated and cooled by a Mr. Slim unit 
made by Mitsubishi, who moved from San Diego to Mexico and does not 
even make them in America.
  It is a very simple little Buy American. I am not going to take a lot 
of time, but let me say this:
  Wherever possible let us try and expand our American taxpayer dollars 
on American goods, and, second of all, this little provision says if 
someone tries to sneak in an import with a fraudulent ``made in 
America'' label, they are handcuffed to a chain link fence and flogged.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
statement. He makes eminent sense, and we have no objection to his 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, 
the ranking member.
  Mr. OBEY. Provided that the flogging occurs here on the floor, we 
have no objection either, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have a picture, in closing out here, 
and this was given to me by a page, Justin Boyson, and I want to thank 
him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no Member rises in opposition, all time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in the House Report 105-97.

[[Page H2729]]

                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Neumann

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Neumann:
       Page 28, line 5, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,387,677,000)''.
       Page 28, line 6, strike ``$2,387,677,000'' and all that 
     follows through line 7.
       Page 35, strike lines 8 through 25.
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following new section:


               further rescissions in nondefense accounts

       Sec. 3003. (a) Rescission of Funds.--Of the aggregate 
     amount of discretionary appropriations made available to 
     Executive agencies in appropriation Acts for fiscal year 1997 
     (other than for the defense category), $3,600,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
       (b) Allocation and Report.--Within 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall--
       (1) allocate such rescission among the appropriate accounts 
     in a manner that will achieve a total net reduction in 
     outlays for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 resulting from 
     such rescission of not less than $3,500,000,000; and
       (2) submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth such 
     allocation.
       (c) Definitions.--
       (1) The terms ``discretionary appropriations'' and 
     ``defense category'' have the respective meanings given such 
     terms in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (2) The term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 105 of title 5, United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and a Member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending the chairman for 
putting together a bill that I think is very important and proper for 
the good of the future of this country. Certainly when we have 
disasters strike victims in our Nation it is a proper and appropriate 
role of the U.S. Government to help those flood victims and those 
disaster victims throughout the country, and I think the chairman has 
done a very fine job of putting together a bill that will provide 
disaster relief to these disaster victims around the country.
  I would like to make it clear, however, that I feel very strongly 
that when this Government provides this disaster relief to other people 
around this Nation, people who are truly worthy of receiving this 
disaster relief, that I think is incumbent upon our generation to pay 
the bill for that disaster relief, and that really is what this 
amendment is all about.
  When we look at what happens in the checkbook over the next five 
years in the course of this bill, $5 billion will be shortfall in the 
checkbook; that is to say, $5 billion out of this bill will be passed 
on to the next generation. So while we are doing something that is 
fitting and proper, providing disaster relief to the victims here, $5 
billion of this money will be coming from future generations. If we 
look at the next 5-year window, the checkbook will be overdrawn by $5 
billion on account of this bill, and that money will simply be added on 
to the debt and then passed on to our children.
  So what this amendment does is very, very straightforward. What this 
amendment does is it says OK to the disaster relief, it is fitting and 
proper; however, our generation must take on the responsibility of 
paying for that flood disaster relief.
  Again I would emphasize that this bill does not do anything to the 
flood disaster relief that is called for in this bill. It provides full 
relief, as requested by the President, including North Dakota, 
Minnesota, Kentucky, Oregon, the whole list that was provided.
  I would also like to point out very definitively that it does not 
affect any of the provisions relating to defense in this bill. The 
amendment will correct the bill so that our generation is paying for 
aid to disaster victims rather than passing this expense on to our 
children.
  How do we do that? Well, there is a couple of things. First thing we 
do is we do not advance fund FEMA. There is $2.8, $2.4 billion in this 
bill that literally is advanced funding, money that cannot be spent 
between now and September 30 of this year no matter what happens. So if 
there was another disaster tomorrow, it could not be used for that, and 
it cannot be used for the disasters that have already occurred. The 
money cannot be obligated before September 30. This money belongs in 
next year's appropriations bill. So the first thing we do is eliminate 
that $2.4 billion.
  I would add that when the President sent the supplemental request up 
he did not request this $2.4 billion; so that is the first thing we 
would do.
  One might ask why would we advance fund FEMA in this kind of a bill? 
Well, the answer to that is pretty simple and straightforward. In this 
bill it is classified as emergency spending and does not fall under 
government spending caps. So if it is funded here rather than in the 
normal procedure through an appropriation bill, it falls under the 
classification of emergency and therefore it does not fall under the 
caps that are applied in the future.
  Second thing this bill does is it restores the money that has been 
taken out of section 8 HUD housing. Section 8 HUD housing is losing 
$3.8 billion in budget authority under this bill, so the second thing 
our amendment does is recognize that we have problems in section 8 
housing and that money is not taken out.
  I recently was in an apartment in Racine, WI, and I met with people 
who were there under the section 8 provisions. We need to make sure 
that these senior citizens that I talked to and others like them all 
across this country are not adversely affected as we go and do 
something good for these flood victims, as we are helping them. We 
cannot go to one sector of our society and say we are going to take it 
away from these seniors who need this section 8 money and send it over 
here to the flood victims. So we did restore the money that was taken 
out of section 8 housing units.
  The third thing this budget does, or this amendment rather does, is 
very straightforward. The balance of the money that is not paid for, we 
simply say to the President go to nondefense discretionary funds and 
get the money.
  If I could have that chart, please?
  I would like to point out that in last year's budget we had a 3.7 
percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending. The first year 
after the change in Congress, 1995, nondefense discretionary spending 
went down. But last year that changed all around. We spent a ton more 
money in nondefense discretionary spending.
  So what our amendment is doing is simply saying, Mr. President, 
please go to that account where there were huge sums of money spent 
last year and simply take out the additional money necessary so that we 
in our generation pay for this disaster relief that we are as a 
government appropriately supplying for victims of floods around this 
Nation of ours. So that is the third thing our bill does.
  All in all our bill results in our generation paying for the money 
that is being spent to provide disaster relief to flood victims around 
this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just summarize once again that this bill does 
not in any way affect the flood victims around the Nation. The money 
asked for in the supplemental is there. It does not affect defense, but 
what it does do is it does pay for it out of the pockets of our 
generation as opposed to putting this onto the debt that will be passed 
on to our children.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his presentation. I want to 
congratulate him. He really is one of our more creative budgeteers, and 
he truly means it when he says he wants to get this country on a paying 
basis. And I am reluctant to disagree with him on this one amendment, 
but I applaud his efforts because if we had more like him, we would 
definitely be balancing our budget sooner rather than later.
  But for the Record, this bill is fully paid for in budget authority 
as it currently is written. The Congressional

[[Page H2730]]

Budget Office scores the bill as fully paid for in budget authority, 
and that is no different from the way we have paid for emergency 
spending over the last 2\1/2\ years, since January 3, 1994.
  Everyone should know that this amendment strikes two-thirds of the 
funding the bill provides for in FEMA. It simply fails to recognize 
that ever increasing strains placed on the agency as flood waters 
recede in the northern plains States and costs associated with that 
disaster rise daily. The amendment eliminates roughly, if I got the 
last figure correct, $2.7 billion or 1.6? Let me get the right figure. 
It eliminates $2.4 billion of the $3.6 billion that we provided in this 
bill for FEMA, albeit, as the gentleman has pointed out, in forward 
funding. But if we are ever expected to get ahead of these natural 
disasters, we must ensure FEMA has the funds available to pay for these 
bills for disaster victims as well as for future disasters in the very 
near future. Costs are still coming in for the existing disasters. They 
are going to be much larger in the current fiscal year than currently 
estimated.
  Additionally, this amendment strikes $3.6 billion, if I got the last 
change correct, in offsetting costs that the bill provides and gives 
the President the authority to make the cuts, and I have to ask what we 
are doing here. Do we really want President Clinton to make the 
decisions on where to make the cuts? Do we really want him to 
eliminate, for example, the billion dollars or half billion dollars 
local law enforcement block grant the Republican initiative included in 
our Contract With America? That is what he will do. He will pick 
something like that. So I do not think that this offer of authority to 
the President makes sense.
  Our committee went to great lengths to find real offsets in budget 
authority, and they are listed in this bill, and I do not understand 
why anyone would support an effort that does not define the offset in 
cuts. We have no idea what programs or priorities would be cut under 
this amendment, and there are no specifics in the amendment.
  So I would have to reluctantly, once again, oppose the amendment for 
those reasons and again because it restricts the authority to do 
exactly what the whole purpose of this bill is, and that is to provide 
disaster relief.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], my good friend.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  In this Congress we set to do a couple of good things with very good 
intentions. First of all, we wanted to provide some disaster relief to 
those who were caught up in this year's disasters, and this help is 
gravely needed, and the compassion of this country really reaches out 
to try to help those in need.
  The second thing that we wanted to do is to provide some supplemental 
funding for our young men and women in Bosnia. Regardless of our 
position on whether we should be in Bosnia or not or regardless of our 
position on the $6.5 billion we have already spent there, this 
additional money is needed because we are there, and both of these are 
very good intended. But that opened the door, and in slipped an 
additional $3 billion, most of it in this advanced funding for FEMA, 
something that should be considered later, and that alone is a good 
reason to vote for the Neumann amendment.
  But the real reason is that we have an overshadowing reason of the $5 
billion that according to the CBO is not paid for in offsets, and we 
are talking about actually writing the checks, the outlays, versus the 
budget authority. So we have this $5 billion that is hanging out there 
that is going to show up on a bill for our children sometime in the 
future.
  So I think we should pay as we go, I think that we should be frugal 
and we should fulfill the goals of our good intentions, but we should 
not do it at the expense of our children. Therefore, I think we should 
vote for the Neumann amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the very distinguished ranking minority member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think this 
amendment ought to be opposed because it is very selective in where it 
would save the money.
  Evidently, the sponsors of the amendment do not believe that there is 
a dime's worth of waste in the Pentagon, so they exempt that from 
reductions. They allow huge spending to go forward on the F-22. They 
neglect the fact that since 1989, when the Soviet Union fell apart, 
Russia has decreased its military budget by 75 percent; the United 
States has decreased its by at most 15 percent. They neglect the fact 
that $11 billion was added last year to the President's budget by the 
Defense Department, and they neglect the fact that if nondefense 
discretionary was as high as it had been at its peak in this country, 
it would be 50 percent higher as a percentage of gross domestic product 
than it is today.
  Let me simply say that I would urge opposition to this amendment. It 
also seems to me that it is ill-advised for the Congress to turn total 
determination as to which accounts are going to be reduced over to a 
nonelected bureaucrat in the OMB. I see no reason why Mr. Raines at OMB 
should be given the authority, without any kind of congressional check 
whatsoever, simply to decide that that program is going to go and that 
program is going to stay.

                              {time}  1545

  That to me is the ultimate abdication of responsibility to control 
the power of the purse. The Congress was given the power of the purse 
in the Constitution for one simple reason, because keeping the power of 
the purse in Congress rather than in the executive branch is the 
difference between having a President and having a king. We do not need 
any kings in this country.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Scarborough], my good friend.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I do rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Neumann], but I feel compelled to respond to something that was 
said previously.
  We keep hearing about how defense spending has increased so much and 
how we are spending so much on defense. The one statistic that we did 
not hear the gentleman from Wisconsin state is the fact that we are 
spending less money as a percentage of our budget on defense than at 
any time since 1939, since before Pearl Harbor. I see that he is 
smiling, so he must have read that statistic too. It is something that 
scares me.
  If I can also say that I think at this time, when we are $5.4 
trillion in debt, we need to be as conservative as possible with the 
amount of money that we spend. As CBO has scored this on outlays, it 
does cause a $5 billion increase in the deficit. That is $5 billion we 
cannot afford. Therefore, I stand and I support the gentleman's 
amendment, and certainly hope the rest of my colleagues will too.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], the very distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations yielding me this time.
  I would like to make two points. First, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Neumann] and I serve on the subcommittee together that involves 
FEMA funding. He knows very well that within our subcommittee we take a 
back seat to nobody in terms of our commitment to balancing the budget 
over time. Indeed, in every one of our accounts we have been very tough 
as we go forward with attempting to reduce the rate of growth of 
government.
  The difficulty with this specific amendment, however, is that it 
addresses one of those agencies within our bill that frankly has done 
the best job of reorganizing itself and attempting to get its own 
budgetary house in order. Indeed, with the last amendment that we 
passed, the Thune amendment, if we adopted this amendment, that would 
take the emergency account down to $700 million and put us in a 
position where, at the very time when America should be coming together 
on behalf of those people who are impacted by these floods, we would be 
undermining that opportunity and that

[[Page H2731]]

responsibility by way of this amendment.
  So it is with great reluctance and a continuing commitment to moving 
towards balancing the budget, but with great reluctance, I must oppose 
very strongly the Neumann amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to remind all of my colleagues that what we are about to 
vote on, not the amendment that Mr. Neumann is offering, which I 
support, but the emergency supplemental bill, is just that. We are 
talking about making an appropriation for emergencies.
  Now, our President, who is not known for his fiscal restraint, has 
asked for $5 billion for emergency supplemental spending. The 
Republicans in Congress have upped the ante. We have raised the ante on 
the President's request of $5 billion to $8 billion. We are outspending 
the President. Why? Because we are adding a lot of things that are not, 
clearly are not, emergencies.
  We just approved on a voice vote a commission to study higher 
education. Why is that an emergency? I do not understand that.
  I want to tell my colleagues that in Tulsa, Oklahoma, $8 billion is 
still a lot of money. People have to work very, very hard to send $8 
billion in their taxes to Washington, D.C.
  I urge all of my colleagues to consider the fact that what we are 
talking about is an emergency supplemental and support the Neumann 
amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time and the right to close.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, while there are a lot of issues to be addressed here, I 
guess the first and the most important is, we as a generation have to 
make a decision, when we do something that is right and proper, like 
flying flood relief to victims around this Nation, whether or not it is 
our generation's responsibility to pay for it. The disagreement between 
myself and the committee Chairman is budget authority versus outlays, 
which out in America probably does not make a lot of difference, but 
what we are really talking about here is looking at the checkbook. And 
when we look at the checkbook, if this bill passes as written, it will 
be $5 billion overdrawn at the end of 5 years and that will be passed 
down to our children.
  I would just add one more thing, and that is, the precedent of asking 
the President to go into the nondefense discretionary spending and find 
the appropriate offsets is not exactly something this body has not 
already dealt with. We have already given the President something 
called line-item veto, and what we are really suggesting here is that 
the President apply a mini-line-item veto to apply the appropriate 
offsets, so that as our generation does what is right and supplies the 
necessary flood victim relief to the places around this country that 
truly need it, that we in our generation also accept the responsibility 
to pay for it. That is really what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman has pointed out, his well-intentioned 
amendment attempts to get the fiscal problems of this country under 
control by cutting the amendment that we are here to provide to the 
Federal Emergency Management Administration, so that they might not be 
able to adequately pay the bills incurred by the people who have been 
devastated by floods and other natural disasters.
  It seems to me that if we are going to have a disaster relief bill, 
if we are going to make the taxpayer the ultimate insurer of the last 
resort, then we better also be prepared to pay the bills, and that is 
all this bill tries to do. It would eliminate some of the rescissions, 
even though the gentleman says that we want to pay for all of the money 
that we are outlaying so that the bill is ultimately budget-neutral, 
and I am not sure exactly how that makes us more budgetarily 
responsible, so I oppose the amendment on that score.
  Finally, he would propose a new rescission, though, allowing the 
President to make undetermined cuts where he deems appropriate. Well, I 
thought it was the job of the U.S. Congress, the House and the Senate 
working jointly, to control the budget strings of this Nation. That is 
what it says in the Constitution of the United States, not simply to 
advocate a responsibility and turn it over to the President of the 
United States to do the job. Mr. Clinton would love to do the job, but 
I do not think we should give him that authority.
  So I reluctantly oppose this amendment because this is a disaster 
relief bill. This is a bill to provide for men and women and children 
who have been thrown out of their homes for whatever reason, tornadoes, 
earthquakes, and devastating floods in the midsection of this country.
  Let us not get torn up over the fine points of the budget process. 
This bill is paid for in budget authority. We can get encumbered on the 
difference between budget authority and outlays. The fact is, if we 
eliminate the budget authority, that budget authority ceases to exist 
and that money will not be expended, and therefore, this bill is paid 
for. This does not add to the overall bill.
  By the way, the gentleman from Oklahoma who spoke here a little while 
ago had his figures wrong. It is a $5.7 billion disaster assistance 
bill, and reimbursement of Bosnia for another $2 billion. We have to 
deal with the real figures if we are going to debate this issue 
properly on the floor.
  Apart from that, the bill is paid for, it is a good bill. I urge the 
defeat of this amendment and the passage of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100, 
noes 324, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               AYES--100

     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bliley
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Foley
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Paul
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickering
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--324

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett

[[Page H2732]]


     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Chenoweth
     Cox
     Hefner
     Mica
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Watkins

                              {time}  1615

  Messrs. HORN, COOKSEY, and MOAKLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no''.
  Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, STUMP, McINTOSH, and CRANE changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in the House Report 105-97.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Gekas:
       On page 51, after line 23, add the following new title:

              TITLE IV--PREVENTION OF GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN


                              short title

       Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``Government 
     Shutdown Prevention Act''.


                           continuing funding

       Sec. 402. (a) If any regular appropriation bill for fiscal 
     year 1998 does not become law prior to the beginning of 
     fiscal year 1998 or a joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations is not in effect, there is appropriated, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and 
     out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and 
     funds, such sums as may be necessary to continue any program, 
     project, or activity for which funds were provided in fiscal 
     year 1997.
       (b) Appropriations and funds made available, and authority 
     granted, for a program, project, or activity for fiscal year 
     1998 pursuant to this title shall be at 100 percent of the 
     rate of operations that was provided for the program, 
     project, or activity in fiscal year 1997 in the corresponding 
     regular appropriation Act for fiscal year 1997.
       (c) Appropriations and funds made available, and authority 
     granted, for fiscal year 1998 pursuant to this title for a 
     program, project, or activity shall be available for the 
     period beginning with the first day of a lapse in 
     appropriations and ending with the earlier of--
       (1) the date on which the applicable regular appropriation 
     bill for fiscal year 1998 becomes law (whether or not that 
     law provides for that program, project, or activity) or a 
     continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as 
     the case may be; or
       (2) the last day of fiscal year 1998.


                          terms and conditions

       Sec. 403. (a) An appropriation of funds made available, or 
     authority granted, for a program, project, or activity for 
     fiscal year 1998 pursuant to this title shall be made 
     available to the extent and in the manner which would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act for fiscal year 
     1997, including all of the terms and conditions and the 
     apportionment schedule imposed with respect to the 
     appropriation made or funds made available for fiscal year 
     1997 or authority granted for the program, project, or 
     activity under current law.
       (b) Appropriations made by this title shall be available to 
     the extent and in the manner which would be provided by the 
     pertinent appropriations Act.


                                coverage

       Sec. 404. Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any program, project, or activity for 
     fiscal year 1998 pursuant to this title shall cover all 
     obligations or expenditures incurred for that program, 
     project, or activity during the portion of fiscal year 1998 
     for which this title applies to that program, project, or 
     activity.


                              expenditures

       Sec. 405. Expenditures made for a program, project, or 
     activity for fiscal year 1998 pursuant to this title shall be 
     charged to the applicable appropriation, fund, or 
     authorization whenever a regular appropriation bill or a 
     joint resolution making continuing appropriations until the 
     end of fiscal year 1998 providing for that program, project, 
     or activity for that period becomes law.


         initiating or resuming a program, project, or activity

       Sec. 406. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to this title shall be used to 
     initiate or resume any program, project, or activity for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not 
     available during fiscal year 1997.


                    protection of other obligations

       Sec. 407. Nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     effect Government obligations mandated by other law, 
     including obligations with respect to Social Security, 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits.


                               definition

       Sec. 408. In this title, the term ``regular appropriation 
     bill'' means any annual appropriation bill making 
     appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or granting 
     authority, for any of the following categories of programs, 
     projects, and activities:
       (1) Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies 
     programs.
       (2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     judiciary, and related agencies.
       (3) The Department of Defense.
       (4) The government of the District of Columbia and other 
     activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 
     revenues of the District.
       (5) The Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, 
     and Education, and related agencies.
       (6) The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
     Urban Development, and sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices.
       (7) Energy and water development.
       (8) Foreign assistance and related programs.
       (9) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
       (10) Military construction.
       (11) The Department of Transportation and related agencies.
       (12) The Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the 
     Executive Office of the President, and certain independent 
     agencies.
       (13) The legislative branch.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and a Member opposed will each control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before us now is legislation that would prevent a government shutdown 
during the current fiscal year. It is really a test of our wills as to 
whether or not we will be adopting this proposition. We know what a 
shutdown can do to our people. We know that a shutdown is very costly 
to the taxpayers. We know that a shutdown will leave people in 
hospitals unattended. We know that a shutdown will cause late delivery 
if there is any delivery at all of payment of benefits to veterans. If 
we do not pass this legislation, we are

[[Page H2733]]

risking again a 100 percent cut, a 100 percent cut in the delivery of 
benefits that this Congress is bound to do at this or any other fiscal 
year.
  So those who oppose the Gekas amendment on the basis that somehow, 
because we stay at 100 percent of the levels of last year's budget, 
that somehow magically that is a cut, that is atrocious. The cut would 
occur if we do not pass legislation and a shutdown would occur.
  The fiscal realities may not be enough to convince Members that they 
ought to adopt this amendment, but I ask them, as a matter of honor, as 
a matter of duty, as a matter of the right thing to do, to look back at 
the fall of 1990, when at the height of the amassing of our troops in 
Desert Shield, with our young people literally with musket in hand 
prepared to do battle in the forthcoming Desert Storm, our government 
shut down. What a disgrace.
  It brings shame upon the shoulders of every American citizen to allow 
its own Government to shut down. Could Benjamin Franklin and the others 
in 1789 who established a Government for all time, they established it 
for all time, to last forever, can they in their and their memories 
countenance a shutdown of this institution for even 5 minutes? Our 
Government to shut down?
  What if there is a shutdown that occurs and a terrible flood or 
hurricane should occur again like the ones we have just witnessed in 
the Midwest? We are caught without any Members in their seats, without 
any bureaus ready to do action and calamities even worse than the ones 
we have seen could occur.
  It is our duty to try to prevent the shutdown. I ask Members to vote 
in favor of this for the sake of the continuance of our country's 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, today is a great day for the American people. Soon the 
House will be voting to approve a measure of which all Americans can 
embrace and be proud--my ``Government Shutdown Prevention Act''.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the image of the government shutdowns 
from the 104th Congress remains etched in the mind of the American 
citizen as shameful--and unnecessary--indicents in our nation's 
history. As taxpayers, they were incensed that the government would 
choose not to perform its essential duties. As statesmen, we were all 
embarrassed to have forsaken our obligations to the American people. 
While the Republican Congress was blamed for the shutdowns, I believe 
we were all responsible for this disgraceful exhibition of failed 
governance: the House, the Senate, Republicans, Democrats, and the 
President.
  Before us today is a message to the American people. An affirmation, 
if you will, in the form of an amendment which states that we, the 
Congress, will not forsake the American people's trust to deliver 
essential government services and allow for another shameful government 
shutdown in this fiscal cycle. We will achieve this by voting for my 
amendment to provide 100% of Fiscal Year 1997 spending levels to 
continue through the end of Fiscal Year 1998, the absence of a 
regularly passed appropriations bill or a continuing resolution.
  Since my election to the House of Representatives in 1982, I have 
witnessed eight government shutdowns. The worst of which occurred when 
our soldiers were poised for battle in the Persian Gulf. It was at this 
time that I introduced my first government shutdown prevention bill, 
what I referred to as an ``instant replay'' mechanism. At the time, I 
knew I was facing an uphill battle in a long war. After all, the threat 
of a shutdown is one of the most effective weapons in the Congressional 
arsenal.
  However, I remained vigilant with the image in my mind of our 
fighting men and women ready to sacrifice their lives as they stood 
poised for Operation Desert Storm without an operating government for 
which to fight. I pledged never to let that happen again. Today, I 
proudly stand ready to fulfill that pledge as the House prepares to 
approve the Government Shutdown Prevention Act now before us, so that 
we can send a clear message to the American people that we will no 
longer allow them to be pawns in budget disputes between Congress and 
the White House.
  Mr. Chairman, without question, the time for enactment of my 
Government Shutdown Prevention Act is now. We need to restore the 
public's faith in its leaders by showing that we have learned from our 
mistakes. I ask for its adoption and urge all members, Republican and 
Democrat, to vote for its passage, and especially urge the President to 
sign this ``good government'' reform measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does a Member seek the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Government did not shut down 2 years ago because of 
some unhappy accident of governance. The Government was shut down 
because a number of willful Members indicated well ahead of time that 
it was their intention to do just that, to shut the Government down to 
make the President of the United States bend to their will. That is why 
the Government shut down.
  If we do not want the Government shut down, then we simply have to 
behave more responsibly than the behavior that we saw 2 years ago. That 
is the way we avoid a Government shutdown.
  I find it amazing that in 1960, about 60 percent of all Government 
programs were discretionary. That meant you could think about them. 
Today, the discretionary portion of the budget has declined to about 30 
percent. And the practical effect of this amendment, if it is adopted, 
will be to produce a situation in which we have zero portion of the 
Federal budget which is discretionary. What this amendment says is that 
it rewards inaction by the Congress.
  It rewards lack of hard choices by the Congress. And it says that if 
we do not make choices and do not get an appropriation bill passed, 
that every program in that bill winds up being funded at last year's 
level. That means even if there is a large consensus in this Congress 
that a number of programs ought to be cut well below last year's level 
in order to fund more well-deserving programs, it means that we are not 
going to be able to get it done.
  Let us say we had the fifth year of the budget agreement between the 
White House and the Congress on the floor today, and let us say that we 
were therefore facing a $30 billion reduction in domestic discretionary 
spending required by that budget.
  The fact is, if we did not pass appropriation bills to accomplish 
that, this would require us to produce bills far above the spending 
levels that this House wants to agree to in that arrangement. I do not 
think that is what we mean to do, but that is the practical effect of 
it.
  This amendment is the single-most significant thing the House could 
do to ensure dumbing down of the Federal Government and the entire 
budget process, because what it says is, if you cannot get agreement 
between the President and the Congress on any specific appropriation 
bill, then all of the programs in that bill have to be funded at last 
year's level, period. That means we cannot increase the ones that we 
agree ought to be increased. That means we cannot cut the ones that 
ought to be cut. That, to me, simply says we are just going to quit 
thinking, we are going to enshrine the status quo.
  Now, if my colleagues think that is smart, go ahead and vote for it. 
If they think it is not, then I would urge bipartisan consideration 
against that proposition. I would also say that what this really does 
is to produce the ultimate blessing of the idea that we ought to keep 
Washington just like it is. We are not going to think about any of 
these issues anymore. If we cannot reach agreement, then, OK, we have 
got a magic formula and we will just keep going the way we have gone 
before and before and before. I do not think that is what we were sent 
here to do.
  I do not see why we ought to assure that if we do not pass the Labor-
HHS bill and if we do not pass the energy bill that we ought to have to 
continue every bureaucratic mess of a program at the Department of 
Energy, but we will be precluded from doing what I know the Republican 
chairman of the Labor-HHS subcommittee wants to do, which is to 
substantially increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. 
We simply could not do that if we adopt this prescription.
  This, in my view, also has one other major problem. It will make it 
virtually impossible to deliver the disaster aid, which is the primary 
purpose of this bill, because this bill is going to be vetoed if it 
contains this amendment,

[[Page H2734]]

and if it is vetoed, we are going to be stuck till the cows come home 
before we can get another bill to the President.
  So I would simply urge my colleagues, if they are interested in 
providing rapid emergency assistance to the people who need it, if they 
are interested in retaining the ability of this Congress to think about 
any remaining budgetary programs, they will turn this amendment down.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to indicate 
that I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Wisconsin, [Mr. 
Obey]. Never in my legislative career would I have thought that I would 
hear the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] making arguments, 
Republican arguments, against a good amendment. But, nevertheless, 
today we have heard that happen.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, we can continue pointing fingers as to who 
was to blame for the last shutdown. But the fact of the matter is, as 
the author, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], indicated, it 
cost the taxpayers $1 billion more, so we did not save a red cent.
  We heard our constituents who were part of this finger-pointing, who 
were part of this partisan debacle. Veterans who were ready to close on 
their homes got denied. Constituents of mine who were applying for a 
visa with nonrefundable flight tickets lost their money on those 
flights. So a shutdown serves no good purpose.
  Let me indicate to the membership that in Wisconsin we have a similar 
law, we have an automatic CR for the State of Wisconsin which precludes 
this from happening. In my legislative days, it kicked in once. It 
provided for uniformity.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 11 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 10 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gekas-
Solomon-Wynn amendment. Regardless of whether the budget resolution 
passes next week or not, we still have to pass appropriation bills.
  I think the budget process is going to be a very long and difficult 
process. If my colleagues do not think so, I have a Madison County, IA, 
covered bridge in my district that I will sell them.

                              {time}  1630

  At the end of the year, we will need to make sure that we have had 
time to produce the best possible budget policy. We should not have to 
make decisions at the eleventh hour under the threat of a Government 
shutdown.
  Support the Gekas-Wynn-Solomon amendment. It will keep the Government 
open and it will ensure that budget implementation is based on sound 
policy, not on the pressure of an expiring clock.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer.]
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise and I wish I knew what I should say. 
The policy that the gentleman articulates is a good policy. My 
colleague from Maryland, Mr. Wynn, has cosponsored this amendment. I 
have stood for this premise since 1981; that we ought not to 
inadvertently shut down the people's government; that we ought not to, 
because we could not reach political consensus, have government shut 
down. And in point of fact, we never did that until 1995.
  My friend and very sincere colleague, whose motives I question not a 
whit, he is honest in his presentation on this issue, but in 1990 we 
shut the government down because George Bush was angry that we did not 
pass, because he did not get his own party's support, a deficit 
reduction package. So he refused to sign the bill and Federal employees 
were on the street for 36 hours. That was the longest shutdown prior to 
1995.
  But in 1995, specifically in April, the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Newt Gingrich, said I am going to put our Government 
at risk and let us see what the President does. He said further that 
the President clearly cared much more than he and his colleagues about 
government's operation. So as a policy to threaten and leverage the 
President of the United States, this Government was shut down for 6 
days and then for 22 days. Twenty-eight days. Eight times longer than 
it had ever been shut down before in history.
  And now we have a very well-directed amendment on the floor. I may 
even vote for it. But I want to tell my colleagues this will not be a 
vote in which employee unions will score. I tell my colleagues that. 
Why?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman that I have 
here that under the leadership of the Democrats, they shut the 
Government down 17 times. I have the list right here, and the gentleman 
is welcome to look at it. Is that not true?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not ascribe to the 
gentleman any disingenuousness by asking the question. He knows full 
well that the Government was never once shut down by Democratic policy. 
Not once. There were, clearly, disagreements and the President refused 
to sign bills. The President was President Reagan. The President was 
President Bush.
  I would ask the gentleman, am I correct those 17 times occurred in 
the 1980's?
  Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, this goes back 
to 1972.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, reclaiming my time, I do not want to analyze all 
those because I do not have the time.
  Senator Stevens is well-motivated and believes in this amendment, but 
I fear, my friends, that there are many on this House floor who believe 
this is the best they can get politically, freezing at last year's 
level with no RIF protection for Federal employees. That is what I 
fear, and that it will give them the opportunity and excuse not to pass 
appropriation bills and not have to pay the price of following their 
policy of shutting down government for which we paid such a dear price 
in November and January of 1995 and 1996.
  That, my friends, is my fear on behalf of Federal employees, on 
behalf of the operations of this government, on behalf of doing our job 
in a responsible fashion.
  Neither party comes with clean hands to this. I agree with my 
colleague from Florida, neither party comes with clean hands. All have 
been willing to play chicken in the appropriations process and put at 
risk Federal employees and those who receive services from the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time and also for his leadership on this issue. I rise 
in strong support of the Gekas amendment. I joined him in this 
amendment because it is the right thing to do.
  My fellow colleagues, public employees do not care about our 
negotiating leverage and our negotiating positions and our personal 
biases. Taxpayers who cannot get into parks, who cannot get passports, 
who cannot get fundamental services do not care about which side has 
leverage nor about which side is at fault. What they care about is 
responsible government.
  And responsible government is government that is open, functioning 
and ready to do business, ready to do the people's business. This 
amendment will enable us to keep the government running, and that is 
the right thing to do, regardless of which party we are in.
  Now, there are a lot of people running to the well and saying if we 
do this we will lock in cuts to education and to WIC and a lot of 
important programs. That is simply not true. The fact of the matter is, 
this amendment maintains the status quo. We can debate our differences. 
We may want to increase a program, we may want to decrease a program. 
While we work that out, let us keep the government up and running. That 
is what we are supposed to do. That is what this amendment 
accomplishes.
  There is not going to be any lock-in of cuts or anything like that. 
That is simply misinformation. I find it very ironic that 2 years ago 
on the Democratic side every single Member rushed

[[Page H2735]]

down to this well and said, please, we need this continuing resolution. 
And not 100 percent. They were willing to accept 98 percent. I say this 
is a much better continuing resolution.
  I compliment my colleagues on the Republican side for their 
willingness to compromise. A 100 percent continuing resolution will 
accomplish our ends of maintaining the government while we negotiate 
our differences, and that makes common sense.
  I want to tell my colleagues what President Clinton said in 1996, or 
rather let me say this. A lot of people are walking around today saying 
there will not be a shutdown. We said that Christmas of 1995 and there 
was a shutdown over the Christmas holidays and Federal workers were out 
of work.
  The President said, ``Again, let me say I am convinced both sides 
want to balance the budget, but it is wrong, deeply wrong, to shut the 
government down while we negotiate.'' Let us heed the President's words 
and keep the government open.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of the author 
of this amendment, I believe this amendment should be called the Pork 
Barrel Protection Act.
  It is a wonderfully designed proposal that will protect any wasteful 
government program that has been put in past appropriation bills. 
Forget what the Congress has found out about that program, forget about 
GAO studies that may have shown that program is a terrible waste of our 
hard-earned taxpayers' money. The fact is this amendment, if put into 
law, would protect those pork barrel projects.
  I think all Members on both sides of the aisle who fought to come to 
this House in order to fight pork barrel ought to do so today by voting 
against this amendment.
  Secondly, this measure, if put into law, would enshrine the National 
Endowment of the Arts. For me, that is fine, but too many of our 
colleagues who do not like the NEA and have said on the campaign trail 
they will do everything they can to kill it, they are doing the 
opposite in passing this amendment.
  As someone who has fought hard for veterans, this measure would 
literally lock in funding that would cause tens of thousands of 
veterans to lose health care that they fought for in fighting for this 
country.
  This amendment substitutes the wisdom of our Founding Fathers for the 
expediency of the moment. Our Founding Fathers put the responsibility 
for shaping appropriation bills in our hands. We should accept that 
responsibility, not hide from it. Our government was not intended to be 
put on cruise control.
  Finally, if we care about flood victims, if we care about the 
Department of Defense that needs desperately the $2 billion that has 
been spent in Bosnia, we know absolutely for a fact that the President 
will veto this measure with the Gekas amendment in it.
  Whether we agree or disagree with that, the fact is if we vote for 
this amendment we are slowing down desperately needed dollars to help 
people rebuild their lives that have been victims of floods. If we vote 
for this amendment, we are slowing down the funding of the Department 
of Defense, which today is having to put off programs for this summer 
for training. For those reasons, oppose the Gekas amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], a staunch supporter of the Gekas amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me correct the last speaker, whom I 
have great respect for. He says this amendment would hurt veterans. I 
want to tell my colleagues something. Over 20 years I have had a 
reputation for being the strongest advocate for the veterans of this 
country. If my colleagues do not believe so, they can ask any veteran 
organization in this country.
  If this amendment does not go through, what will happen? If 
reasonable people cannot come to agree and we do not pass the VA, HUD 
and Independent Agencies bill, then that means that the hospitals, the 
veterans hospitals in this country, all of them, would cease to be able 
to operate. The outpatient clinics would cease to be able to operate.
  Ronald Reagan once told me, ``Jerry,'' when he was trying to get me 
to vote for a particular bill, he said, ``You cannot always have it 
your own way. There are two political parties. There are two Houses and 
sometimes you have to work together.''
  We are attempting to work together right now, and when the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] came to me in the 
Committee on Rules and they sincerely asked for this amendment, they 
meant it.
  Because there are good public employees in this country. They deserve 
a fair break. This amendment will guarantee they get a good break, and 
that is why we ought to pass it and we ought to pass it now.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, instead of 
preventing a government shutdown, actually shuts down the democratic 
process. Basically, what it says is the majority can choose to pass 
those appropriations bills, those programs that they want to make sure 
are passed and they can let the others wither on the vine.
  The minority will not be represented under this process, make no 
mistake about it. Because those programs that do not have the 
constituency, that do not have the majority support, it is easy to let 
them slide when we do not have to take the vote, when we do not have to 
be accountable to that minority point of view.
  I think this is a terrible policy. I think it is much like us giving 
up our responsibility to our constituents. We were sent here by our 
constituents to represent them. If we vote for this amendment, what we 
are really saying is take my vote and throw it away because it will not 
count anything for what the people sent me to do because this vote will 
be a throw-away when it comes to the programs that make a difference.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment because I think this is the proper time to debate this issue 
and it is the proper time to pass this issue.
  We need to have a continuing resolution so we do not shut down the 
government. The past 2 years of the appropriations process, as we come 
to a conclusion in the end of September, has not been a time that we 
should be proud of. As we talk about 1995, what happened? We shut down 
the government. We eventually brought it back together, but it cost a 
lot of money by shutting it down.
  Last year, as a fiscal conservative, what happened was we added $8 
billion of more spending to keep the government from shutting down. 
That was not what we needed to do. We do not need to increase spending 
just to keep the programs going.
  This is a 1-year effort. Let us try it for 1 year. My preference 
would be to have a 75 percent rather than 100 percent ratio because we 
need to have pressure put on us to pass appropriations bills. That is 
what we should be doing. The appropriation bills will be just as 
difficult this September and the following year's under the budget bill 
that will be brought to the floor next week because the growth in 
discretionary spending is not going to be as fast.
  Let us give it a try because it has not worked the other way.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

                              {time}  1645

  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish we had had the Gekas amendment in the last 
Congress, when we were here on the floor every day hoping that we would 
be able to avert the shutdown and bring our Federal employees back to 
work. I am strongly in support of it. We must never again shut down 
government, causing a situation we do not want to have repeated; an 
incredible waste of resources, important work left undone, tremendous 
cost to taxpayers and what it did to the morale of our civil servants.

[[Page H2736]]

  This amendment is going to provide for an automatic continuing 
resolution at 100 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level. Yes, we did 
try to get an amendment in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and myself, that would have 
assured that no Federal employees would be RIF'd or furloughed. That 
did not happen, but we are going to monitor it very closely to make 
sure that they are not.
  We think that this is an excellent amendment. The argument I have 
heard defies logic, when somebody says we are going to waste money, 
somebody said we are going to hold back on money that should be spent. 
I just do not quite understand the logic, because as far as I am 
concerned, this is the assurance that our civil servants need, a safety 
valve, the least we can do.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Gekas amendment. Many 
of us are saying we do not want to use any threat of shutting the 
Government down. Now we hear people saying, ``Oh, you have got to try 
to do it.'' That does not make sense.
  Some of us, and I am one of them, want to reduce spending in the 
Federal Government. Some people want to increase the size of Government 
and increase the amount of spending. These are very difficult to 
resolve when we are tens of billions of dollars apart.
  We are saying while we try to work things out, we would agree we 
would just freeze spending while we try to work in good faith. They 
say, ``No, don't, you've got to shut government down instead.'' How 
ridiculous. It cost taxpayers $1.5 billion the last time around, 
workers being paid for a month that they did not do the work. The 
taxpayers were hurt heavily in the process. Federal workers were in 
jeopardy. Why go through such a thing?
  We are trying to say we do not want to have such a threat hanging 
over things. We want to work together in good will. Why in the world 
would some Members say ``No, we don't want to do it?'' Support the 
amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had over 60 continuing resolutions in this body 
since 1981, where we have had a Congress of one party and a President 
of a different party and the appropriation bills have not occurred on 
time. What happens with a continuing resolution? For Federal employees 
there is anxiety. In the case of a shutdown, of which we have had over 
a dozen during that period of time, Federal employees are paid for not 
working. As we saw last time, they did not even receive their checks at 
Christmastime, and the American taxpayers are the losers.
  For Federal contractors, they lose under a continuing resolution even 
if it is passed, because it is only for a given period of time. Federal 
agencies then do not let out contracts that were won on a competitive 
basis, and the business of the American people does not continue.
  This is a fail-safe system, if the job does not get done here, so 
that the Federal Government employees and contractors will not be held 
hostage. This is not about leverage in the budget debate. This is 
simply to say that the hostages, the innocent Federal workers who are 
out there doing their job every day, are not going to be the hostages, 
are not going to be punished and will be treated fairly. I wish we had 
had this 2 years ago. We have a chance to change that now. I support 
the Gekas amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the American people have car 
insurance, they have home insurance, they have life insurance. Now what 
we are offering them in this amendment is insurance against government 
shutdown, government shutdown insurance. This will prevent excessive 
politics from disrupting the lives of the citizens of the United States 
of America. It protects our people, our retirees, every American, when 
we come into disagreement for whatever the motive.
  Two years ago we were new here in our roles. We had a majority of 
Republicans in the House and the Senate, we had a President who was a 
Democrat, we were getting used to our roles. Who suffered because of 
that while we were getting used to what we were supposed to do? The 
American people when the government was shut down for 28 days. There is 
no finger pointing in that.
  If we come to some major disagreements because of a difference in 
philosophy in the future, let us provide a way out so our people will 
not be hurt while we make up our minds. We have the opportunity to 
prevent disagreement from hurting our people, from philosophical or 
political differences. I say let us protect our people, let us give 
them Gekas insurance.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have here a Congressional Research 
report. It shows we shut the Government down 17 times since 1972. Even 
under the Carter administration in 1978 we shut it down three times. 
This was when the Congress was controlled by the Democrat Party. We 
need this Gekas insurance to prevent another Government shutdown.
  All Members should realize that this bill sunsets in 1998. What is 
the big deal? We are going to try and use it as insurance to protect 
veterans, the elderly, military and Government employees, and others 
who depend on continued payment.
  I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that even in 
the State of Wisconsin, his State has a law which automatically 
maintains government operations in the next fiscal year, automatically. 
So basically we get great ideas from the States, including the State of 
Wisconsin. I'm surprised he would be against this amendment.
  I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking 
member, it is good insurance. It does not cut or increase any funds. It 
is just insurance for the American people. It does not preclude 
Congress from passing additional resolutions. It has bipartisan 
support. Lastly, it is supported by the Citizens Against Government 
Waste, the Federal Managers Association, the Americans for Tax Reform, 
the Chamber of Commerce, and the Concord Coalition, all of these are 
bipartisan groups. I urge support.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Gekas amendment will insure 
the American people against a government shutdown in the event the 
President and the Congress reach an impasse on the budget. The funding 
level of 100 percent of last year's funding will ensure stability until 
a final budget is worked out.
  Last year's government shutdown wasted billions of dollars. We paid 
thousands of Federal employees who did not work during the shutdown. I 
say we should keep them on the job to start with. The Gekas amendment 
is the only way we have to guarantee this. There is no reason, there is 
no commonsense reason for voting against this amendment.
  Finally, some say it is not appropriate to add it to the CR for 
natural disaster relief. I think this is the most appropriate place. 
This CR will help us avoid a man-made disaster, a government shutdown 
on September 30 of this year.
  Also, I would like to point out to my colleagues from Florida and the 
Gulf Coast, September is the hurricane season. The only thing worse 
than a hurricane is a hurricane during a government shutdown. Let us 
insure ourselves against a double dose of disaster. Support the Gekas 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as ranking Democrat on the Committee on Resources, I 
wanted to address several important natural resource and environmental 
matters raised in this bill.

[[Page H2737]]

  At the outset, I want to commend the leadership of the Appropriations 
Committee for providing vital funding in addition to that requested by 
the administration for flood-damaged national parks, wildlife refuges, 
BLM public lands, and national forests.
  In California, the severe flood that inundated Yosemite National Park 
has caused extensive damage to many park facilities and resources, 
destroying or damaging hundreds of housing units and campsites and 
other infrastrucure. As a result of the extensive damage, the park was 
closed and visitor access curtailed.
  Yosemite is one of the crown jewels of our national park system and 
the millions of visitors each year contribute significantly to the 
state and local economies. While the park service is working to conduct 
the most urgent repairs to roads and infrastructure using existing 
funds, the supplemental is urgently needed to reopen park areas in 
1998. In the long run, with $186 million in restoration funds and $10 
million in funds to implement the Yosemite Valley transportation plan, 
we have the opportunity to enhance the visitor experience and better 
protect park resources in what is truly a national treasure.
  I also am pleased with the committee's efforts to increase funding 
over the administration's request for flood-related restoration on 
national forests. In California and other States, ill-advised logging 
practices and road construction have had a severe impact on watersheds 
and water quality, contributing to runoff which increases the severity 
of flooding downstream. The bill provides $37 million for fish and 
wildlife habitat restoration, soil stabilization, road and trail 
maintenance and relocation, $15 million of which is allocated to 
national forests in California. The committee also provides over $32 
million for road and trail and facility reconstruction, $9.2 million of 
which goes to California forests.
  Given the extensive flood-related damages to national forests in 
California and other States, it is vital that the forest service use 
these funds in a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial manner. 
Top priority should be given to allocating these funds for road 
decommissioning in watersheds and unstable areas where poorly designed 
and maintained roads have contributed to water runoff, stream 
sedimentation, and mudslides.
  I would also like to comment on section 303 of the bill which is 
intended to allow flood control project repairs to go forward without 
concerns regarding consultations under the Endangered Species Act. 
Clearly, this is legislative language which is subject to a point of 
order under House rules.

  However, last week the House had a vigorous debate and reached a 
decisive conclusion on this matter by adopting the Boehlert-Fazio 
substitute to H.R. 478. Substantially similar language, acceptable to 
the administration, has also been agreed to by the other body.
  It is unfortunate that in this case we would allow procedure to 
obstruct the substance of legislation that is important to many members 
of the California delegation whose districts were affected by the 
flooding. It is my hope that the conferees will reject the levees 
without laws language contained in H.R. 478 and instead adopt the 
compromise approach which is clearly supported by a majority in the 
House.
  In my view, including legislative language clarifying the application 
of ESA to the flood-related projects is appropriate to include in a 
flood supplemental. By contrast, however, the other body has included a 
legislative rider concerning road right of ways across public land 
which has absolutely no business being in this bill.
  It is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity to debate the 
issue of legislating on so-called RS 2477 roads at greater length in 
the House. Unlike ESA, the House Resources Committee has not reported 
any legislation on RS 2477, an anachronistic 19th century statute 
that--as interpreted by a slim majority of the other body--would allow 
States to build roads through national parks, and public lands in 
Alaska, Utah, and other western States. This is the mining law of 1872 
give-away for roads.
  Mr. Chairman, holding important legislation hostage to unrelated 
antienvironmental riders is deja vu all over again. Didn't we learn 
anything from the misguided and failed attempts from last Congress. 
Whether it is in California or North Dakota or Kentucky, flood affected 
citizens understandably have no tolerance for Congress haggling over a 
19th century statute which has nothing to do with floods and everything 
to do with a narrow antienvironmental agenda which would go nowhere 
under the normal legislative process. There are too many vital and 
urgently needed provisions in this bill to get bogged down on a special 
interest rider that has not been adopted by the House and is likely to 
contribute additional delay in the form of a Presidential veto.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again I want to make the point that we did 
not have government shutdowns the last 2 years because of an unhappy 
accident. We had it because of this kind of a mind-set:
  One of your Members last year said, ``I believe the short-term 
problems the shutdown caused are a worthwhile price to pay.''
  Another Member said, ``The President is at our mercy. With the 
looming prospect of another shutdown, people might be out of work, all 
of whom will be in his programs. I think he's going to care more than 
we do.''
  Another of your leaders said, ``The President can run parts of the 
government that are left or he can run no government. Which of the two 
of us do you think worries more about the government not showing up?''
  Another of your leaders said, ``We should be prepared to close down 
the government. If we close it down, people will listen. I don't want 
to see government shut down, but I'm not afraid of it.'' He also then 
went on to say, ``I don't see the government being shut down as a 
negative. I see it as a positive.''
  One other of your leaders said, ``If we have to temporarily shut down 
the government to get people's attention to show we're going to balance 
the budget, then so be it.''
  That was the problem. It was not process. It was mind-set. All you 
have to do to make government work is to change that mind-set.
  I want to point out to you if you pass this, it will be a special 
interest dream. Any group that knows its program is about to get cut in 
an appropriation bill will simply try to lobby to see to it that that 
bill never goes anywhere. If it does not, then comes October 1, bango, 
they are protected, they are secure. No matter how many GAO reports 
point out that the program is lousy, no matter how many newspaper 
reports or television exposes point out that it is a waste of money, 
you cannot stop spending it on that program under this proposal. That 
is not a way to save money. That is a way to make the Congress the 
laughingstock of the country.
  You do not need to do this to keep government at work. This is like 
using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. If you really want to keep 
government workers at work, what you ought to be doing, for instance, 
is simply to look at ways to reverse the Civiletti ruling. That way you 
can keep the government at work without freezing unnecessary spending 
into the mix for as long as Congress cannot get together on a rational 
solution.
  I would also say that if you pass this, it will be a clear admission 
that you do not think that you can get your work done and that we 
cannot get the work of this House done on time. That is a lousy signal 
to send to the country. If you want to keep the government open, keep 
it open. You know doggone well that after the experience we have had 
last year, people in both parties will be killing each other to rush to 
the microphones to see to it that government is open at that time. But 
if you do not keep the pressure on for compromise and for making hard 
decisions now, you assure that every potential loser because we 
evaluate their programs as being ones that ought to be cut, you will 
assure they will create mounting pressure not to pass those 
appropriation bills and the result will be more waste than you have 
today. The responsible vote on this is no.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gekas 
amendment. I am disappointed we are considering an amendment which 
would further delay much-needed relief to the flood-ravaged Red River 
Valley.
  I witnessed firsthand the incredible devastation and the thousands of 
hurting people in the Red River Valley who are counting on Congress and 
the President for help.
  They need flood relief now to rebuild their homes, businesses, and 
communities. They don't need a Christmas tree bill with unrelated items 
attached to it like the Gekas amendment.
  Under normal circumstances I would support the automatic continuing 
resolution. However, this legislation should be handled separately, and 
the Disaster Recovery Act passed as soon as possible without an 
amendment which would cause a Presidential veto.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues, on behalf of thousands of food 
victims in the Red River Valley who want to help themselves, to vote no 
to the Gekas amendment. Let's get help to flood victims now without any 
further delay.

[[Page H2738]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment to H.R. 1469, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
  I understand the motivation for this amendment with the experience of 
the waning days of the last Congress fresh in our minds with the 
budgetary process beginning for this Congress.
  The need for this Congress to remain accountable and responsive to 
the budget and all of the ensuring situations that might arise form 
disagreements with the administration is critical.
  The Congress considers the President's budget proposals and approves, 
modifies, or disapproves them. This body can change funding levels, 
eliminate programs, and add programs not requested by the President. It 
can add or eliminate taxes and other sources of receipts, or make other 
changes that affect the amount of receipt collected.
  All of this is accomplished under the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974. The act requires each standing committee of the House and Senate 
to recommend budget levels and report legislative plans concerning 
matters within the committee's jurisdiction to the Budget Committee in 
each body. The Budget Committee then and only then should initiate the 
concurrent resolution on the budget.
  The budget resolution sets appropriate levels for total receipts and 
for budget authority and outlays, in total and by functional category. 
It also sets appropriate levels for the budget deficit and debt.
  Budget resolutions are not laws and therefore, do not require the 
President's approval. However, Congress does consider the 
administration's view, because legislation developed to meet 
congressional budget allocations does require the President's approval.

  Congress does not enact a budget as such. It provides spending 
authority for specified purposes in several appropriations acts each 
year. In making appropriations, Congress does not vote on the level of 
outlays directly, but rather on budget authority, which is the 
authority to incur legally binding obligations of the Government that 
will result in immediate or future outlays.
  Last year, I joined with many of our colleagues to address the 
problems of the last Congress' budget disagreements. I attempted to 
avoid the Government shutdowns which occurred by introducing 
legislation to raise the debt ceiling limit to avoid a Federal 
Government default of its financial obligations and insulate critical 
agency.
  I stood with many Members on the issue of the budget crises and 
fought to resolve the issue.
  I believe that this amendment would further complicate the budget 
process by attempting to meet the Government's obligations without 
obligating the Congress to do its job.
  The reconciliation directives in a budget resolution usually require 
changes in permanent laws. They instruct each designated committee to 
make changes in the laws under the committee's jurisdiction that will 
change the levels of receipts and spending controlled by the laws.
  However, the changes in receipt and outlay amounts are based on 
certain assumptions about how laws would be changed, and these 
assumptions may be included in the explanatory statement accompanying 
the budget resolution.
  The 435 Members of the House who have the honor of being members of 
this body must and should insist on remaining accountable for all of 
its actions.
  The constituents of the 18th Congressional District deserve no less 
than my best effort to participate actively and enthusiastically in all 
of the business of the people's House as their elected Representatives.
  We should not give into the anxiety created by our experience of the 
last Congress. We should work with each other during the budgetary 
process through our management of this House to do this job well.
  With over 200 years of history to support the way we have provided 
funds to operate the United States' Government there is no precedent 
for making this amendment law.
  I would like to ask that my colleagues join in opposition of this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Is it the intention of the Chair to try to roll this vote? 
We have not had votes rolled all day. Why are we rolling a vote without 
notice to this side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Chair has the option to postpone 
requests for recorded votes at his discretion. The Chair would indicate 
to the gentleman that he would have postponed the previous 5 votes had 
rollcall votes been requested, but the rule makes it clear that the 
Chair has the discretion to postpone votes on any amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. We just had a rollcall vote on the Neumann amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. That vote would have occurred 
in addition to 4 others had there been rollcall votes requested. Those 
amendments were adopted by voice vote.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I ask for how long it is going to be rolled?
  The CHAIRMAN. Until later in the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. So we are not going to know how we voted on this amendment 
when we consider other amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would indicate that postponing a vote on an 
amendment that would not technically affect consideration of additional 
amendments that could be offered up would not be out of the ordinary.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, if this is being rolled 
simply for the purpose of the majority to whip because they do not have 
the votes, then it is going to be very difficult for us to reach 
agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the rule grants the Chair the 
discretion to roll votes.
  Mr. OBEY. It also, as you know, usually is accompanied by a prior 
notice to the minority, and it is usually worked out on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Mr. Chairman, that has not happened in this instance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will indicate that the Chair was not a party 
to either notification or not notification and would be exercising the 
discretion.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 149, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 105-97.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart:
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following new section:


              extension of ssi redetermination provisions

       Sec. 3303. (a) Section 402(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(D)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``the date which is 1 
     year after such date of enactment,'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 1997,''; and
       (2) in subclause (III), by striking ``the date of the 
     redetermination with respect to such individual'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 1997,''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective 
     as if included in the enactment of section 402 of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] and a Member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, has the Chair made inquiry as to

[[Page H2739]]

whether or not there is a Member who will rise in opposition?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not, and has given the author of the 
amendment the opportunity to explain the amendment and then will 
request if there is a Member in opposition.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is cosponsored by my dear 
colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], as well as the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen], and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] 
obviously is a bipartisan effort which parallels very exactly the 
companion language that was passed in the Senate with 89 votes just a 
few days ago, language in the Senate that was submitted by Senators 
D'Amato and Chafee and DeWine and others, and it would restore vital 
supplemental security income, SSI, assistance to legal taxpaying 
immigrants for a 6-week period to allow time for details of the budget 
agreement to be finalized which will lead to a more long-term solution, 
Mr. Chairman.
  That in essence is the explanation of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who would rise in opposition to the 
amendment and seek the time?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I do not, but I ask unanimous consent that if 
no one rises in opposition, then the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Meek] might have the 10 minutes as the co-author of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] will control 
the 10 minutes.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Thanks to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], 
and I want to certainly thank the Members of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the chairman and the ranking member who have worked so 
hard, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] to see that we got 
there so far, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules as well. I 
feel strongly about thanking all of these people because they did, Mr. 
Chairman, allow us to get where we are now and to have this time 
divided between my good friend [Mr. Diaz-Balart] and myself. I also 
want to recognize the fact that the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Kennedy] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and many 
others have worked very diligently on this, and I certainly want to 
thank them for the time they have put on it, and I appreciate their 
sensitivity to this problem which we worked in a bipartisan basis to 
get to this far.
  So I want to say to the House today that we are offering this 
amendment for the good of the SSI recipients throughout this country 
who are legal immigrants, who have been in this country, who have been 
responsible in terms of their taxpaying dues, who have been responsible 
as good and worthwhile legal immigrants and who deserve in their 
elderly state of mind, and who deserve, those who are disabled and who 
deserve, those who are young and unable to work, they deserve this kind 
of attention from the Congress to say that we will extend the time, 
give them a time to get the benefits that they so much deserve.
  So what this amendment will do, will do what the Congress wants to 
do, is to give us time to have our colleagues vote and act on the 
additional moneys which has already been recommended to them to come 
before the end of the year.
  We want to be sure that there is no cutoff of SSI and there is no 
cutoff of Medicaid. Many people do not realize that in many of the 
States, SSI and Medicaid are linked together, and many of the people in 
nursing homes, their benefits would be cut off if it were not for this 
good bipartisan amendment which our colleagues are hearing now, and 
because of this they will be able to remain there and receive their 
benefits until Congress acts upon this.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not going to cost but $240 million, and that has 
been taken care of in terms of the offsets which the chairman and the 
ranking member have explained to us before. We are so pleased that 
these needy people, they are aged, they are frail and certainly 
disabled, that they will get a chance now to continue to get the food, 
to be sure to get the health care, to be sure and get the medical care 
and to be sure to get the benefits which this country has afforded 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to you that what we have done here today is an 
outstanding thing, and I want to thank both parties and everyone who 
has been in on this, and I wanted to yield some time to the other 
Members of the House.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] for her leadership on this 
issue and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart]. But, Mr. Chairman, I want us to stop for a moment and not 
pat ourselves so much on the back because we are about to pass this 
amendment. Let us recall what created this problem in the first place. 
Let us recall that it was a discriminatory welfare reform bill that cut 
$24 billion out of legal immigrants' assistance, $24 billion that the 
legal immigrants of this country pay taxes for, far in excess of what 
they ever get back in human and social services, and yet this Congress 
felt there was no distinction to be made between illegal aliens and 
legal residents. They felt that the immigrants were such a dirty word 
amongst the American public that we could bash immigrants and scapegoat 
immigrants all the way through the last Congress, and that is exactly 
what the bill, that the welfare reform bill that passed last Congress, 
did. It made no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal 
aliens.
  Let me remind my colleagues that 24,000 legal immigrants serve in our 
Nation's military. Imagine them on duty in Bosnia today without us 
passing this bill. In essence, we are going to pass a supplemental bill 
to fund Bosnia, but we are not going to pass a bill that would allow--
--
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman that legal 
immigrants who serve in the military were never, never excluded from 
any welfare benefits, and they were specifically included.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Reclaiming my time, their parents, their 
cousins, what is the gentleman from Florida saying; that their aunt, 
and let us say they are over in Bosnia, that their mother or father, or 
their uncle or aunt who is back in the United States is not going to 
get cut off?
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw] to respond to that question.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is it is absolutely a shame the 
gentleman has asked me that question when he was the author of last 
year's bill and yet he knows full well what we are talking about here, 
and that bill, Mr. Chairman----
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will calm down, I am a 
cosponsor with him on this particular amendment. Now if he wants to try 
running off votes, then that is the way to handle it, but I will 
explain to the gentleman that we are packaging a deal that is going to 
take care of all of those that were here on August 22. So if the 
gentleman would calm down.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island does control the time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr, Chairman, we are so glad to have the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] finally acknowledging that these are 
legal immigrants who should not be cut off assistance. We are so glad 
that he has finally come around and supported this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in August 3,500 of the most vulnerable residents of my 
State of Rhode Island will be expelled from the Supplemental Security 
Income [SSI] program.

[[Page H2740]]

  Mr. Chairman, these are not able bodied adults with no desire to 
work--these are elderly and severely disabled legal immigrants who will 
never be able to work. In fact, most came to the United States desiring 
to work hard and achieve the ``American dream'' like most citizens.
  Unfortunately however, they have gotten old and become ill and can no 
longer contribute to the economy as they once had.
  Mr. Chairman, without SSI, many of these elderly and disabled 
individuals will have no means of survival. Many live in nursing homes 
and will be put out once their assistance ceases. Many have no family 
members with the financial ability to care for someone in their 
condition.
  These people are not getting rich off the system--they are barely 
getting by.
  This is precisely why the Diaz-Balart, Meek, Shaw, Ros-Lehtinen, 
Kennedy amendment to extend the SSI program until the beginning of the 
1998 fiscal year is so important.
  An extension of the SSI cutoff date would allow Congress and the 
Clinton administration to finalize their agreement to restore some 
benefits to legal immigrants. Many of these individuals who are facing 
termination will qualify to continue receiving SSI under the budget 
agreement.
  The 2 month gap between the cutoff date and the beginning of the 1998 
fiscal year will create enormous difficulties for the Social Security 
Administration, health care providers, and hundreds of thousands of new 
Americans who will have no means of support for 2 months.
  An extension of the program would avert this trainwreck and maintain 
a decent standard of living for thousands of deserving individuals.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and support the 
rights of all Americans--not just those who are native-born.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Shaw], someone who has been instrumental in the area 
not only of welfare reform, but in precisely trying to formulate a 
solution to the problem that we are dealing with today and who was 
instrumental in making this, permitting this, amendment to come to the 
floor in the consensus fashion that it has. As I say, it is very much a 
part of the negotiations to find a humane and definitive solution to 
the very, very serious problem that brings us to the floor at this 
point.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I am pleased to join with the gentleman from 
Florida, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and even the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] as a cosponsor of this 
amendment which I think is very much needed to bridge the time from 
August 22 when the welfare reform bill, as it applies to legal 
immigrants, is going to go into effect until the first of the year to 
give us the time to work out a reasonable solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I think a history lesson is necessary here. Right now, 
51 percent of the moneys that we spend on the elderly in SSI goes to 
noncitizens. We have found that the payment to noncitizens is growing 
at 10 times the rate that it is growing for citizens. Now that is not 
to say that we need to pull the rug out from under people who are 
already here, and that message is out there, and that message has been 
heard, and we are going to solve that problem as part of the budget 
negotiations and reconciliation that we will be going through in the 
month of June.
  There is nobody in this House that wants to see people who have 
absolutely no place to turn to be dumped out on the streets, and we are 
not going to allow that to happen. But also there is nobody in this 
House that I think really wants to continue to use SSI as a pension 
system for noncitizens. It was never designed that way, and if that is 
what we are going to do, then we should face that as a separate pension 
system that we would have to take a look at. But I do not believe that 
the American people would want to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the right solution. We are doing the right 
thing, and we will continue to do the right thing. We will be 
finetuning this legislation. I have said all along, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin] who is my ranking member on the Committee on Ways 
and Means knows that we have been working for a solution even before 
the White House and the budgeteers came in and tried to strike their 
deal in putting together a bill.
  So I think we need to keep the rhetoric down, I think we need to work 
together to solve this problem. This is certainly the interim solution. 
I support this amendment, and I am very pleased to have my name 
associated with it.
  I would also like very much to compliment my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], and the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for being part of the 
sponsorship of this most important amendment. I think it will receive 
the overwhelming support of the House, and I would hope that it would 
pass and we can go on to the next phase of working these problems out 
for legal citizens, legal noncitizens, excuse me, legal noncitizens who 
find themselves in a tough spot here in this country and were here on 
August 22, 1996 when this bill was passed and signed into law by the 
President.

                              {time}  1715

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from south Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, the Social Security Administration 
has informed recipients of SSI benefits, that is the elderly over 64, 
blind and disabled, that they will lose their benefits in August. These 
legal residents, who have received this notice, total 800,000 people; 
800,000 elderly folks who will be left to their own resources to 
survive.
  Out of this group of 800,000 people, Mr. Chairman, is Mary Solanes, a 
72-year-old elderly woman who is a constituent of my congressional 
district, who not only was a victim of Hurricane Andrew that destroyed 
her home, but also then became a victim of building contractor fraud. 
To make her situation even worse, Mary Solanes will have to fend for 
herself without the aid of SSI benefits, even though she has custody of 
her two minor grandchildren after her daughter was murdered by the 
children's father.
  We, as Representatives of the people, should not make this poor, 
elderly woman, who has endured the loss of her home twice over, as well 
as the murder of her daughter, have to survive without any help 
whatsoever. The SSI check that Mary Solanes receives is the only means 
of sustenance that she has to support herself and her grandchildren.
  Add to the list another constituent of my district, Mr. Jose Jimenez, 
a 90-year-old man, who was the father of a Korean War veteran. Jose 
came from Cuba with an affidavit of support signed by his son. 
Unfortunately for him, shortly after he arrived, his son, the Korean 
War veteran died, leaving him alone without knowing where to go and 
without being eligible for any kind of support. If we were to cut this 
poor, 90-year-old man's benefit, he will surely be homeless.
  Further add to the list another one of my constituents, Consuelo 
Brito, a 92-year-old elderly woman who is bound to a wheelchair and 
blind. She has attempted repeatedly to take the citizenship test, but 
has failed all attempts. Consuelo, again, is 92 years old, bound to a 
wheelchair and blind. Where should a poor, elderly lady like Consuelo 
go if she loses her SSI benefits? Do we honestly believe that she will 
be hired by someone? Obviously not.
  Finally, consider the case of Onesia Bueno, an 82-year-old woman, 
also a constituent of my district, who has no one here to look after 
her. Her husband, a former political prisoner in Cuba, died in 1980, 
leaving her alone. Ironically enough, her husband suffered at the hands 
of Cuba's tyranny for his crime of helping the United States during 
World War II. She faces homelessness without Social Security 
supplemental assistance. This amendment will at least carry her over 
for a few more weeks.
  Because of these examples and hundreds like them, just based in my 
own congressional district, we urge our colleagues to consider the 
amendment that would extend the elimination of benefit cutoff dates to 
Mary, to Jose, to Consuelo, to Onesia, and all of the elderly.
  Folks far over the age of 64 are in desperate need of assistance. 
They are all individuals who unfortunately will be left to their

[[Page H2741]]

own resources to survive and who are far too old or disabled to work. 
We cannot as legislators cut aid to those who need it the most and to 
those who have no other option to sustain themselves because of their 
age or disability.
  Because we cannot forsake Mary, Jose, Consuelo, Onesia and many 
others, I implore my colleagues, therefore, to pass this amendment, not 
only for the good of these elderly who are so desperately in need, but 
to fulfill the duty of our occupations, as members of Congress, to 
represent all of the people, including the elderly, the poor and the 
disabled.
  This amendment could not have been presented here today without the 
support, guidance and leadership of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Meek], the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Kennedy], and many others who have worked on a bipartisan basis to help 
the elderly, the poor, and the disabled.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time. I would simply say that I think this action is responsible, it is 
needed, it is fair, it is overdue. These people should never have been 
bounced in the first place.
  I would also say, as the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] 
has noted, that I hope that this little patch on our consciences does 
not suffice to cover up all of the other changes that are needed in the 
welfare program to make that program in fact balanced and fair and 
decent to a lot of desperate human beings.
  For instance, it still is grossly harsh to persons who, through no 
fault of their own, lose their jobs and are, therefore, deprived of 
long-term food stamp benefits until they can obtain another job. So 
while we need to do this today, I hope that this is not the full 
measure of the conscience of the Congress, because we would indeed be 
found wanting.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this amendment. It would give us the time we need to work out the 
details of the budget agreement and provide appropriate relief to 
elderly and disabled non-citizens.
  In my district, many legal residents have worked hard in America, 
paid taxes for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, and some of those folks now depend 
on SSI and some of the benefits provided by this Government. I have 
worked hard with the Polish American Congress and other organizations 
in the Polish and Hispanic communities to make sure that those who want 
to apply for citizenship can do so promptly, get their applications 
processed promptly, and continue to receive their benefits as American 
citizens, and I would like to commend the INS office in Hartford for 
its tremendous cooperation at this time.
  However, some of those legal residents who have worked decades in our 
country are unable to become citizens because their disability does not 
allow them to learn English or American history, or even comprehend the 
citizenship oath. We must not change the rules for these folks 
retroactively, and only after these people are unable to support 
themselves.
  This amendment does what is necessary now, and before this amendment 
expires, I believe this House will have made a permanent change in the 
law to assure benefits to elderly and disabled legal residents in 
America currently receiving SSI benefits.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], my colleague on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the sponsors 
of this amendment. It is very important. As it has been said, it is 
responsible and it is humane.
  However, Mr. Chairman, the point has been made that as we discuss the 
parameters of the budget and the funds that will be needed to restore 
some of these benefits, if we do not go to the $14 billion or higher, 
what is going to happen is that hundreds of thousands of elderly legal 
immigrants who are not disabled will not receive services in the 
future. This amendment is a short-term solution to a problem, but as we 
debate the budget we need to ensure that all the legal immigrants that 
deserve these services will be reinstated.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sabo], who is a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment which restores the 
eligibility of SSI until the end of this fiscal year. I want to 
particularly commend the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], our good 
friend, for her persistence. We are here because of her efforts on the 
Committee on Appropriations to set the framework for having a floor 
amendment to be offered.
  I just want to say a special word of thanks to her because as the son 
of immigrants, I especially appreciate her efforts in behalf of 
extending for a short period of time truly justice for many deserving 
Americans.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment. I hope we have the political courage to make it permanent.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Diaz-Balart/Meek amendment to 
postpone the cut-off of SSI and Medicaid payments to legal immigrants. 
This is a commonsense amendment that not only addresses the 
inadequacies of the welfare reform law, but it gives Congress and the 
administration time to make good on their word to restore benefits to 
legal immigrants.
  I think many of my colleagues would agree that the old welfare 
system, as structured, needed significant change and a refocus upon the 
basic goals of getting families back on their feet, parents back to 
work, and children back into more secure financial situations as soon 
as possible. In finally enacting welfare reform, tough and pragmatic 
choices had to be made in order to transform the system to one that 
more effectively facilitates movement from welfare to work. However 
some effects of the welfare law are just plain wrong. Legal immigrants 
have been forced to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the cuts, 
which amounting in a crushing burden on such individuals and families.
  Passage of the Diaz-Balart/Meek amendment, and other proposals like 
it, has become crucially important given the potential impact of the 
welfare reform bill on legal immigrants. We must face the facts, 
welfare reform has a long way to go--it wasn't handed down to Moses on 
Mount Sinai. Sadly, the Republican leadership is reluctant to fully 
recognize the repercussions of the welfare reform legislation and shows 
no clear inclination to act in a timely fashion on the limited changes 
much less the broad problems with the legal immigrants.
  In my home district of St. Paul, Minnesota, I represent a large 
population of Hmong from Laos, many of whom risked their lives fighting 
alongside U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War. Because of the injuries 
many of them suffered in combat in addition to the fact that the Hmong 
did not have any written language until recent years, many of them are 
not able to pass the citizenship test. Whatever chances most Hmong who 
served may have had to learn a written language were disrupted by the 
fifteen years of war in Laos. Now the Hmong are fearing for their lives 
in a new war--welfare reform. It is unfair for the Federal Government 
to back away from its commitment to support states, such as my home 
state of Minnesota, which have taken in a high number of legal 
immigrants. Many of these residents are taxpayers who deserve to be 
protected by the same safety net as U.S. citizens. The Hmong would 
suffer greatly under the new welfare law in spite of provisions which 
treat them as refugees differently than other legal immigrants.
  This January, I reintroduced the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act, 
which would ease citizenship requirements for the Hmong who fought so 
vigilantly alongside the U.S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. The 
Hmong

[[Page H2742]]

community is a vital part of the greater Minnesota community and of our 
nation, contributing in all facets of our economy including education, 
medicine, civic leadership, and entrepreneurship. St. Paul, MN is the 
first city in the Nation to elect a Hmong to public office, but it will 
undoubtedly not be the last. In the St. Paul public schools, Southeast 
Asian students compose 25 percent of student body. The Hmong community 
in St. Paul are a part of Minnesota's future.
  Much of the legislation we have been discussing over the past months 
since welfare reform was enacted, are quick fixes at best. Members of 
Congress and the administration need to come together to find workable 
solutions that will not be portrayed as a permanent fix while leaving 
individuals vulnerable. I am concerned that according to news reports, 
the budget agreement tries to ``fix'' the problem for legal immigrants 
by extending the eligibility period for refugees from 5 to 7 years. The 
additional 2 years is hardly an adequate approach. What Congress and 
the administration should do is set in place a permanent eligibility 
standard. Anything short of that approach will allow innocent 
individuals whether they be Hmong veterans, Russian-Jews, or other 
refugees, to fall through the cracks. They may well become non-
citizens, indigent after 7 years as a refuge, but without Social 
Security or meeting the 15 year threshold for SSI considerations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the pending amendment. I also urge 
our leadership to develop a comprehensive solution to the problem of 
all legal immigrants that have been mistreated under the current new 
welfare law.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment, but the important point on this amendment is that it never 
should have been included in the welfare reform bill. It is a cruel way 
to attack the helpless people in this country.
  When I went to South America last month, I heard plenty about this 
provision. The message that we are sending out about this country is 
that we are mean-spirited and racist. Is that the kind of message we 
want to send? Let us support this amendment. Let us be fair to all of 
the people in this country.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment to help all the grandmothers that are legal immigrants who 
pay taxes over the years and have committed themselves to America.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Diaz-Balart, Shaw, Meek, Ros-
Lehtinen amendment to H.R. 1469, the emergency supplemental 
appropriation bill.
  I speak on behalf of the 14,380 legal immigrants who in 1995 listed 
Houston, TX as their intended area of residence. It is estimated that 8 
percent of the 18,724,000 residents of the State of Texas are foreign 
born according to the League of Women Voter's report ``Immigration an 
American Paradox.''
  This is a nation of diverse people that has a long tradition of 
expanding the roles of our nation's citizens through a formal adoption 
program called Legal Immigration.
  The actions of the last Congress in passing immigration reform which 
treated legal and illegal immigrants with out delineating between the 
two groups was wrong.
  Legal immigrants to our Nation should be encouraged and fully 
recognized with the full protection of our Nation's laws.
  In March, approximately 800,000 legal residents of the United States 
received letters from the Social Security Administration informing that 
they may lose their benefits in August unless they qualify for 
exemption or achieve U.S. citizenship.
  Age, infirmity, and mental and physical condition were not taken into 
account when immigration reform was passed by this body and signed into 
law.
  This amendment would allow us to do the right thing and provide for 
those who are abiding by our Nation's laws by becoming legal residents 
of our country.
  The amendment if adopted would postpone until the end of fiscal year 
1997 the scheduled cutoff in Supplemental Security Income [SSI] 
payments to illegal immigrants. These benefits go to needy persons who 
are over 64, blind, or disabled. The amendment would rescind $240 
million from the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills [JOBS] program to 
offset the amendment's cost.
  I would urge my colleagues to join in support of this very important 
amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the legal immigrant provisions never should 
have been in the welfare bill. When the President signed it, he said he 
was going to work to take out these provisions, as did a number of us 
who voted for this bill. This is the first step to redeem that promise.
  Welfare reform was always about moving younger people off of welfare 
to work, not penalizing elderly legal immigrants. We have to go further 
than this. This is the first step, and I congratulate all who joined in 
this overcoming the initial resistance to this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a long haul.
  When the President announced his decision to sign a welfare bill, 
substantially reshaped after his two earlier vetoes, he promised to 
work to change several parts he disliked, particularly those relating 
to legal immigrants.
  When a number of us spoke on the Floor who voted for the bill, we 
made the same promise.
  Today, we take the first step to redeem that promise.
  Welfare reform was about moving mostly younger parents with children 
off welfare into work, safeguarding the health and care of their 
children--not about penalizing elderly, often disabled legal 
immigrants.
  To right this wrong, we have had to overcome considerable resistance. 
That we are moving in this direction now is a tribute to many of those 
unnamed, either in the indicated sponsorship of this amendment or in 
membership in this Congress; to the voluntary organizations throughout 
this country who raised their voices, often when some of the elected 
officials in their own state were silent; and to the legal immigrants 
themselves, who came to this nation, sometimes as refugees from 
persecution, from a variety of nations--Iraq, the Soviet Union, 
Vietnam, Latin America and China, among others, and who spoke out to 
all of America, reminding us that we built this nation with the brains 
and labors of legal immigrants, and that we should not turn our backs 
on them in 1997.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Two weeks ago, 5,000 Russian Jews came back to the west side of the 
Capitol to say they came to this country, they were promised aid when 
they got to this country, and I am happy that this Congress recognizes 
that not only those 5,000 Russian Jews who served to help us in the 
global economy, as well as in the wars that we have just fought to say 
that today we stand here for all legal immigrants and say to them, we 
want your time extended until the time Congress has a chance to do the 
right thing.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  One of the cases that has most impacted me in the last months as I 
have looked toward August and the impending cutoff of SSI to legal, 
taxpaying immigrants is the case of Guido Diaz. Guido Diaz was a 
political prisoner for years in Castro's gulags, beaten daily as a 
prisoner of conscience. Finally, he managed to get out of the 
totalitarian nightmare that today is Cuba and arrive in the United 
States.
  Shortly after, apparently the cumulative effect of the daily beatings 
caused a stroke, a massive stroke for Guido Diaz, and he is in a 
wheelchair. He is incognizant, and as much as I am sure that he would 
love to become a citizen of this great country, he cannot do so.
  What we are doing today, Mr. Chairman, is making sure that the Guido 
Diazes who fell through the cracks in the reform that was implemented 
just some months ago are saved, and that those legal immigrants in the 
United States who cannot become citizens will not be cut off, those who 
were here legally in August of 1996. I commend my colleagues for their 
support and urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this 
bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to take the 
first step to undo some of the damage caused by the immigration and 
welfare reform laws passed in the last Congress. That inhumane 
legislation was targeted at the most vulnerable in the immigrant 
community, and it must be reversed. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment to delay the date of enactment of the harshest 
provisions of these laws. The Senate has already voted overwhelmingly 
in support of this measure, and I am hopeful that the House will do the 
same.

[[Page H2743]]

  We must prevent the widespread human hardship that threatens our 
communities due to the passage of the welfare and immigration laws. In 
the past few months, we have begun to see the often tragic impact of 
these laws. We have already heard reports of many immigrants being 
turned out of nursing homes due to the impending cutoff of their 
disability payments. If this amendment does not become law, we will 
witness much worse. Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a national 
tragedy in the making. Widespread homelessness, poverty, and loss of 
life will surely result. Private charities and shelters will be unable 
to accommodate all those who will be cut off.
  The impending crisis has also led to incredible anxiety for elderly 
immigrants who do not know where to turn for help. Riva Feldsher, a 
Russian immigrant living in Illinois who is nearly blind after 
suffering a stroke several years ago, recently asked a reporter ``What 
am I going to do? I am an old person. The only choice I have is to go 
on the street and die there.'' I have also heard stories of immigrants 
who have committed suicide due to the fear they feel about these new 
laws. There is a great deal of fear in our immigrant communities, and 
we must make every concerted effort to alleviate anxiety and restore 
benefits.
  This is critical legislation. The measure that we are seeking to 
delay with this amendment targets legal immigrants--people who entered 
this country legally and openly, paid taxes, and contributed to our 
economy--who are now elderly and disabled and who deserve our support. 
An extension of this kind is necessary to allow time for the Congress 
to substantially modify the law in order to protect elderly and 
disabled immigrants in a more comprehensive manner. While I would 
prefer to see an immediate and complete restoration of benefits to 
legal immigrants, I support this temporary measure to maintain benefits 
while budget negotiations continue.
  Without this delay, termination notices will begin to go out in July 
and we will have, at the very least, a short-term loss of benefits 
which would be a disaster to elderly and disabled immigrants and the 
communities in which they live. This amendment should alleviate some of 
the tension and anxiety our elder immigrants feel, and will temporarily 
breathe life back into the lives of legal immigrants who otherwise 
would be left without critical life-supporting assistance. We owe it to 
them to pass this amendment today and to fully restore benefits by the 
end of September. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
Diaz-Balart-Meek amendment.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from 
Florida's amendment. This amendment correct a grievous wrong against 
elderly and disabled legal immigrants which was enacted by Congress as 
part of last year's welfare reform law. One of the reasons that I 
opposed that measure was the elimination of SSI and food stamp benefits 
to many of this Nation's legal residents. Without this amendment over 
800,000 legal immigrants will lose their eligibility for SSI and food 
stamps, and in some cases their Medicaid benefits, in August while this 
body is in recess. It must be remembered that many of these immigrants 
were invited to this country as refugees or arrived through the family 
reunification provisions of our immigration law. Many worked, paid 
taxes and contributed to this society, as long as they were physically 
able to do so. Our action, last Congress, was nothing more than a 
punishment for them not becoming U.S. citizens, a requirement that has 
never been imposed on legal residents previously, and certainly a 
requirement that should not be imposed retroactively.
  Today, we have an opportunity to right a wrong. I urge my colleagues 
to join in adopting the gentlelady's amendment. Let us not be guilty of 
inflicting needless suffering on those whose only crime is that they 
are not U.S. citizens.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Diaz-
Balart/Meek amendment to postpone the cutoff of SSI payments to legal 
immigrants until the end of fiscal year 1997.
  The budget agreement makes good on President Clinton's promise to 
restore some benefits to disabled legal immigrants. However, this 
restoration will not occur soon enough for nearly 800,000 elderly and 
disabled legal immigrants who rely to SSI benefits for basic survival 
needs such as food and shelter, who have received notice that they may 
lose their benefits beginning in August. This amendment would delay 
that cutoff so that we may get serious about the business of restoring 
benefits for these people in such desperate need.
  Scores of frail and faltering immigrants have been driven to panic. A 
desperate few, at least five at last count, have been driven to suicide 
because of impending starvation and helplessness. It is shameful that a 
country like ours allows vulnerable people to live with that kind of 
fear. Legal residents who have played by the rules to get to our 
country, who have worked and paid taxes and who are making a good faith 
effort to become citizens, do not deserve the punishment this cutoff 
metes out. The Diaz-Balart/Meek amendment is not a permanent solution, 
but it will allow these vulnerable residents to continue to survive 
while the President and this body work to rectify the egregious and 
inhumane mistake that was made in first eliminating the eligibility for 
these people in need.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Diaz-Balart/Meek amendment.

                              {time}  1730

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 149, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-
Balart] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1469

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, namely:

                      Conservation Reserve Program

       None of the funds made available to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, in this or any other Act, shall be used to 
     enroll a total of more than 14,000,000 acres of land in the 
     Conservation Reserve Program during fiscal year 1997: 
     Provided, That the Secretary, using his authority to enroll 
     marginal pasturelands, shall not exclude the enrollment of 
     rangeland for purposes of restoring riparian habitat and 
     protecting water quality.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
against the language in H.R. 1469 appearing on page 3, lines 1 through 
9.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just review quickly my point. The provisions on 
page 3, lines 1 through 9, violate clause 2(b) of House rule XXI by 
legislating in an appropriation bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was added in the appropriation process, 
reducing CRP in the United States from 19 million acres to 14 million 
acres. It changes the law in this country. There were never hearings 
held on it, and in 1996 they decided in the FAIR bill to provide for 19 
million acres of CRP.
  One other point, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  While the gentleman is suspending, the Chair would apologize to the 
gentleman and indicate that the gentleman cannot revise and extend on a 
point of order. The gentleman must state his entire point of order 
verbally, and the Chair does apologize, and recognizes the gentleman 
again.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I, too, apologize, Mr. Chairman. In that event, 
I will return to my script, here. Mr. Chairman, I was simply trying to 
save some time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the provisions 
entitled as the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, appearing in title 
I, chapter 1, of H.R. 1469 at page 3, lines 1 through 9, of the 
emergency supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1997.
  The provision cited above violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the 
House in that it contains legislative or authorizing language in an 
appropriation bill, as noted.
  The provision would place a cap on funds made available to the 
Secretary of Agriculture, ``in this or any other Act'', for an 
enrollment of not more than 14 million acres during fiscal year 1997.
  The funding for the Conservation Reserve Program in 1997 appears in 
Public

[[Page H2744]]

Law 104-180, the Agriculture Appropriations act for the year 1997, that 
reimburses the Commodity Credit Corporation Fund for realized losses 
sustained, but not previously reimbursed, and general funds for the CRP 
program are authorized in Public Law 101-624 enacted on April 4, 1996 
(16 U.S.C. 3831 (d)) that amended section 1231, as authorized under 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food 
Security Act of 1985.
  The latter provision of the Food Security Act provides a cap on the 
maximum enrollment for the CRP at any one time during the 1996 through 
2002 calendar years of 36,400,000 acres. Accordingly, the provision 
that is the subject of the point of order is not confined to the funds 
in the bill and is not otherwise in order as an exception to clause 
2(b) of House Rule XXI. See Deschler's Precedents, Chapter 26, sections 
27.20 to 27.21, and the Chapter, Appropriations section 59, House 
Practice, 104th Congress, 2nd session (1996) and the citations noted 
there.
  The provision in H.R. 1469 on the CRP, in the guise of a limitation, 
is not a retrenchment in funding and therefore does not constitute an 
exemption to the House Rule XXI, clause 2(b), inasmuch as the 
Congressional Budget Office funding estimate for H.R. 1469 reflects no 
reduction in direct spending for the year 1997 by reason of the 
imposition of the CRP ``cap'' of 14 million acres.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to ask whether or not the 
gentleman can stop reading if the Committee concedes the point of 
order?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I would be delighted. I was attempting to 
shorten this, as the gentleman understands. You may make fun of me. 
This is my job, please. I am going to finish it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot yield time. The gentleman from 
Oregon has time under his point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I will try to do this as quickly 
as possible for the gentleman.
  Continuing, see Deschler's Precedents, Chapter 26, sections 51.12 and 
52.4, House Practice, Appropriations, section 54, supra. However, such 
a ``cap'' would clearly appear to impose new duties and new 
determinations on the Secretary of Agriculture based on what would have 
to be reductions in an anticipated 19 million acre enrollment (out of 
over 25 million acres of bids submitted) contemplated in the USDA-CRP 
No. 15 sign-up that was completed March 28, 1997. Moreover, it would 
tend to have an adverse effect on the USDA-CRP No. 14 sign-up 
authorized by the Secretary September 13, 1996, and that is a 
continuing sign-up designated to enroll wildlife habitat, waterways, 
filter strips, and so on, to be enrolled in a special CRP program for 
environmental related practices. It is submitted that the thrust and 
the express wording of the provision is clearly legislation appearing 
in an appropriations bill.
  The provision on page 3, lines 1 through 9, also contains legislative 
language directing the Secretary to include ``rangeland'' in enrolling 
marginal pasturelands in the Conservation Reserve Program.
  The inclusion of ``rangeland'' in the CRP would add newly eligible 
land to the program such as that devoted to a natural vegetative cover 
or a condition occurring as a result of a natural vegetative process 
that was not heretofore eligible for enrollment in the CRP and is thus 
legislative language inserted in the bill in violation of clause 2(b) 
of House Rule XXI.
  Finally, the proponent of this provision has the burden to show that 
such legislative language and limitations noted above, when fairly 
construed, do not change existing law. See House Practice, 
Appropriations section 50, page 118, and the citations noted therein.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, just to enthusiastically concede the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman enthusiastically will concede the point 
of order.
  Does the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, in making 
this point of order. It is well-taken.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the 
Committee on Appropriations who worked very hard to make sure this cap 
was lifted, and worked with the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture as well, I support the making of the point of order against 
this provision because it proposes to change existing law. It 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. It violates clause 
2(d) of rule XXI. It does not apply solely to the appropriation under 
consideration. It is operative beyond the fiscal year for which the 
appropriation applies, and it should be stricken. The CRP program 
should be able to go forward under the farm bill without a limitation 
on acreage in 1997.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Pursuant to the rule, Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment 
No. 16 printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Goodling:
       Page 2, after line 23, insert the following new section:

 prohibition of funds for new national testing program in reading and 
                              mathematics

       Sec. 3003. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 1997 or any prior fiscal year for 
     the Fund for the Improvement of Education under the heading 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--Education Research, Statistics, 
     and Improvement'' may be used to develop, plan, implement, or 
     administer any national testing program in reading or 
     mathematics.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It prohibits the 
Department of Education from spending any 1997 or prior year's funding 
to develop the President's national tests in reading and math.
  The effect of my amendment is to slow down a runaway train that gives 
Congress time to carefully and methodically examine an issue of 
enormous magnitude, the issue of national testing.
  For a little bit of background, in February of this year the 
President first proposed that individual national tests be given to 
fourth and eight graders in reading and math. Since that time the 
Department of Education has chosen to move full speed ahead with the 
development of these national tests in 1997 and 1998, all without 
specific or explicit congressional approval.
  The Department plans to administer these tests beginning in 1999. In 
fact, the administration is so anxious to do these tests they have 
already issued a request for proposal for two test development 
contracts. The RFP was first published on April 25, 1997, and contracts 
are expected to be signed after June 24, 1997.
  In effect, the Department of Education is attempting to do what it 
wants to do without regard of Congress' role. Yet, there are a number 
of important questions that need to be carefully considered and fully 
debated.
  How do these tests improve education? U.S. schoolchildren are already 
the most tested students in the world. We already know the academic 
achievement levels of students are not what they should be. We do not 
need another measure to tell us something that we already know.
  Will these tests distort school curricula by causing teachers to 
teach to the test? Will these tests divert energy and resources away 
from other more important education reform efforts? Will national tests 
undermine State and local standards and assessments already underway?
  It is surprising to me that anyone would try to move ahead without 
congressional approval in something that is as controversial as 
national testing. When we did NAEP, and for those Members not familiar 
with NAEP, NAEP tests are a national assessment, we do them in reading, 
we do them in math, we do them in science and several other subjects, a 
program where we spend $30 million a year. But we had 21 months of 
hearings and work by committees and on the floor of the House before 
NAEP was ever approved.
  Here we are going to not do random sampling, but we are talking about 
testing all children. As I indicated, we

[[Page H2745]]

are the most tested Nation in the world, but what bothers me most of 
all is we are putting the cart before the horse. When you find you have 
a problem, you set standards, but after you set the standards then you 
have to prepare the teacher to teach to the standards. You do not test 
first, because how can the child do well in the test if the teacher is 
not prepared?
  If we have this kind of money, why are we not better preparing the 
teacher to teach these first-grade children? For those who have never 
had the experience, 20 youngsters coming to a first grade teacher, or 
30, God forbid, in some classrooms, come at 30 different reading 
readiness levels. Some may be ready to read immediately, some will not 
be ready to read until December, some not until January, and then, if 
they are socially promoted, it means they are a half year already 
behind.
  Our money should go to all of our efforts to make sure that these 
children are reading-ready before they come to first grade, and then if 
there is additional money, preparing these teachers so that they can 
teach to the new standards, but, above all, so that they can improve 
the manner in which they teach so that we do not get the information 
that we already know, which is that a lot of children are not reading 
very well at third grade level.

                              {time}  1745

  I would hope that we consider the fact that we are moving too rapidly 
on something that is very, very controversial in education.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following information for the Record:

 Groups That Support the Goodling Amendment (Amendment Gives Congress 
  Time to Carefully Review the President's National Testing Proposal)

       FAIRTEST--National Center for Fair and Open Testing: ``Will 
     a full range of accommodations be available to students with 
     disabilities? . . . Will these tests divert energy and 
     resources away from other more important education reform 
     efforts? . . . National tests should not be established 
     without substantial debate in Congress, in states, and in 
     communities across the nation. . . . The issue should be 
     carefully considered, weighed and debated before the 
     administration is allowed to move ahead with any significant 
     new testing plans; this amendment will slow down the process 
     and allow for such careful consideration to occur.''
       The Association of American Publishers (represents all of 
     the major commercial and nonprofit companies that publish and 
     score achievement tests for elementary and secondary 
     students): ``[AAP] has concerns about certain assumptions in 
     the proposed testing plan. . . . if we are to develop and 
     implement such tests, it is important that there be a 
     national consensus on the issues they pose . . .  Obtaining 
     Congressional authorization for developing and implementing 
     such tests will assure that . . . policy implications are 
     properly addressed.''
       The California State Board of Education: ``Without a change 
     in law, there is simply no way for us to entertain a 
     commitment to a national standards and assessments process. 
     Moreover, such a commitment would not be advisable. . . . 
     until we can see exactly what the national standards and 
     assessments system would be and how it would be aligned with 
     our state standards and assessments system.''
       The President of the Virginia State Board of Education: 
     ``In Virginia, taxpayers have already paid once for new state 
     tests and standards. Why should we now have to pay again for 
     national tests which we don't want and don't need? . . . The 
     federal Department of Education, that did such an 
     outrageously poor job with the National History Standards, 
     are not the folks I want in charge of national tests for 
     our children.
       The National Right to Read Foundation: ``Congress has 
     authorized the use of the National Assessment[s] of Education 
     Progress test, and that should be a sufficient source of data 
     collection. . . . Certainly, such a far reaching [testing] 
     proposal should require a Congressional investigation.''
       Christian Coalition: ``While testing may be a useful tool 
     to measure a student's academic achievement, we strongly urge 
     the Congress to fully utilize its authority under the 
     authorization process and carefully consider the implications 
     of such a plan.''
       Family Research Council: ``We commend Mr. Goodling for his 
     attempt to check the Administration's plan to force a 
     national testing agenda on the American public without 
     approval from our elected representatives in Congress.''
       American Association of Christian Schools: ``No expansion 
     of additional national government tests should be implemented 
     without Congressional hearings, debate and opportunities for 
     public comment.''
       Traditional Values Coalition: ``Regardless of your personal 
     opinion regarding federal involvement in developing 
     individualized tests, this issue is very controversial and 
     thus should not be enacted without specific Congressional 
     authorization.''
       Eagle Forum: ``There already exists such a [national] test, 
     the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), that 
     came about after extensive Congressional consultation and 
     through specific Congressional authorization. No expansion or 
     additional national government tests should be implemented 
     without Congressional hearings and debate, and the 
     opportunity for concerned citizens to voice their opinions.''


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state the point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the 
amendment. There are no funds in this act for testing.
  I would make a point of order against the amendment because it 
proposes to change existing law, constitutes legislation in an 
appropriations bill, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The amendment proposes to include language in the bill that would 
prohibit the expenditure of previously appropriated funds made 
available in fiscal 1997 and prior appropriation acts. The amendment 
clearly seeks to change existing and prior laws.
  Deschler's Precedents contains the following language: ``Language in 
a supplemental appropriation bill which is applicable to funds 
appropriated in another act constitutes legislation and is not in 
order.''
  I would urge a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I will not waste the time since the die 
was already cast in the Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the reasons stated, the point of order is 
sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        tree assistance program

       For assistance to small orchardists to replace or 
     rehabilitate trees and vineyards damaged by weather and 
     related conditions, $9,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request for $9,000,000, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress, Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of such Act.

                 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

               Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

       For an additional amount for ``Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations'' to repair damages to the waterways 
     and watersheds resulting from flooding and other natural 
     disasters, $150,700,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request for $150,700,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of such Act: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     determines that the cost of land and farm structures 
     restoration exceeds the fair market value of an affected 
     cropland, the Secretary may use sufficient amounts, not to 
     exceed $10,000,000, from funds provided under this heading to 
     accept bids from willing sellers to provide floodplain 
     easements for such cropland inundated by floods: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided under this heading 
     shall be used for the salmon memorandum of understanding.

                         RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

                  Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program

       Notwithstanding Section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949, as 
     amended, (42 U.S.C. 1490) the College Station area of Pulaski 
     County, Arkansas shall be eligible for loans and grants 
     available through the Rural Housing Service.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Fazio of California

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Fazio of California:
       Page 5, after line 7, insert the following:
       In addition, for replacement of farm labor housing under 
     section 514 of the Housing Act of 1949 that was lost or 
     damaged by flooding that occurred as a result of the January 
     1997 floods, $1,000,000, to be derived by transfer from 
     amounts provided in this Act for ``Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency--Disaster Relief'': Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding

[[Page H2746]]

     any other provision of law, any county designated as a 
     disaster area by the President shall be eligible to apply to 
     the Secretary of Agriculture for assistance from such funds, 
     which shall be immediately dispersed by the Secretary upon 
     documented loss of farm labor housing units: Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be used by the recipient 
     countries to assist the purchase of farm labor housing, 
     including (but not limited to) mobile homes, motor homes, and 
     manufactured housing.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order has been reserved.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to call 
for a vote. In fact, it is my intention to withdraw the amendment after 
my brief comments.
  The purpose of the amendment is to highlight a significant problem 
with farm worker housing that has resulted in our January floods in 
California. About 300 units of housing have been destroyed in Sutter 
and Yuba Counties. But as a recent article in the Sacramento Bee has 
pointed out this past week, FEMA has refused to provide assistance for 
temporary emergency housing. To some of us, FEMA's reasons appear to be 
technicalities, and it does not change the fact that numerous farm 
workers have come to our area in the seasonal harvest and are now ill-
housed or are being directed to rental housing that far exceeds their 
ability to pay.
  I am hopeful that the flexibility of the Thune-Pomeroy amendment 
concerning community development block grants that the House adopted 
earlier today will permit these communities to meet this special need 
that has arisen.
  I also want to make some brief general comments about this bill. We 
may have forgotten now, but California experienced a major flood 
catastrophe during December and January which resulted in nine deaths 
and an estimated 2 billion dollars' worth of damage to homes, 
businesses and property. More than 100,000 Californians were evacuated 
from their homes.
  We owe a great debt to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of 
Agriculture, and many other agencies who have provided skilled and 
timely assistance to many Californians. Although the flood fights that 
were a common occurrence in California in January are over, the corps 
is still working with State and local officials to repair breached 
levees, strengthen weak spots, and bring our flood control system back 
into shape before the next flood season.
  A number of nonemergency provisions have been added to the bill, but 
there is one provision that goes hand in hand with disaster funding, 
the provision adopted unanimously by the Committee on Appropriations 
granting an emergency exemption for flood repairs until the end of 1998 
from the Endangered Species Act.
  This is a very valuable amendment crafted with bipartisan 
participation. It is based on a simple premise that emergency repairs 
should go forward in disaster counties nationwide. In addition, it has 
important preventive components that permit repairs when there is an 
imminent threat to lives and property. The full House endorsed this 
same provision last week by a vote of 227 to 196.
  Although I understand some jurisdictional objections to including it 
in the appropriations bill exist, I believe it is necessary as a 
component in providing this disaster assistance. I will do everything I 
can to see that it is included in the final version of this bill when 
it emerges from conference.
  I am also grateful to the Committee on Appropriations for recognizing 
the special need we have in California and elsewhere, providing $9 
million for the Tree Assistance Program to help small orchardists. It 
recognizes a special problem, that in many cases orchardists may not 
lose just one year's crop, which would be covered by crop insurance, 
but may experience a loss that will take 6 to 10 years from which to 
recover.
  This assistance is a real necessity and it is available to any State 
where people who own orchards have experienced losses of a significant 
nature. I thank my colleagues for supporting its inclusion in this 
bill.
  I also associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] earlier today during general debate 
regarding the Conservation Reserve Program.
  I will insert a letter from USDA Secretary Dan Glickman, which 
endorses the goals that we were pursuing in advocating a 14 million 
acre cap to the CRP program.
  This is a necessity for California and many areas of the country that 
have experienced disasters this year. This bill is a significant step 
in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to send it to the 
President as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1469, the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  As some of my colleagues choose to focus on nonemergency, extraneous 
amendments, I want to remind my colleagues of the enormous needs faced 
by my State and by others throughout the Nation. That's the purpose of 
this bill, and we should not forget it.
  California experienced a major flood catastrophe during December and 
January which resulted in nine deaths and an estimated 2 billion 
dollars worth of damages to homes, businesses, and property. 
Agricultural losses exceeded $150 million, and losses to our national 
forests exceeded $100 million.
  Eight national parks in California were damaged including $176 
million in damage to one of the national park system's crown jewels--
Yosemite National Park.
  More than 100,000 Californians were evacuated from their homes.
  We owe a great debt to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of 
Agriculture, and many other agencies who have provided skilled and 
timely assistance to many Californians.
  Although the flood-fights that were a common occurrence in California 
in January are over, the Corps of Engineers is still working with state 
and local officials to repair breached levees, strengthen weak spots, 
and bring our flood control system back into shape before the next 
flood season.
  So I rise in support of this disaster assistance bill and urge my 
colleagues to send it forward with no further delay.
  Although a number of extraneous nonemergency provisions have been 
added to the bill, there is one provision that goes hand in hand with 
disaster funding--the provision adopted unanimously by the 
Appropriations Committee granting an emergency exemption for flood 
repairs until the end of 1998 from the Endangered Species Act.
  This is a very valuable amendment crafted with bipartisan 
participation. It is based on a simple premise: That emergency repairs 
should go forward in disaster counties nationwide. In addition, it has 
an important preventive component that permits repairs when there is an 
imminent threat to lives and property. The full House endorsed this 
same provision last week by a vote of 227 to 196. Although I understand 
some jurisdictional objections to including it in an appropriations 
bill, I believe it is a necessary component of providing this disaster 
assistance, and I will do everything I can to see that it is included 
in the final version of this bill. The President has agreed to sign the 
provision.
  I'm also grateful to the Appropriations Committee for recognizing a 
special need we have in California and elsewhere by providing $9 
million for the Tree Assistance Program to help small orchardists. This 
program was first authorized in previous disaster acts in 1988 and 
1989.
  It recognizes a special problem--that in many cases, orchardists may 
not lose just 1 year's crop, which would be covered by crop insurance, 
but may experience a loss that will take 6 to 10 years from which to 
recover.
  The provision is targeted at small orchardists--those who own 500 or  
fewer acres and whose gross income does not exceed $2,000,000, and who 
suffer losses in excess of 35 percent. Reimbursement cannot exceed 65 
percent of the cost of replanting trees. The assistance in any calendar 
year is limited to $25,000, and no duplicative payments may be received 
under the forestry incentives program, agricultural conservation 
program, or other Federal program.

  This assistance is a real necessity, and it is available to any State 
where orchardists have experienced losses of this kind. I thank my 
colleagues for supporting its inclusion in this bill.
  I also want to highlight a significant problem with farmworker 
housing that has resulted from our January floods in California. About 
300 units of housing have been destroyed in Sutter and Yuba Counties. 
But as an article in the Sacramento Bee pointed out this past week, 
FEMA has refused to provide assistance for temporary emergency housing. 
To some of us, FEMA's reasons appear to be technicalities, and it 
doesn't change the fact

[[Page H2747]]

that numerous farmworkers have come to our area to work in the seasonal 
harvest and are now ill-housed or are being directed to rental housing 
that far exceeds their ability to pay. I am hopeful that the 
flexibility of the amendment concerning the Community Development Block 
Grant that the House adopted earlier today will permit these 
communities to meet this special need that has arisen.
  I also am supportive of the administration's $76 million request for 
WIC, the Women, Infants, Children's Supplemental Nutrition Program 
Although some have charged that this is somehow a welfare program, it 
is a straightforward supplemental nutrition program not unlike the 
school milk program and the school lunch program that kids of all 
income brackets across the U.S. benefit from.
  Perhaps no other Federal program can boast of such a demonstrable 
return--for every dollar invested in improving the health of WIC 
recipients such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, and small children, 
$3.50 is saved in Federal health programs such as Medicaid. It is an 
enormous value and a worthwhile investment, and I was disappointed that 
the majority party on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and 
the majority on the full Appropriations Committee did not accept the 
President's request for this program. To may knowledge, the Republican 
majority did not challenge OMB's request in any other spending area, 
with the exception of WIC. In fact, the committee increased spending 
over OMB's request in a number of areas based on revised estimates 
stemming from the disasters. But the one program challenged by the 
Republican majority for supposed mismanagement and overfunding just 
happens to be the one that is of benefit to pregnant women and young 
children.
  Yet the estimates of funding need are provided by individual States, 
many of whom are served by Republican Governors. Gov. Pete Wilson of 
California wrote our committee on May 9 requesting sufficient funding 
for the 1.25 million California women and children currently served by 
the WIC Program in our State. He said that California alone requires an 
additional $26.7 million in supplemental Federal funding. It is 
estimated that as many as 169,000 eligible beneficiaries in California 
will lose these supplemental nutrition benefits if less than the OMB 
request is provided.
  I am pleased that the House is correcting this terrible judgment by 
the majority party and is voting to provide the full $76 million 
requested.
  Finally, I want to mention one additional provision passed by the 
Appropriations Committee that is likely to be struck on a point of 
order. It affects an amendment offered by Representative Jim Walsh and 
myself affecting the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP].
  CRP is the largest conservation program administered by the Federal 
Government, and the benefits of the program are essential to protecting 
and improving highly erodible lands, water quality, and wildlife 
habitat. Unfortunately, there remains a great geographic disparity in 
how the program is administered. The Appropriations Committee agreed 
with Jim Walsh and me to cap the amount of acreage that could be 
enrolled in 1997 by USDA at 14 million acres to help ensure that 
acreage remains available in the outyears when new areas of the 
country, primarily the Northeast and the West, are ready to offer acres 
for enrollment.
  Another important provision of the CRP authorization in the farm bill 
allowed for the enrollment of riparian rangeland which has high 
conservation values. This would be of benefit to States like California 
and New Mexico, but since it is a new aspect of CRP, the Department of 
Agriculture needs more time to educate our farmers and ranchers of this 
important change. We also thought it was important to try to reserve 
acreage for the National Buffer Strip Initiative and the State 
Enhancement Program in order to further improve both the conservation 
practices and environmental benefits of the CRP. Buffer strips are 
perhaps the most effective means of controlling farm runoff. By serving 
as a filter for runoff from farms, buffer strips can clean from 50 to 
90 percent of pollutants before they enter drainage canals, streams, 
and waterways. Additionally, the State Enhancement Program initiatives 
offer better coordination and better conservation practices by 
approaching soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat problems 
on a watershed-wide basis. Today, land is enrolled in the CRP on a 
farm-by-farm basis, so the conservation practices on one farm may or 
may not be consistent or compatible with conservation practices being 
undertaken on a neighboring farm. The State Enhancement Program 
provides for watershed-based solutions that will be more effective in 
dealing with pressing conservation problems.
  Our intention in proposing a temporary cap on acres was to direct 
Secretary Glickman to reserve 8 million acres for these new and 
worthwhile purposes, and I am glad to announce that he has committed to 
reserving sufficient acreage to accomplish these objectives.
  In addition, one widely ignored benefit of the 14-million-acre cap is 
that the Congressional Budget Office would have scored a $31 million 
savings in our fiscal year 1998 bill and $177 million in our fiscal 
year 1999 bill. The regular Ag Appropriation bill will be marked up in 
just a few weeks, and it will be an exceedingly tight year to fund the 
many priorities in our bill which includes WIC, agricultural research, 
rural development, food safety, and the Food and Drug Administration. 
Our critics need to come to grips with the fact that we all support the 
many deserving programs in our bill and are going to have to devise 
ways to pay for them unless we want to make significant cuts at USDA.
  I am committed to an eventual signup of the 36 million maximum acres 
permitted by the 1996 farm bill. The intention behind our amendment was 
to make this truly a nationwide program, and I hope that the debate of 
the last few weeks has emphasized our objectives and created the 
support to carry them out.
  In closing, this is an emergency disaster appropriations bill and we 
need this assistance in California and throughout the Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to support it and send it to the President for signing as 
soon as possible.

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 1997.
     Hon. Vic Fazio,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Vic: Your letter of April 17, 1997, about the 
     limitation on the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ability 
     to enroll more than 14 million acres into the Conservation 
     Reserve Program (CRP) during fiscal year (FY) 1997 that the 
     Subcommittee on Agriculture and Related Agencies added to the 
     FY 1997 supplemental appropriations bill raises a number of 
     questions to which I welcome the opportunity to respond. 
     Moreover, I hope the information in my letter does two 
     things. First, I want to assure you we share the same 
     objective of ensuring that the CRP enrolls only the most 
     environmentally sensitive land. Second, I hope you reconsider 
     the amendment to ensure that USDA has the maximum flexibility 
     to meet that goal.
       This limitation on enrollments would unduly sacrifice the 
     program's ability to achieve immediately substantial 
     environmental benefits by excluding a large portion of the 
     approximately 25 million acres offered for enrollment during 
     the recently completed fifteenth signup. The limitation would 
     also mean that the program would no longer provide 
     environmental benefits from the significant amount of acreage 
     currently enrolled in the CRP with well established practices 
     yielding desirable wildlife, water quality, and soil erosion 
     benefits. If that acreage is not allowed to reenroll, the 
     program will suffer a corresponding loss of environmental 
     benefits already established.
       Your letter suggests that 8 to 9 million acres of the 36.4 
     million acres authorized for enrollment in the CRP be set 
     aside for the enrollment of buffers such as filter strips and 
     riparian buffers and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement 
     Program (CREP). I strongly support such a policy. In fact, I 
     announced a new initiative to establish 2 million miles of 
     conservation buffers by the year 2002. USDA is working with 
     both public and private entities, who have committed 1 
     million dollars over the next 3 years to promote the benefits 
     of installing conservation buffers. I am convinced that this 
     initiative will greatly enhance the significant steps USDA 
     has already taken in its own public information campaign that 
     included a letter I sent to all current CRP contract holders. 
     USDA projects that the conservation buffer initiative will 
     enroll about 7 million acres, and I can assure you that USDA 
     will reserve a sufficient amount of acreage to manage this 
     initiative successfully.
       I appreciate your comments that USDA's policy of basing CRP 
     rental rates on the local dryland agricultural rental value 
     of the acreage offered may be an impediment to having a 
     nationwide program. This policy is taken from the direction 
     the Committee wrote into House Report 104-613, the report of 
     the Committee accompanying the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997: The 
     Committee also reaffirms its position that contract rates 
     should not exceed the prevailing rental rates for comparable 
     land in the local area.
       The rental rates USDA established for the CRP are based on 
     rates developed by the local officials in each county, in 
     conformance with the direction in the FY 1997 and previous 
     years' appropriations bills that USDA not offer rental rates 
     above local, prevailing agricultural market value rental 
     rates.
       Under the CREP, USDA is examining options to deal with the 
     effect development values have on reducing participation in 
     the CRP and is considering whether higher incentive payments 
     can be made to attract offers for the highest priority 
     practices in certain areas under this program. This may 
     provide a more viable option to use CRP in areas of high land 
     use competition pressures. USDA is also committed to pursuing 
     attempts to resolve problems farmers with irrigated lands 
     face, since the CRP rental rates are based on dryland rental. 
     I have directed the Farm Service Agency and Economic Research 
     Service to review this matter.

[[Page H2748]]

       The farm bill provides specific authority to enroll 
     marginal pastureland in the CRP provided that it is devoted 
     to riparian buffers planted to trees. For this specific 
     purpose, USDA has broadened the definition of marginal 
     pastureland to include grazing land along streams and rivers, 
     even though that land may not have been previously seeded, as 
     long as it will be devoted to riparian buffers planted to 
     trees. This provision will provide a popular, voluntary 
     option to western livestock ranchers and land owners to 
     address water quality and wildlife concerns within the bounds 
     of the law as it is currently written.
       I regret that you were not informed about the criteria for 
     enrolling land in the CRP. However, prior to publishing the 
     final regulations, representatives of USDA conducted 
     extensive briefings for both the House and Senate and for 
     conservation, environmental, commodity, and farm groups.
       The amount of acreage that USDA accepts in response to the 
     fifteenth signup will be based on an evaluation of the 
     acreage actually offered for enrollment. This evaluation is 
     currently underway. Each offer is being evaluated 
     individually using the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI), 
     which measures the potential benefits that would result from 
     enrollment of that acreage. All bids are ranked nationally; 
     only those bids that provide the highest level of 
     environmental benefits will be accepted. The EBI was first 
     used for the tenth signup. USDA has made it widely available 
     to farmers and other interested parties, including Congress, 
     before publication of the final rule.
       In closing, let me repeat that I am committed to maximizing 
     the environmental benefits of the CRP in all areas of the 
     country. USDA intends to reserve sufficient CRP acreage 
     enrollment authority to ensure the success of the buffer 
     initiative through the continuous CRP signup and the related 
     CREP. USDA will continue to work with States to develop 
     CREP's and with public and private groups to further the 
     buffer initiative. We will continue to evaluate the progress 
     of the continuous signup and have maintained the flexibility 
     to make improvements to the program if needed. If you have 
     further questions regarding the CRP, now or in the future, 
     please let me know. I look forward to working with you on 
     this important initiative.
       I am sending an identical letter to Congressman Walsh.
       With best personal regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dan Glickman,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       FOOD AND CONSUMER SERVICE

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
                                 (WIC)

       For an additional amount for the Special Supplemental 
     Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) as 
     authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, 
     as amended (42 U.S.C. et seq.), $28,000,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1998: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall allocate such funds through the existing 
     formula or, notwithstanding section 17 (g), (h), or (i) of 
     such Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, such 
     other means as the Secretary deems necessary.


                               chapter 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Development 
     Assistance Programs'' for emergency infrastructure expenses 
     and the capitalization of revolving loan funds related to 
     recent flooding and other natural disasters, $49,700,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 may be available for administrative expenses and 
     may be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'': Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request, for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted to Congress.

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


                     industrial technology services

       Of the amount provided under this heading in Public Law 
     104-208 for the Advanced Technology Program, not to exceed 
     $35,000,000 shall be available for the award of new grants.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'' for emergency 
     expenses resulting from flooding and other natural disasters, 
     $10,800,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.


                               chapter 3

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


 flood control, mississippi river and tributaries, arkansas, illinois, 
       kentucky, louisiana, mississippi, missouri, and tennessee

       For an additional amount for ``Flood Control, Mississippi 
     River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
     Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee'' for 
     emergency expenses due to flooding and other natural 
     disasters, $20,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                   operation and maintenance, general

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     General'' for emergency expenses due to flooding and other 
     natural disasters, $150,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     the amount for eligible navigation projects which may be 
     derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund pursuant to 
     Public Law 99-662, shall be derived from that fund: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.


                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For an additional amount for ``Flood Control and Coastal 
     Emergencies'' due to flooding and other natural disasters, 
     $415,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                       operation and maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance'', 
     $7,355,000, to remain available until expended, to repair 
     damage caused by floods and other natural disasters: 
     Provided, That of the total appropriated, the amount for 
     program activities that can be financed by the Reclamation 
     Fund shall be derived from that fund: Provided further, That 
     the entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS, CHAPTER 3

       Sec. 301. Beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, the 
     United States members and the alternate members appointed 
     under the Susquehanna River Basin Compact (Public Law 91-
     575), and the Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law 87-
     328), shall be officers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
     who hold Presidential appointments as Regular Army officers 
     with Senate confirmation, and who shall serve without 
     additional compensation.
       Sec. 302. Section 2.2 of Public Law 87-328 (75 Stat. 688, 
     691) is amended by striking the words ``during the term of 
     office of the President'' and inserting the words ``at the 
     pleasure of the President''.
       Sec. 303. The policy issued on February 19, 1997, by the 
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implementing emergency 
     provisions of the Endangered Species Act and applying to 46 
     California counties that were declared Federal disaster areas 
     shall apply to all counties nationwide heretofore or 
     hereafter declared Federal disaster areas at any time during 
     1997 and shall apply to repair activities on flood control 
     facilities in response to an imminent threat to human lives 
     and property and shall remain in effect until the Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army for Civil Works determines that 100 
     percent of emergency repairs have been completed, but shall 
     not remain in effect later than December 31, 1998.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
section 303 of the bill under clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives.
  This section applies a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy of 
waiving certain aspects of the Endangered Species Act to the repair of 
flood facilities in certain Federal disaster areas. Under the existing 
ESA, the President may waive certain aspects of the law for rebuilding 
facilities after a disaster.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife policy is the Presidential ESA waiver for 
43 counties in California. Section 303 extends this policy nationwide, 
thus broadening the existing Presidential ESA waiver. The waiver of 
existing law

[[Page H2749]]

has been construed to mean a provision changing existing law under 
precedents of the House: Deschler chapter 26, sections 24.5, 34.14 and 
34.15.
  In addition, the amendment alters existing waiver authority of the 
President under the current ESA by limiting his authority to 2 years; 
under current law, this waiver is unlimited. Imposing a restriction on 
the authority of the President is also a provision changing existing 
law under the precedents of the House because it restricts executive 
discretion to such a degree as to constitute a change in policy rather 
than a matter of administrative detail. Deschler chapter 26, sections 
64-79.
  The language was reported from the Committee on Appropriations on 
Thursday, April 28, 1997. Therefore, this is a provision changing the 
existing law, which, as reported in the general appropriation bill, is 
in violation of clause 2, Rule XXI.
  I ask the Chair to sustain my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Are there any Members present 
who wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, for the reasons stated, the point of order of the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 4

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                              construction

       For an additional amount for construction to repair damage 
     caused by floods and other natural disasters, $4,796,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $3,003,000 is to be 
     derived by transfer from unobligated balances of funds, under 
     the heading ``Oregon and California Grant Lands'', made 
     available as supplemental appropriations in Public Law 104-
     134: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                   Oregon and California Grant Lands

       For an additional amount for Oregon and California grant 
     lands to repair damage caused by floods and other natural 
     disasters, $2,694,000, to remain available until expended and 
     to be derived by transfer from unobligated balances of funds, 
     under the heading ``Oregon and California Grant Lands'', made 
     available as supplemental appropriations in Public Law 104-
     134: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                          Resource Management

       For an additional amount for resource management, 
     $2,250,000, to remain available until September 30, 1998, for 
     technical assistance and fish replacement made necessary by 
     floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for construction, $81,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to repair damage caused by 
     floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                            Land Acquisition

       For an additional amount for land acquisition, $15,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, for the cost-effective 
     emergency acquisition of land and water rights necessitated 
     by floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for construction for emergency 
     expenses resulting from flooding and other natural disasters, 
     $186,912,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That of this 
     amount, $30,000,000 shall be available only to the extent 
     an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in such 
     Act, is transmitted by the President to Congress, and upon 
     certification by the Secretary of the Interior to the 
     President that a specific amount of such funds is required 
     for (1) repair or replacement of concession use facilities 
     at Yosemite National Park if the Secretary determines, 
     after consulting with the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, that the repair or replacement of 
     those facilities cannot be postponed until completion of 
     an agreement with the Yosemite Concessions Services 
     Corporation or any responsible third party to satisfy its 
     repair or replacement obligations for the facilities, or 
     (2) the Federal portion, if any, of the costs of repair or 
     replacement of such concession use facilities: Provided 
     further, That nothing herein should be construed as 
     impairing in any way the rights of the United States 
     against the Yosemite Concession Services Corporation or 
     any other party or as relieving the Corporation or any 
     other party of its obligations to the United States: 
     Provided further, That prior to any final agreement by the 
     Secretary with the Corporation or any other party 
     concerning its obligation to repair or replace concession 
     use facilities, the Solicitor of the Department of the 
     Interior shall certify that the agreement fully satisfies 
     the obligations of the Corporation or third party: 
     Provided further, That nothing herein, or any payments, 
     repairs, or replacements made by the Corporation or a 
     third party in fulfillment of the Corporation's 
     obligations to the United States to repair and replace 
     damaged facilities, shall create any possessory interest 
     for the Corporation or such third party in such repaired 
     or replaced facilities: Provided further, That any 
     payments made to the United States by the Corporation or a 
     third party for repair or replacement of concession use 
     facilities shall be deposited in the General Fund of the 
     Treasury or, where facilities are repaired or replaced by 
     the Corporation or any other third party, an equal amount 
     of appropriations shall be rescinded.
       For an additional amount for construction, $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to make repairs, construct 
     facilities, and provide visitor transportation and for 
     related purposes at Yosemite National Park.

                    UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                 Surveys, Investigations, and Research

       For an additional amount for surveys, investigations, and 
     research, $4,290,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1998, to repair or replace damaged equipment and facilities 
     caused by floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                        BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

                      Operation of Indian Programs

       For an additional amount for operation of Indian programs, 
     $11,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 1998, 
     for emergency response activities, including emergency school 
     operations, heating costs, emergency welfare assistance, and 
     to repair and replace facilities and resources damaged by 
     snow, floods, and other natural disasters: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for construction, $5,554,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to make repairs caused by 
     floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             FOREST SERVICE

                         National Forest System

       For an additional amount for National forest system for 
     emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other natural 
     disasters, $37,107,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                    Reconstruction and Construction

       For an additional amount for reconstruction and 
     construction for emergency expenses resulting from flooding 
     and other natural disasters, $32,334,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

                         Indian Health Services

       For an additional amount for Indian health services for 
     emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other natural 
     disasters, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                        Indian Health Facilities

       For an additional amount for Indian health facilities for 
     emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other natural 
     disasters, $2,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is

[[Page H2750]]

     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                      GENERAL PROVISION, CHAPTER 4

       Sec. 401. Section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134 is amended 
     as follows: Under the heading ``Title III--General 
     Provisions'' amend sections 315(c)(1)(A) and 315(c)(1)(B) by 
     striking in each of those sections ``104 percent'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``100 percent''; by striking in 
     each of those sections ``1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``1994''; and by striking in each of those sections ``and 
     thereafter annually adjusted upward by 4 percent,''.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 16, after line 4, insert the following new chapter:

                               CHAPTER 4A

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                     National Institutes of Health


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For an additional amount for ``National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences'', $10,000,000, for emergency 
     research of and treatment for the synergistic impact of 
     chemicals on the soldiers who served in the Persian Gulf and 
     who are currently suffering from Gulf War Syndrome.
       Page 37, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering is 
absolutely nonpartisan. There are many Republicans and Democrats who 
are increasingly frustrated about the lack of progress being made by 
the Department of Defense in solving the crisis of the Persian Gulf War 
syndrome.
  This amendment appropriates $10 million to the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences for emergency research of and treatment 
for the synergistic impact of chemicals on the soldiers who served in 
the Persian Gulf and who are currently suffering from gulf war 
syndrome. This amendment offsets this appropriation by reducing the 
amount to be appropriated for the Department of Defense, Overseas 
Contingencies Operations Transfer Fund, which is presently at $1.5 
billion, by $10 million.
  Mr. Chairman, for over 5 years, the Department of Defense and the 
Veterans Administration have been studying the heartbreaking issue of 
Persian Gulf War syndrome. And frankly, they have not been successful. 
That is the issue that we have got to acknowledge today. The truth is 
that the DOD and the VA have made virtually no progress in 
understanding the cause of Persian Gulf War syndrome or developing an 
effective treatment for it. This is a painful truth, but we should 
recognize it.
  Given that reality, I believe that the Department of Defense and 
Veterans Affairs should no longer be solely trusted with the critical 
task of diagnosing and treating the up to 70,000 gulf war veterans who 
are suffering today.
  From the end of the war until this day, the Pentagon, the VA, and the 
CIA have not been forthright with the Congress, the public or our 
veterans about the causes of gulf war syndrome and how we can better 
treat the veterans who are suffering from it.
  Over and over again there has been denial. ``Is there an illness?'' 
``Well, no. In the beginning there was no illness.'' Then, after tens 
of thousands of veterans came forward, ``Yeah, there is an illness, but 
it is stress.'' ``Were our soldiers exposed to chemical warfare 
agents?'' Absolutely. ``No, they weren't.''

                              {time}  1800

  Five years later, oh, yes, some of them. Well, maybe 500. A few 
months later, well, yes, maybe 20,000. Today, we do not know how many. 
There may be 130,000. We do not know.
  Mr. Chairman, the military theater in the Persian Gulf was a chemical 
cesspool. Our troops were exposed to chemical warfare agents, leaded 
petroleum, widespread use of the very strong pesticides, depleted 
uranium and the smoke from burning oil wells, and they were given a 
myriad of pharmaceuticals as vaccines. Further, as a result of the 
waiver from the FDA, they were given pyridostigmine bromide as an anti-
nerve gas measure.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the good news is that a number of studies, and I 
have them right here, study after study from the University of Texas, 
from Southern Illinois University, from Duke University, from the 
University of Texas in Houston, what these studies are telling us is 
these scientists believe that there is a direct link between chemical 
exposure and pyridostigmine bromide that our soldiers took. In other 
words, they have made some real progress.
  But what is the problem? The problem is that for whatever reason, and 
I do not want to cast aspersions today, but for whatever reasons 
neither the Department of Defense nor the VA has been vigilant in 
looking at that area. They will tell us they are, but they have not had 
any results, and the truth is they are not moving forward.
  Very simply, Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is take $10 
million, not a lot of money within the scheme of things, and puts it 
into an institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences, who are interested in pursuing the link between chemical 
exposure and Persian Gulf illness.
  I think we owe it to the 70,000 men and women who are suffering 
today, who put their lives on the line in the gulf, to look at this and 
to go into those agencies of government who want to pursue this issue.
  Now, I know that my friends on the other side are not unsympathetic 
to this effort. I would hope that they would waive, that my friend the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], given the importance of this 
issue, would waive the point of order and allow us to proceed as 
rapidly as we can to address this important issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
has expired.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is 
recognized on his point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, as much as I might agree with the 
gentleman from Vermont, and I do agree that the Pentagon and the VA 
have not done enough to examine the causes and effects of Desert Storm 
syndrome, I would point out that, actually, I have attempted to get 
some additional funding to address this problem and only recently, 
because of the Pentagon's dropping of their objections to it, have I 
been successful in getting some of that additional funding. I must be 
constrained to make a point of order against the amendment in this 
instance because, in effect, it calls for an en bloc consideration of 
two different paragraphs in the bill.
  The precedents of the House are clear in this matter. Amendments to a 
paragraph or section are not in order until such paragraph or section 
has been read under Cannon's Precedents, Volume VIII, section 2354. The 
amendment, therefore, is not in order and I would ask for a ruling from 
the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SANDERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Just in an informal sense, I would choose not to challenge the 
gentleman from Louisiana if I could have some assurances that he will 
work with me in trying to get some money to an agency outside of the 
DOD so that we can really look at the impact of chemicals on our 
soldiers. Is that something he would be interested in working with me 
on?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that in the 
fiscal year 1998 appropriations cycle I would be delighted to work with 
him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont cannot yield under his point 
of order.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Did the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] wish to withdraw his 
amendment?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Kolbe

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H2751]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. KOLBE:
       Page 18, after line 4, insert the following new section:


            san carlos apache tribe water rights settlement

       Sec. 402. (a) Extension.--Section 3711(b)(1) of the San 
     Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992 (106 
     Stat. 4752) is amended by striking ``June 30, 1997'' and 
     inserting ``March 31, 1999''.
       (b) Extension for River System General Adjudication.--
     Section 3711 of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Extension for River System General Adjudication.--If, 
     at any time prior to March 31, 1999, the Secretary notifies 
     the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate 
     or the Committee on Resources in the United States House of 
     Representatives that the Settlement Agreement, as executed by 
     the Secretary, has been submitted to the Superior Court of 
     the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa County for 
     consideration and approval as part of the General 
     Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source, the March 
     31, 1999, referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall be deemed to 
     be changed to December 31, 1999.''.
       (c) Counties.--Section 3706(b)(3) of such Act is amended by 
     inserting ``Gila, Graham, Greenlee,'' after ``Maricopa,''.
       (d) Parties to Agreement.--Section 3703(2) of such Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``The Gila Valley Irrigation District and the Franklin 
     Irrigation District shall be added as parties to the 
     Agreement, but only so long as none of the aforementioned 
     parties objects to adding the Gila Valley Irrigation and/or 
     the Franklin Irrigation District as parties to the 
     Agreement.''.
       (e) Conditions.--Section 3711 of such Act, as amended by 
     subsection (b) of this Act, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d) Conditions.--(1) In General.--The June 30, 1997, 
     deadline has been extended based on the following conditions. 
     The provisions and agreements set forth or referred to in 
     paragraph (2), (3), and (4) below shall be enforceable 
     against the United States, and the conditions and agreements 
     set forth or referred to in paragraphs (3) and (4) shall be 
     enforceable against the Tribe, in United States District 
     Court, and the immunity of the United States and the Tribe 
     for such purposes is hereby waived.
       ``(2) Interim period.--Prior to March 31, 1999, or the 
     execution of a final Agreement under paragraph (3) below, 
     whichever comes first, the following conditions shall apply:
       ``(A) As of July 23, 1997, Phelps Dodge shall vacate the 
     reservation and no longer rely upon permit #2000089, dated 
     July 25, 1944, except as provided in subparagraph (F) and the 
     Tribe will stay any further prosecution of any claims or 
     suits filed by the Tribe in any court with respect to the 
     Black River facilities or the flowage of water on Eagle 
     Creek. The United States, with the permission of the Tribe, 
     shall enter and operate the Black River pump station, 
     outbuildings, the pipeline, related facilities, and certain 
     caretaker quarters (hereinafter referred to collectively as 
     the `Black River facilities').
       ``(B) As of July 23, 1997, the United States, through the 
     Bureau of Reclamation, shall operate and maintain the Black 
     River facilities. The United States and Phelps Dodge shall 
     enter into a contract for delivery of water pursuant to 
     subparagraph (C), below. Water for delivery to Phelps Dodge 
     from the Black River shall not exceed an annual average of 40 
     acre feet per day, or 14,000 acre feet per year. All 
     diversions from Black River to Phelps Dodge shall be junior 
     to the Tribe's right to divert and use of 7300 acre feet per 
     year for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and no such diversion 
     for Phelps Dodge shall cause the flow of Black River to fall 
     below 20 cubic feet per second. The United States shall 
     account for the costs for operating and maintaining the Black 
     River facilities, and Phelps Dodge shall reimburse the United 
     States for such costs. Phelps Dodge shall pay to the United 
     States, for delivery to the Tribe, the sum of $20,000 per 
     month, with an annual CPI adjustment, for purposes of 
     compensating the Tribe for United States use and occupancy of 
     the Black River facilities. Phelps Dodge shall cooperate with 
     the United States in effectuating an orderly transfer of the 
     operations of the Black River facilities from Phelps Dodge to 
     the United States.
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, that 
     contract referred to in subparagraph (B) between the United 
     States and Phelps Dodge providing for the diversion of water 
     from the Black River into the Black River facilities, and the 
     delivery of such water to Phelps Dodge at that location where 
     the channel of Eagle Creek last exits the reservation for use 
     in the Morenci mine complex and the towns of Clifton and 
     Morenci and at no other location is ratified and confirmed. 
     The United States/Phelps Dodge contract shall have no bearing 
     on potential claims by the United States, Phelps Dodge or the 
     Tribe regarding any aspect of the Black River facilities in 
     the event that a final agreement is not reached among the 
     parties under paragraph (3) below.
       ``(D) The power line right-of-way over the Tribe's 
     Reservation which currently is held by Phelps Dodge shall 
     remain in place. During the interim period, Phelps Dodge 
     shall provide power to the United States for operation of the 
     pump station and related facilities without charge, and 
     Phelps Dodge shall pay a monthly right-of-way fee to the 
     Tribe of $5000 per month, with an annual CPI adjustment.
       ``(E) Any questions regarding the water claims associated 
     with Phelps Dodge's use of the Eagle Creek wellfield, its 
     diversions of surface water from Eagle Creek, the San 
     Francisco River, Chase Creek, and/or its use of other water 
     supplies are not addressed in this title. No provision in 
     this subsection shall affect or be construed to affect any 
     claims by the Tribe, the United States, or Phelps Dodge to 
     groundwater or surface water.
       ``(F) If a final agreement is not reached by March 31, 
     1999, the terms set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (E) 
     shall no longer apply. Under such circumstances, the 
     occupancy of the Black River facilities shall revert to 
     Phelps Dodge on March 31, 1999, and the Tribe and/or Phelps 
     Dodge shall be free to prosecute litigation regarding the 
     validity of Phelps Dodge use of the Black River facilities. 
     In any such event, the Tribe, the United States, and Phelps 
     Dodge shall have the same rights with respect to the Black 
     River facilities as each had prior to the enactment of this 
     subsection and nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
     as altering or affecting such rights nor shall anything 
     herein be admissible or otherwise relevant for the purpose of 
     determining any of their respective rights.
       ``(3) Final agreement.--The United States, Phelps Dodge, 
     and the Tribe intend to enter into a Final Agreement on or 
     before March 31, 1999, which Agreement shall include the 
     following terms:
       ``(A) The United States shall hold the Black River 
     facilities in trust for the Tribe, without cost to the Tribe 
     or the United States.
       ``(B) Responsibility for operation of the Black River 
     facilities shall be transferred from the United States to the 
     Tribe. The United States shall train Tribal members during 
     the Interim Period, and the responsibility to operate the 
     Black River facilities shall be transferred upon satisfaction 
     of two conditions: (i) entry of the Final Agreement described 
     in this subsection; and (ii) a finding by the United States 
     that the Tribe has completed necessary training and is 
     qualified to operate the Black River facilities.
       ``(C) Power lines currently operated by Phelps Dodge on the 
     Tribe's Reservation, and the right of way associated with 
     such power lines, shall be surrendered by Phelps Dodge to the 
     Tribe, without cost to the Tribe. Concurrently with the 
     transfer of the power lines and the right of way, Phelps 
     Dodge shall construct a switch station at the boundary of the 
     reservation at which the Tribe may switch power on or off and 
     shall deliver ownership and control of such switch station to 
     the Tribe. Subsequent to the transfer of the power lines and 
     the right of way and the delivery of ownership and control of 
     the switch station to the Tribe, Phelps Dodge shall have no 
     further obligation or liability of any nature with respect to 
     the ownership, operation or maintenance of the power lines, 
     the right of way or the switch station.
       ``(D) The Tribe and Phelps Dodge intend to enter into a 
     contract covering the lease and delivery of CAP water from 
     the Tribe to Phelps Dodge on the terms recommended by the 
     United States, the trustee for the Tribe. Water for delivery 
     to Phelps Dodge from the Black River shall not exceed an 
     annual average of 40 acre feet per day, or 14,000 acre feet 
     per year. All diversions from Black River to Phelps Dodge 
     shall be junior to the Tribe's right to divert and use of 
     7300 acre feet per year for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and 
     no such diversions for Phelps Dodge shall cause the flow of 
     Black River to fall below 20 cubic feet per second. It is 
     intended that the water subject to the contract shall be CAP 
     water that is controlled by the Tribe. The Tribe and/or the 
     United States intend to enter into an exchange agreement with 
     the Salt River Project which will deliver CAP water to the 
     Salt River Project in return for the diversion of water from 
     the Black River into the Black River facilities. The lease 
     and delivery contract between Phelps Dodge and the Tribe is 
     intended to be based on a long-term lease of CAP water at 
     prevailing market rates for municipal and industrial uses of 
     CAP water. The parties will discuss the potential imposition 
     of capital costs as part of the contract. It is intended that 
     the contract price shall include operation, maintenance and 
     replacement (OM&R) charges associated with the leased CAP 
     water, and it is intended that the contract will take into 
     account reasonable charges associated with the Tribe's 
     operations and maintenance of the Black River facilities, and 
     a credit for power provided for such facilities. It is 
     intended that the water delivered under this contract will be 
     utilized in the Morenci mine complex and the towns of Clifton 
     and Morenci, and for no other purpose.
       ``(E) Any questions regarding the water claims associated 
     with Phelps Dodge's use of the Eagle Creek wellfield, its 
     diversions of surface water from lower Eagle Creek, the San 
     Francisco River, Chase Creek, and/or its use of other 
     groundwater supplies are not addressed by this title. No 
     provision in this subsection shall affect or be construed to 
     affect any claims by the Tribe, the United States, or Phelps 
     Dodge to groundwater or surface water.
       ``(4) Eagle creek.--From the effective date of this 
     subsection, the Tribe covenants not to impede, restrict, or 
     sue the United States regarding, the passage of water from 
     the Black River facilities into those portions of

[[Page H2752]]

     the channels of Willow Creek and Eagle Creek which flow 
     through the Tribe's lands. The Tribe covenants not to impede, 
     restrict, or sue Phelps Dodge regarding, the passage of 
     historic maximum flows, less transportation losses, from the 
     existing Phelps Dodge Upper Eagle Creek Wellfield, except 
     that (i) Phelps Dodge shall pay to the United States, for 
     delivery to the Tribe, $5000 per month, with an annual CPI 
     adjustment, to account the passage of such flows; and (ii) 
     the Tribe and the United States reserve the right to 
     challenge Phelps Dodge's claims regarding the pumping of 
     groundwater from the upper Eagle Creek wellfield, in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2)(E) and (3)(E) above. Nothing 
     in this subsection shall affect or be construed to affect the 
     rights of the United States, the Tribe, or Phelps Dodge to 
     flow water in the channel of Eagle Creek in the absence of 
     this subsection.
       ``(5) Relationship to settlement.--In the event that Phelps 
     Dodge and the Tribe execute a Final Agreement pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) on or before March 3, 1999--
       ``(A) effective on the date of execution of such Final 
     Agreement, the term `Agreement', as defined by section 
     3703(2), shall not include Phelps Dodge; and
       ``(B) section 3706(j) shall have no effect.''.
       (f) Repeal.--Subsection (f) of section 3705 of such Act is 
     hereby repealed.
       (g) Technical Amendment.--Section 3702(a)(3) is amended by 
     striking ``qualification'' and inserting ``quantification''.

  Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment. It violates clause 2 of rule XXI. No amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall be in order if it changes existing law.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to be heard on point of 
order.
  I am very surprised at the ranking member's position here, since this 
had been worked out with him earlier.
  Mr. OBEY. No one has ever discussed this with me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has the time on the point of 
order.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say it obviously does have 
this problem. This had been worked out with the chairman of the 
committee, with the ranking member; with the chairman of the Committee 
on Resources, the ranking member of the Committee on Resources; the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Appropriations 
Committee, and the ranking member, and is supported by the Department 
of the Interior as an extension of an Indian water settlement that is 
vitally needed in order to keep the progress and the negotiations 
going.
  If the gentleman is going to persist, he obviously would be correct 
in his position.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 5

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                              Coast Guard

                              Retired Pay

       For an additional amount for ``Retired Pay'', $4,200,000.

                    Federal Aviation Administration

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

       For additional necessary expenses for ``Facilities and 
     Equipment'', $40,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That these funds shall only be available for non-
     competitive contracts or cooperative agreements with air 
     carriers and airport authorities, which provide for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to purchase and assist in 
     installation of advanced security equipment for the use of 
     such entities.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts in time to have a colloquy regarding a 
question in the housing field that he is interested in.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
wanted to engage in a colloquy with my distinguished colleague from 
California, the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I had filed an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, 
which I will not be offering, which gives HUD the ability to recapture 
appropriated but unspent budget authority for tenant-based section 8 
reserves and use such authority in part to meet section 8 contract 
renewals which will expire next year.
  My amendment also expresses the sense of the House that sufficient 
budget authority be provided to renew all expiring contracts to make 
sure that elderly, disabled and working poor living in section 8 
housing will not lose their rental assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, is it not true that this supplemental bill rescinds 
$3.8 billion in unused budget authority for tenant-based section 8 
reserves?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, he is correct, the bill rescinds budget authority which has 
been held for reserves and which HUD says they will not need.
  May I ask the gentleman if he included that amendment in the housing 
bill which passed yesterday?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes. I merely wanted to be clear that 
the gentleman is aware of the concern expressed by HUD and Members on 
both sides of the aisle in the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it was our intent, I say to 
the gentleman, if he will continue to yield time, that those reserve 
funds be used currently in a way that will assure the House that we are 
committed to making certain that those people currently who are 
receiving assistance will have a continued commitment from the 
committee and from the House.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate 
the gentleman making that point very clear. There is the potential for 
a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to this issue, as the 
chairman is well aware, in that there is going to be a large 
requirement for budget authority requested by the Members of the House 
in order to maintain the exact same number of apartments for the very 
poor and vulnerable citizens.
  We are concerned that with the rescinding of the funds in this bill 
that we perhaps will send a misimpression to other Members of the House 
that these funds are not needed. The purpose of this colloquy is to 
make very clear to all the Members of the House that, in fact, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
recognizes the importance of making certain that these funds are made 
available and that, in fact, the President's budget that has been 
signed off by Members on both sides in terms of negotiations actually 
provided for the funding that will be necessary to maintain the number 
of apartments that are serving the poor through the section 8 program 
in the future.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  I think the gentleman understands that suddenly we have found that 
the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs does have a little problem 
from time to time with their accounting procedures. We suddenly found 
that there was a sizable amount of money in reserve which had not been 
discovered before.
  It was very apparent to this Member that if that BA was just left out 
there it might very well have been scooped up by other interests around 
the House. It was important that we reserve that money in a way that 
would allow us to maintain control.
  So two things occurred: First, as we recognized that some of this 
budget authority could very effectively be used to deal with these 
emergency problems across the country, that at the same time allowed us 
to maintain some control over that authority over time. We wanted to 
make certain it was not used for other purposes because we do need the 
long-term commitment to those tenants who are receiving these services 
in these housing programs.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman's 
recognition of that fact. I would like to make it

[[Page H2753]]

clear that it was only through the efforts of the current Secretary, in 
conjunction with the inspector general, in fulfilling the requirements 
to make certain that we investigated how HUD was actually utilizing 
these funds, that the discovery of this $3.8 billion or actually $5 
billion became apparent.
  So it was through the diligent effort, I think, that has been 
acknowledged on both sides of the aisle in terms of HUD actually 
beginning to do its job on some of the bureaucratic issues that the 
funds became available. I think we were all very concerned that the use 
of those funds going outside of HUD purposes, given the fact that we 
are going to need additional funding later this year, created kind of a 
perverse circumstance, which I am glad that the chairman is now 
pointing out.
  I just want to be very clear that it was HUD's competency in terms of 
actually going through and finding these funds that has allowed us to 
provide the funding that is necessary for FEMA use as well as other 
uses today, but it should not be hurt on the people that need those 
apartments as a result of HUD doing its job and being, I think, 
diligent in their efforts to uncover these funds and be able to use 
them in the future for other purposes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
have worked very closely with the Department. I must say to the 
gentleman that it was a GAO study approximately a year ago that the 
committee became involved in that first began reviewing these programs. 
At the same time, the new Secretary was just really coming aboard, and 
he has done a very effective job of helping us identify some of these 
problems.
  There is no question that the House should be committed and is 
committed to making sure these services continue to be received.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his leadership.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Kolbe

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to go back to line 4 
to reoffer the amendment that I offered before.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. KOLBE:
       Page 18, after line 4, insert the following new section:


            san carlos apache tribe water rights settlement

       Sec. 402. (a) Extension.--Section 3711(b)(1) of the San 
     Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992 (106 
     Stat. 4752) is amended by striking ``June 30, 1997'' and 
     inserting ``March 31, 1999''.
       (b) Extension for River System General Adjudication.--
     Section 3711 of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Extension for River System General Adjudication.--If, 
     at any time prior to March 31, 1999, the Secretary notifies 
     the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate 
     or the Committee on Resources in the United States House of 
     Representatives that the Settlement Agreement, as executed by 
     the Secretary, has been submitted to the Superior Court of 
     the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa County for 
     consideration and approval as part of the General 
     Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source, the March 
     31, 1999, referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall be deemed to 
     be changed to December 31, 1999.''.
       (c) Counties.--Section 3706(b)(3) of such Act is amended by 
     inserting ``Gila, Graham, Greenlee,'' after ``Maricopa,''.
       (d) Parties to Agreement.--Section 3703(2) of such Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``The Gila Valley Irrigation District and the Franklin 
     Irrigation District shall be added as parties to the 
     Agreement, but only so long as none of the aforementioned 
     parties objects to adding the Gila Valley Irrigation and/or 
     the Franklin Irrigation District as parties to the 
     Agreement.''.
       (e) Conditions.--Section 3711 of such Act, as amended by 
     subsection (b) of this Act, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d) Conditions.--(1) In General.--The June 30, 1997, 
     deadline has been extended based on the following conditions. 
     The provisions and agreements set forth or referred to in 
     paragraph (2), (3), and (4) below shall be enforceable 
     against the United States, and the conditions and agreements 
     set forth or referred to in paragraphs (3) and (4) shall be 
     enforceable against the Tribe, in United States District 
     Court, and the immunity of the United States and the Tribe 
     for such purposes is hereby waived.
       ``(2) Interim period.--Prior to March 31, 1999, or the 
     execution of a final Agreement under paragraph (3) below, 
     whichever comes first, the following conditions shall apply:
       ``(A) As of July 23, 1997, Phelps Dodge shall vacate the 
     reservation and no longer rely upon permit #2000089, dated 
     July 25, 1944, except as provided in subparagraph (F) and the 
     Tribe will stay any further prosecution of any claims or 
     suits filed by the Tribe in any court with respect to the 
     Black River facilities or the flowage of water on Eagle 
     Creek. The United States, with the permission of the Tribe, 
     shall enter and operate the Black River pump station, 
     outbuildings, the pipeline, related facilities, and certain 
     caretaker quarters (hereinafter referred to collectively as 
     the `Black River facilities').
       ``(B) As of July 23, 1997, the United States, through the 
     Bureau of Reclamation, shall operate and maintain the Black 
     River facilities. The United States and Phelps Dodge shall 
     enter into a contract for delivery of water pursuant to 
     subparagraph (C), below. Water for delivery to Phelps Dodge 
     from the Black River shall not exceed an annual average of 40 
     acre feet per day, or 14,000 acre feet per year. All 
     diversions from Black River to Phelps Dodge shall be junior 
     to the Tribe's right to divert and use of 7300 acre feet per 
     year for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and no such diversion 
     for Phelps Dodge shall cause the flow of Black River to fall 
     below 20 cubic feet per second. The United States shall 
     account for the costs for operating and maintaining the Black 
     River facilities, and Phelps Dodge shall reimburse the United 
     States for such costs. Phelps Dodge shall pay to the United 
     States, for delivery to the Tribe, the sum of $20,000 per 
     month, with an annual CPI adjustment, for purposes of 
     compensating the Tribe for United States use and occupancy of 
     the Black River facilities. Phelps Dodge shall cooperate with 
     the United States in effectuating an orderly transfer of the 
     operations of the Black River facilities from Phelps Dodge to 
     the United States.
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, that 
     contract referred to in subparagraph (B) between the United 
     States and Phelps Dodge providing for the diversion of water 
     from the Black River into the Black River facilities, and the 
     delivery of such water to Phelps Dodge at that location where 
     the channel of Eagle Creek last exits the reservation for use 
     in the Morenci mine complex and the towns of Clifton and 
     Morenci and at no other location is ratified and confirmed. 
     The United States/Phelps Dodge contract shall have no bearing 
     on potential claims by the United States, Phelps Dodge or the 
     Tribe regarding any aspect of the Black River facilities in 
     the event that a final agreement is not reached among the 
     parties under paragraph (3) below.
       ``(D) The power line right-of-way over the Tribe's 
     Reservation which currently is held by Phelps Dodge shall 
     remain in place. During the interim period, Phelps Dodge 
     shall provide power to the United States for operation of the 
     pump station and related facilities without charge, and 
     Phelps Dodge shall pay a monthly right-of-way fee to the 
     Tribe of $5000 per month, with an annual CPI adjustment.
       ``(E) Any questions regarding the water claims associated 
     with Phelps Dodge's use of the Eagle Creek wellfield, its 
     diversions of surface water from Eagle Creek, the San 
     Francisco River, Chase Creek, and/or its use of other water 
     supplies are not addressed in this title. No provision in 
     this subsection shall affect or be construed to affect any 
     claims by the Tribe, the United States, or Phelps Dodge to 
     groundwater or surface water.
       ``(F) If a final agreement is not reached by March 31, 
     1999, the terms set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (E) 
     shall no longer apply. Under such circumstances, the 
     occupancy of the Black River facilities shall revert to 
     Phelps Dodge on March 31, 1999, and the Tribe and/or Phelps 
     Dodge shall be free to prosecute litigation regarding the 
     validity of Phelps Dodge use of the Black River facilities. 
     In any such event, the Tribe, the United States, and Phelps 
     Dodge shall have the same rights with respect to the Black 
     River facilities as each had prior to the enactment of this 
     subsection and nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
     as altering or affecting such rights nor shall anything 
     herein be admissible or otherwise relevant for the purpose of 
     determining any of their respective rights.
       ``(3) Final agreement.--The United States, Phelps Dodge, 
     and the Tribe intend to enter into a Final Agreement on or 
     before March 31, 1999, which Agreement shall include the 
     following terms:
       ``(A) The United States shall hold the Black River 
     facilities in trust for the Tribe, without cost to the Tribe 
     or the United States.
       ``(B) Responsibility for operation of the Black River 
     facilities shall be transferred from the United States to the 
     Tribe. The United States shall train Tribal members during 
     the Interim Period, and the responsibility to operate the 
     Black River facilities shall be transferred upon satisfaction 
     of two conditions: (i) entry of the Final Agreement described 
     in this subsection; and (ii) a finding by the United States 
     that the Tribe has completed necessary training and is 
     qualified to operate the Black River facilities.
       ``(C) Power lines currently operated by Phelps Dodge on the 
     Tribe's Reservation, and the right of way associated with 
     such power lines, shall be surrendered by Phelps Dodge to the 
     Tribe, without cost to the Tribe. Concurrently with the 
     transfer of the power lines and the right of way, Phelps 
     Dodge shall construct a switch station at the boundary of the 
     reservation at which the

[[Page H2754]]

     Tribe may switch power on or off and shall deliver ownership 
     and control of such switch station to the Tribe. Subsequent 
     to the transfer of the power lines and the right of way and 
     the delivery of ownership and control of the switch station 
     to the Tribe, Phelps Dodge shall have no further obligation 
     or liability of any nature with respect to the ownership, 
     operation or maintenance of the power lines, the right of way 
     or the switch station.
       ``(D) The Tribe and Phelps Dodge intend to enter into a 
     contract covering the lease and delivery of CAP water from 
     the Tribe to Phelps Dodge on the terms recommended by the 
     United States, the trustee for the Tribe. Water for delivery 
     to Phelps Dodge from the Black River shall not exceed an 
     annual average of 40 acre feet per day, or 14,000 acre feet 
     per year. All diversions from Black River to Phelps Dodge 
     shall be junior to the Tribe's right to divert and use of 
     7300 acre feet per year for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and 
     no such diversions for Phelps Dodge shall cause the flow of 
     Black River to fall below 20 cubic feet per second. It is 
     intended that the water subject to the contract shall be CAP 
     water that is controlled by the Tribe. The Tribe and/or the 
     United States intend to enter into an exchange agreement with 
     the Salt River Project which will deliver CAP water to the 
     Salt River Project in return for the diversion of water from 
     the Black River into the Black River facilities. The lease 
     and delivery contract between Phelps Dodge and the Tribe is 
     intended to be based on a long-term lease of CAP water at 
     prevailing market rates for municipal and industrial uses of 
     CAP water. The parties will discuss the potential imposition 
     of capital costs as part of the contract. It is intended that 
     the contract price shall include operation, maintenance and 
     replacement (OM&R) charges associated with the leased CAP 
     water, and it is intended that the contract will take into 
     account reasonable charges associated with the Tribe's 
     operations and maintenance of the Black River facilities, and 
     a credit for power provided for such facilities. It is 
     intended that the water delivered under this contract will be 
     utilized in the Morenci mine complex and the towns of Clifton 
     and Morenci, and for no other purpose.
       ``(E) Any questions regarding the water claims associated 
     with Phelps Dodge's use of the Eagle Creek wellfield, its 
     diversions of surface water from lower Eagle Creek, the San 
     Francisco River, Chase Creek, and/or its use of other 
     groundwater supplies are not addressed by this title. No 
     provision in this subsection shall affect or be construed to 
     affect any claims by the Tribe, the United States, or Phelps 
     Dodge to groundwater or surface water.
       ``(4) Eagle creek.--From the effective date of this 
     subsection, the Tribe covenants not to impede, restrict, or 
     sue the United States regarding, the passage of water from 
     the Black River facilities into those portions of the 
     channels of Willow Creek and Eagle Creek which flow through 
     the Tribe's lands. The Tribe covenants not to impede, 
     restrict, or sue Phelps Dodge regarding, the passage of 
     historic maximum flows, less transportation losses, from the 
     existing Phelps Dodge Upper Eagle Creek Wellfield, except 
     that (i) Phelps Dodge shall pay to the United States, for 
     delivery to the Tribe, $5000 per month, with an annual CPI 
     adjustment, to account the passage of such flows; and (ii) 
     the Tribe and the United States reserve the right to 
     challenge Phelps Dodge's claims regarding the pumping of 
     groundwater from the upper Eagle Creek wellfield, in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2)(E) and (3)(E) above. Nothing 
     in this subsection shall affect or be construed to affect the 
     rights of the United States, the Tribe, or Phelps Dodge to 
     flow water in the channel of Eagle Creek in the absence of 
     this subsection.
       ``(5) Relationship to settlement.--In the event that Phelps 
     Dodge and the Tribe execute a Final Agreement pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) on or before March 3, 1999--
       ``(A) effective on the date of execution of such Final 
     Agreement, the term `Agreement', as defined by section 
     3703(2), shall not include Phelps Dodge; and
       ``(B) section 3706(j) shall have no effect.''.
       (f) Repeal.--Subsection (f) of section 3705 of such Act is 
     hereby repealed.
       (g) Technical Amendment.--Section 3702(a)(3) is amended by 
     striking ``qualification'' and inserting ``quantification''.

  Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, as I did before, that 
this has been worked out with all the parties in question on the 
minority and majority side of the authorizing and Committee on 
Appropriations, and is supported by the Department of the Interior as 
an extension of this water settlement.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a copy of my complete 
statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to several of my colleagues for 
their assistance in ensuring that my amendment is considered today. 
Specifically, I want to thank Chairman Livington, Ranking Minority 
Member Obey, the chairman and ranking member of the Resources 
Committee--Mr. Young and Mr. Miller, and the chairman and ranking 
member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee--Mr. Regula and Mr. 
Yates.
  The amendment that I am offering pertains to the San Carlos Apache 
Water Rights Settlement Act--Public Law 102-575. Simply put, the 
amendment extends the Settlement Act. Again, I want to make it 
perfectly clear that all my amendment does is extend the Act. This 
extension provides additional time for the implementation of many of 
the important provisions in the Act. Before I describe the provisions 
contained in my amendment, I would like to provide a few facts about 
the Settlement Act.
  The San Carlos Apache Water Rights Settlement Act was signed into law 
by President Bush on October 30, 1992. The bill settled significant 
reserved water rights claims, and provided for expedited resolution of 
any Fifth Amendment taking claim against the United States by certain 
Arizona entities relating to one of the water sources allocated to the 
Tribe by the bill. In addition to preserving reserved water rights, the 
bill authorized a $38 million federal appropriation (which has been 
appropriated) and a $3 million state contribution (which has also been 
appropriated). The $41 million settlement is currently accruing 
interest and is intended to be used by the San Carlos Apache Tribe for 
economic development. However, the money is not currently available to 
the Tribe because several contingencies included in the legislation 
have yet to be satisfied.
  I am offering this amendment because the Settlement Act is scheduled 
to expire on June 30, 1997. Negotiations between the Tribe, the 
Department of Interior, and several of the Arizona entities which are 
parties to the Settlement are ongoing. In fact, Mr. David Hayes, 
Counselor to Secretary Babbitt and the lead negotiator, met this Monday 
with representatives of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Phelps Dodge 
Corporation. The negotiations concluded at 4:30 am, and significant 
progress was made in resolving outstanding issues between these two 
parties. But the reality is that a final Settlement agreement before 
the June 30, 1997 expiration date is not possible.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment extends the Settlement Act until March 31, 
1999. Should a final agreement be reached prior to the March date, the 
Act is automatically extended until December 31, 1999. This extension 
is necessary because any final agreement must be submitted to the 
Superior Court system of Arizona for approval. The amendment also 
extends the Tribe's Central Arizona Project [CAP] water lease authority 
to three adjoining counties: Gila, Graham and Greenlee. In addition, 
the Gila Valley Irrigation District and the Franklin Irrigation 
District would be added as parties to the Act as long as none of the 
existing parties to the Act objects. Lastly, and perhaps most 
important, my amendment clarifies the right-of-way issue as it pertains 
to the Black River pump station and Eagle Creek--which are both located 
on the San Carlos Apache reservation. Specifically, section 5 of the 
amendment directs the United States through the Bureau of Reclamation 
to operate and maintain the Black River facilities and to enter into a 
contract with Phelps Dodge for delivery of water. In return for 
delivery of water, Phelps Dodge Corporation will pay $20,000 per month, 
in addition to the $5000 per month power line right-of-way fee they are 
to be assessed.
  Mr. Chairman, the provisions contained in my amendment are the result 
of hotly debated, and at times, contentious negotiations. These have 
been trying times for all the parties to the Settlement. But, we have 
come to a point in the negotiations where we have the framework for a 
final agreement. Adoption of my amendment will ensure that all the 
parties to the Settlement Act will have 20 more months to negotiate a 
final agreement. Otherwise, the Act will expire, the Tribe will lose 
$41 million earmarked for economic development, and this issue will be 
mired in litigation for years.
  I have letters supporting my amendment from the Tribe, Phelps Dodge 
Corporation, and the Department of Interior--as trustee for the Tribe. 
My

[[Page H2755]]

amendment is also supported by all the other parties to the Settlement 
Act and the entire Arizona Congressional delegation.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

                              {time}  1815

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona and also the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations for moving forward on the 
aforementioned amendment. It is of vital concern for jobs and for 
Native Americans in the State of Arizona and I thank that spirit of 
cooperation and comity.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of this Disaster Recovery Act 
now under consideration by this House. There are many areas across this 
country that have suffered from a variety of natural disasters, and it 
is my hope that we can at last move this bill expeditiously. As we 
prepare to vote on this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if 
I did not point out to this body that there are areas in Arizona that 
still are damaged as a result of flooding back in 1993.
  In one case, the town of Kearny, Arizona suffered significant 
destruction as a result of those 1993 floods, including the loss of its 
wastewater treatment facility, its campground, and its airport. The 
cost of this loss far exceeded the town's financial ability to recover 
from it. In response to that flooding, the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration, or FEMA, committed to help the community recover its 
losses and build dikes to prevent future flooding. Unfortunately, 
indeed sadly, Mr. Chairman, in this instance, FEMA has yet to live up 
to its commitment.
  In another case, in Gila County, Arizona, FEMA agreed to reimburse 
the county for $665,269 the county spent on cleanup work for the town 
of Winkelman. Although FEMA has paid the county some $341,598 of the 
amount the agency promised to pay, it still has been unwilling to pay 
the remainder. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues might imagine, this 
places financially-strapped Gila County in an extremely difficult 
position.
  Mr. Chairman, given that it has been 4 years since these floods 
occurred and satisfactory resolution of these problems has not yet been 
achieved, I would like to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations if he would be willing to 
offer his assistance to help me secure relief from FEMA on these issues 
of great concern in the 6th District of Arizona.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would 
first like to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from 
Arizona for his bringing this matter to my attention. I have been very, 
very appreciative of his making certain that our committee understands 
just how frustrating this has been not just for him but for his 
constituents back home. We are more than happy to make every effort to 
see that FEMA is responsive to the problems of the people in and around 
Gila, Arizona. I agree that 4 years is too long to wait to get relief 
for those communities which have suffered from disasters. I would like 
to work with the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] in the months 
ahead to make certain that day in and day out we have the attention of 
the top leadership of FEMA, and I am happy to be a part of that effort.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from 
California for his commitment to work in this area. The 6th District of 
Arizona in square mileage is roughly the size of the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. There are many rural communities that are fiscally 
challenged, financially strapped. I appreciate the fact that the 
subcommittee chairman joins with me in a commitment to work with FEMA 
to iron out the problems in and around Kearny and also to reimburse the 
people, the taxpayers, of Gila County, Arizona, who in good faith 
worked to fulfill agreements with the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration. Again I am very appreciative of my colleague from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I might 
say that the people ought to have a clear understanding that the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] has certainly gotten all of our 
attention and we appreciate that.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague from 
California. Again I thank the spirit of cooperation that permeates this 
House with so many pressing questions of concern. Again I rise in 
support of the legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Federal Highway Administration

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                        Emergency Relief Program


                          (highway trust fund)

       For an additional amount for the Emergency Relief Program 
     for emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other 
     natural disasters, as authorized by 23 U.S.C. 125, 
     $650,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and 
     to remain available until expended, of which $374,000,000 
     shall be available only to the extent an official budget 
     request for a specific dollar amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That 23 U.S.C. 125(b)(1) 
     shall not apply to projects resulting from the December 1996 
     and January 1997 flooding in the western States: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     project to repair or reconstruct any portion of a Federal-aid 
     primary route in San Mateo County, California, which was 
     destroyed as a result of a combination of storms in the 
     winter of 1982-1983 and a mountain slide which, until its 
     destruction, has served as the only reasonable access between 
     two cities and as the designated emergency evacuation route 
     of one such cities shall be eligible for assistance under 
     this head.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                          (highway trust fund)

       The limitation under this heading in Public Law 104-205 is 
     increased by $318,077,043: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such additional authority shall be 
     distributed to ensure that States receive amounts that they 
     would have received had the Highway Trust Fund fiscal year 
     1995 income statement not been revised on December 24, 1996.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  I am proud to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] as a member of the subcommittee. As our 
colleagues know, our chairman is a leader in advancing biomedical 
research and is the champion of the National Institutes of Health. His 
support for biomedical research has brought hope to millions of 
Americans with illnesses in their families. His ability to build 
bipartisan support for the NIH is a defining characteristic of his 
chairmanship.
  As the chairman knows, our investment in AIDS research through the 
NIH has produced dramatic results. Just this week, new research 
findings demonstrated that triple therapy seems to kill HIV more 
rapidly than previously believed. HHS will soon be releasing new 
practice guidelines for treating HIV infection based on this important 
medical research.
  The goal of the new combination therapies is to bring an individual's 
level of HIV infection down to undetectable levels. The treatments ward 
off further deterioration of the immune system. After 15 years of the 
AIDS epidemic, the new treatments bring us hope.
  Would the gentleman agree that these advances in AIDS treatment are a 
remarkable tribute to the importance of investing in the NIH?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman from 
California.

[[Page H2756]]

 This is an excellent example of the importance of funding basic and 
applied science through the NIH. The success of the pharmaceutical 
companies in developing these drugs would never have occurred without 
the sustained research that is funded by NIH.
  The many advances reported each year by the NIH are crucial to the 
health and well-being of the American people. I personally feel that 
Congress can make no better investment than increasing NIH funding.
  Ms. PELOSI. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] knows, the 
AIDS Drug Assistance Program, also known as ADAP, provides funding to 
States to reimburse the cost of drugs used to treat HIV infection. 
These new drugs are expensive, but result in decreased costs associated 
with treating opportunistic infections and expensive hospital stays 
common when uncontrolled infection results in severe damage to the 
immune system.
  Mr. PORTER. We are very pleased with the success of these new drugs, 
and I can assure the gentlewoman that the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, 
which is part of the Ryan White program, has broad bipartisan support. 
As an indication of this support, I would note that the Congress 
provided $239 million, or more than a 30 percent increase, for all Ryan 
White activities in 1997. For the ADAP program specifically we provided 
a $115 million increase. The gentlewoman from California was 
instrumental in helping secure these increases.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman. The chairman is to be commended for 
his strong support of the Ryan White program and for providing 
important resources to make these new drugs available for people with 
HIV.
  This is an emergency. Due to the great success of and demand for the 
new drugs, State AIDS directors are predicting a shortfall of $68 
million for the remainder of this fiscal year. It is my understanding 
that this shortfall has also been documented by HHS.
  Nationally the ADAP programs have reported a 77 percent increase in 
clients since January of 1996. These programs are collectively 
averaging approximately 1,000 new clients each month. Program costs are 
increasing to accommodate the reimbursement of combination drug 
therapies which are becoming the standard of care.
  Mr. Chairman, without an additional $68 million for the remainder of 
this fiscal year, the AIDS drug program will not be able to respond to 
the immediate health threat to thousands of HIV-infected Americans. In 
the State of Mississippi, for example, 660 people will be cut off the 
program in the next week because of increased demands and the costs of 
providing new drugs. California is projecting a need of $6 million to 
continue the drug assistance program uninterrupted through the end of 
the fiscal year. Florida and several other States also face major 
problems.
  Unfortunately, the rules available under the supplemental bill before 
us today do not provide the opportunity to respond to this emergency. 
However, it is my understanding that the President may seek emergency 
supplemental funding for this program in the very near future. In the 
event that the President seeks emergency supplemental funding for this 
program, would the chairman be willing to work with the administration 
to find a timely solution to this urgent situation?
  Mr. PORTER. Let me assure the gentlewoman from California that should 
the President send the request to Congress, I would be pleased to work 
with the administration in assessing the need and developing an 
appropriate response.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman for his response and his continued 
leadership in responding to the many challenges posed by the AIDS 
epidemic.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Federal Railroad Administration

              Emergency Railroad Rehabilitation and Repair

       For necessary expenses to repair and rebuild freight rail 
     lines of regional and short line railroads damaged as a 
     result of the floods in the northern plains States in the 
     spring of 1997, $10,000,000, to be awarded subject to the 
     discretion of the Secretary on a case-by-case basis: 
     Provided, That funds provided under this head shall be 
     available for rehabilitation of railroad rights-of-way which 
     are part of the general railroad system of transportation, 
     and primarily used by railroads to move freight traffic: 
     Provided further, That railroad rights-of-way owned by class 
     I railroads, passenger railroads, or by tourist, scenic, or 
     historic railroads are not eligible for funding under this 
     section: Provided further, That these funds shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request, for 
     a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That all 
     funds made available under this head are to remain available 
     until September 30, 1997.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                  National Transportation Safety Board

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', for 
     emergency expenses resulting from the crashes of TWA Flight 
     800 and ValuJet 592, and for assistance to families of 
     victims of aviation accidents as authorized by Public Law 
     105-265, $23,300,000, of which $4,877,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That these funds shall 
     be available only to the extent an official budget 
     request, for a specific dollar amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount as an emergency 
     requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, up to 
     $10,330,000 shall be provided by the National 
     Transportation Safety Board to the Department of the Navy 
     as reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with 
     recovery of wreckage from TWA Flight 800 and shall be 
     credited to the appropriation contained in the Omnibus 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, which is available 
     for the same purpose as the appropriation originally 
     charged for the expense for which the reimbursements are 
     received, to be merged with, and to be available for the 
     same purpose as the appropriation to which such 
     reimbursements are credited: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amount 
     provided $3,100,000 shall be made available to 
     Metropolitan Dade County, Florida as reimbursement for 
     costs incurred in connection with the crash of ValuJet 
     Flight 592.

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS, CHAPTER 5

       Sec. 501. In Title I of Public Law 104-205, under the 
     heading ``Federal Transit Administration, Discretionary 
     Grants'', strike $661,000,000 for the DeKalb County, Georgia 
     light rail project;'' and insert ``$661,000 for the DeKalb 
     County, Georgia light rail project;''.
       Sec. 502. In Section 325 of Title III of Public Law 104-
     205, strike ``That in addition to amounts otherwise provided 
     in this Act, not to exceed $3,100,000 in expenses of the 
     Bureau of Transportation Statistics necessary to conduct 
     activities related to airline statistics may be incurred, but 
     only to the extent such expenses are offset by user fees 
     charged for those activities and credited as offsetting 
     collections.''.
       Sec. 503. Section 410(j) of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking the period after ``1997'' and 
     inserting ``, and an additional $500,000 for fiscal year 
     1997.''.
       Sec. 504. Section 30308(a) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``and 1996'' and inserting ``, 1996, 
     and 1997''.

                               CHAPTER 6

                      UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE


                     payments to the postal service

                   payment to the postal service fund

       For an additional amount for the Postal Service Fund for 
     revenue foregone on free and reduced rate mail, $5,300,000.


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 24, after line 7, insert the following:

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                      Federal Election Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses to carry 
     out the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971, as amended, $1,700,000: Provided, That $782,500 of 
     these funds shall remain available until September 30, 1998.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.

[[Page H2757]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores the 
$1.7 million which the Federal Election Commission says it needs to 
investigate the high number of pending cases from the 1996 election 
cycle.
  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 this funding out of order because the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules said it was, quote, not an 
emergency. But let us look at some of the things that are in the bill 
that are recognized as emergencies.
  There is $10 million to the National Park Service to implement the 
Yosemite Valley transportation plan. There is $37.1 million for road 
and trail maintenance for the National Forest Service that the 
committee report does not say is associated with Western flooding or 
disaster relief, yet this bill recognizes it as an emergency. Then 
there is $2.5 million to pay for digital mapping in the San Joaquin 
Valley.
  I think that the American people believe investigating charges of 
corruption and abuse in our elections are just as important, much more 
important and much more of an emergency than some of the things that 
are in this bill.
  The Federal Election Commission has asked for $1.7 million to conduct 
investigations into 1996 pending election abuses. The Committee on 
Appropriations granted the money but said that the Federal Election 
Commission could only use it for computers. In other words, they fenced 
it in so that they could not use it for investigators but only for 
computers. Then the Committee on Rules totally stripped the funding out 
altogether. First they gave it, then they limited it, and now they are 
taking it away.
  Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission's caseload has increased 
by one third but there is no more funding for them. With 285 cases 
pending, some of them the most complex cases the commission has ever 
seen, the Federal Election Commission will not be able to pursue all of 
these violations. Yet this is the same Congress that is spending $12 to 
$15 million for just one committee's investigations, the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, while the only agency that can do a 
nonpartisan probe of the controversial problems that have been charged 
in election abuses, they are being shortchanged and not being given any 
money to conduct these investigations.
  I feel that we should fund the committee. The money was in the 
budget, the Committee on Appropriations appropriated it, and then the 
Committee on Rules removed it.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in agreement with the gentlewoman's 
premise that the $1.7 million ought to be included and frankly ought to 
be included without restriction. Unfortunately, of course, the 
Committee on Rules, as I understand the rules, by adoption of the rule 
struck that as the gentlewoman has observed, but in fact the FEC does 
in fact need additional resources in order to check what everybody in 
this country knows is a real problem. Both sides of the aisle are 
talking about how campaign funds were raised, how campaign funds are 
spent, and of course this is the very agency that we have asked to 
check on this for the American public and to disclose it.
  The fact of the matter is now cutting this money undercuts what 
frankly an awful lot of our colleagues say they want done, and that is 
to see how money was raised, how it was spent and was it done pursuant 
to law. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her point.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland, and I appreciate the point that he made. The Federal 
Elections Commission is the only agency, it is nonpartisan, it is an 
independent agency, and it is charged to conduct investigations. They 
have a large surplus, a backload of charges of investigations that need 
to be looked into, and yet the money has not been allocated, yet this 
same party, the Republican leadership, allocated $12 to $15 million for 
a partisan probe in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an important amendment, and I hope 
that my colleagues will support it.


                             point of order

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule 
XXI states in pertinent part no appropriations shall be reported in any 
general appropriation bill or be in order as an amendment thereto for 
any expenditure not previously authorized by law.
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been 
assigned into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from New York wish to speak to the 
point of order?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. The Committee on Appropriations 
appropriated the money, and the Committee on Rules removed it, and I 
disagree with the gentleman's point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment proposed is an unauthorized 
appropriation, and is not in order. Under clause 2 of rule XXI, the 
gentlewoman has the burden of proving the authorization for the 
amendment. The gentlewoman has failed to prove the authorization. The 
point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                     United States Customs Service


                         salaries and expenses

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 104-208, $16,000,000 shall be available until September 
     30, 1998 to develop further the Automated Targeting System.

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS, CHAPTER 6

       Sec. 601. Clarifying Congressional Intent Respecting 
     Procurement of Distinctive Currency Paper.--In fiscal year 
     1997 and thereafter--
       (1) for the purposes of section 622(a) of Public Law 100-
     202, a corporation or other entity shall be not deemed to be 
     owned or controlled by persons not citizens of the United 
     States, if--
       (A) that corporation or entity is created under the laws of 
     the United States or any one of its States or other 
     territories and possessions; and
       (B) more than 50 percent of that corporation or entity is 
     held by United States citizens; and
       (2) the Secretary of the Treasury shall use the authority 
     provided under Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 
     45.302.1(c) and Part 45.302.1(a)(4) to induce competition, to 
     a level the Secretary determines is appropriate, among those 
     desiring to provide distinctive currency paper to the United 
     States.


                               CHAPTER 7

    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

                       Compensation and Pensions

       For an additional amount for ``Compensation and pensions'', 
     $753,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                        Administrative Provision

       The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the 
     construction of a multi-story parking garage at the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Cleveland, 
     Ohio, in the amount of $12,300,000, and there is authorized 
     to be appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for the Parking 
     Revolving Fund account, a total of $12,300,000 for this 
     project.


                             point of order

  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the language on 
page 26 of the bill, administrative provisions under Department of 
Veterans Affairs, lines 8 through 15, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, 
constitutes authorizing legislation in an appropriation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the 
point of order?
  If not, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXI, the paragraph constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill authorizing certain construction.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H2758]]

      DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROGRAMS

                 Preserving Existing Housing Investment

       For an additional amount for ``Preserving existing housing 
     investment'', to be made available for use in conjunction 
     with properties that are eligible for assistance under the 
     Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership 
     Act of 1990 or the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation 
     Act of 1987, $3,500,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That up to such amount shall be for a project in 
     Syracuse, New York, the processing for which was suspended, 
     deferred or interrupted for a period of nine months or more 
     because of differing interpretations, by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development and an owner, concerning the 
     timing of the ability of an uninsured section 236 property to 
     prepay, or by the Secretary and a State rent regulatory 
     agency concerning the effect of a presumptively applicable 
     State rent control law or regulation on the determination of 
     preservation value under section 213 of such Act, if the 
     owner of such project filed a notice of intent to extend the 
     low-income affordability restrictions of the housing on or 
     before August 23, 1993, and the Secretary approved the plan 
     of action on or before July 25, 1996.

             Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Elimination Grants for 
     Low-Income Housing'' for activities authorized under 42 
     U.S.C. 11921-25, $30,200,000, to remain available until 
     expended, and to be derived by transfer from the 
     Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere Grants 
     account.

        INDEPENDENT AGENCIES FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


                            disaster relief

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'', 
     $3,567,677,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That $2,387,677,000 shall become available for obligation on 
     September 30, 1997: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Barcia

  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I object, Mr. Chairman, because I do not know what 
the amendment is.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barcia:
       Page 28, after line 1, insert the following:

                    Environmental Protection Agency


                        buildings and facilities

       From the amounts appropriated under this heading in prior 
     appropriation Acts for the Center for Ecology Research and 
     Training (CERT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
     shall, after the closing of the period for filing CERT-
     related claims pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     4601 et seq.), obligate the maximum amount of funds necessary 
     to settle all outstanding CERT-related claims against the EPA 
     pursuant to such Act. To the extent that unobligated balances 
     then remain from such amounts previously appropriated, the 
     EPA is authorized beginning in fiscal year 1997 to make 
     grants to the City of Bay City, Michigan, for the purpose of 
     EPA-approved environmental remediation and rehabilitation of 
     publicly owned real property included in the boundaries of 
     the CERT project.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. BARCIA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which has been cleared 
with the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and I 
want to thank them for the fine spirit of bipartisan cooperation in 
supporting this amendment which has also enjoyed the support of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and 
Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to provide additional 
authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to grant unobligated 
balances from funds previously appropriated for the construction of the 
Center for Environmental Research and Training to the city of Bay City 
for EPA approved environmental remediation and rehabilitation of 
publicly owned property within the boundaries of the original CERT 
project.
  This language has been agreed to by EPA and the Office of Management 
and Budget, and reflects the continuation of an agreement we all 
reached over a year ago to allow Bay City to clean up its land so that 
it can be put to other uses. Authority had been provided as part of the 
fiscal 1996 EPA appropriation, but it was after the end of that fiscal 
year that EPA determined that additional balances would be available 
after the settlement of all claims against it for expenses arising out 
of the CERT project.
  Mr. Chairman, the city of Bay City had attempted to be the best 
neighbor possible for EPA while the CERT project was being designed. 
Community and business leaders had established a good working 
relationship, and even EPA Administrator Browner in a visit to Bay City 
acknowledged the rapport that had been established between the city and 
the EPA.
  It is only right that the best of intentions, the vest of 
cooperation, be followed with the best of responsible action to allow 
Bay City to at least realize a portion of the dream that the CERT 
project had offered by cleaning up this area.
  The Senate has already included virtually identical language in this 
bill, and I have cleared the amendment with both the Chairman of the 
VA-HUD Subcommittee, Mr. Lewis, and the ranking minority Member, Mr. 
Stokes. I want to offer my thanks to them personally and to their 
staffs for the assistance they have provided to me and my office while 
this issue has been worked out.
  I urge adoption of my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $5,000,000.


                     national flood insurance fund

       In the case only of new contracts for flood insurance 
     coverage under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     entered into during the period beginning on January 1, 1997, 
     and ending on June 30, 1997, and any modifications to 
     coverage under existing contracts made during such period, 
     section 1306(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4013(c)(1)) shall 
     be applied by substituting ``15-day period'' for ``30-day 
     period''.


        Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:

                               CHAPTER 7A

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                     National Institutes of Health


           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``National Institute on 
     Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism'', $2,000,000, to be derived by 
     transfer from the amount provided in this Act for ``Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency--Disaster Relief''.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana reserves a point of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really 
very simple. It asks for $2 million for the National Institute of 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to fund studies to examine the effects of 
the electronic media advertising of all forms of alcohol, including 
beer, wine and distilled spirits, on underage persons.
  The truth of the matter is that we now have a situation in America 
where the No. 1 killer of people under the age of 24 in the United 
States today is alcohol abuse. It kills 5 times as many people as all 
other illegal drugs combined.
  We have a war on drugs in America where we spend $15 billion a year 
of taxpayers' moneys in order to fight a war on drugs, and yet at the 
same time we allow billions of dollars to be spent

[[Page H2759]]

advertising the most abused drug in America.
  Now some people do not consider alcohol a drug, but the truth of the 
fact is that it kills more people, it puts more people into situations 
where they are completely disoriented, and we see now new studies that 
show us that 80 or 90 percent of all assaults in universities, 80 or 90 
percent of all rapes at universities are all committed when people are, 
in fact, completely drunk.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is recognize that as we have 
held a 48-year ban, one of the, I think, most greatest demonstrations 
of corporate responsibility in America, a 48-year ban on hard liquor 
advertising that has been kept in place on a voluntary basis by the 
alcohol hard liquor industry, broken in these last few months; that it 
is important for us to understand the implications of that. I think the 
hard liquor industry has a very legitimate point in that while they 
have held this ban up, we have seen the beer and wine industry grow 
substantially in terms of the amount that they are advertising on 
television and in terms of the market share that they have captured.
  But I do not believe the answer, because of this particular issue, is 
to therefore lower the bar on advertising, so to speak, and have 
everybody out there advertising, particularly on shows that we have 
seen, as I saw just a few weeks ago, on cartoons on Saturday morning 
that my children were watching as beer ads starting coming on the 
television set.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that I am constrained to press the point of order. 
However, I understand the gentleman has had discussions with the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and I would advise 
the gentleman that should he withdraw his amendment at this time, Mr. 
Porter has advised that he would entertain further action on this 
matter in the 1998 appropriations supplement.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate 
the gentleman's willingness to work with us, and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] has been one of the great leaders on this issue 
over the years and has worked in the House, and I very much appreciate 
the process by which this on a technical basis might have been ruled 
out of order this evening, but because of the leadership that the 
chairman has shown, and I hope his support for this issue, and the 
leadership that Chairman Porter has shown, that we will in fact get the 
funding necessary to achieve this study in the coming fiscal year.
  On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 8

                        OFFSETS AND RESCISSIONS

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Fund for Rural America

       Of the funds provided on January 1, 1997 for section 793 of 
     Public Law 104-127, Fund for Rural America, not more than 
     $80,000,000 shall be available: Provided, That in addition to 
     activities described in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 
     section 793, the Secretary may use these funds for the 
     Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
     and Children (WIC).

                 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

                        Wetlands Reserve Program

       Of the funds made available in Public Law 104-37 for the 
     Wetlands Reserve Program, $19,000,000 may not be obligated: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available in Public Law 
     104-37 for this account may be obligated after September 30, 
     1997.

                       FOOD AND CONSUMER SERVICE

                 The Emergency Food Assistance Program

       Notwithstanding section 27(a) of the Food Stamp Act, the 
     amount specified for allocation under such section for fiscal 
     year 1997 shall be $80,000,000.

                      FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

                             Export Credit

       None of the funds made available in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law 104-180, may be 
     used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry 
     out a combined program for export credit guarantees, supplier 
     credit guarantees, and emerging democracies facilities 
     guarantees at a level which exceeds $3,500,000,000.

                       Export Enhancement Program

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     in Public Law 104-180 shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out an export enhancement 
     program if the aggregate amount of funds and/or commodities 
     under such program exceeds $10,000,000.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                          working capital fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $6,400,000 are rescinded.

                            Legal Activities


                         assets forfeiture fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available to the Attorney General on 
     October 1, 1996, from surplus balances declared in prior 
     years pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 524(c), authority to obligate 
     $3,000,000 of such funds in fiscal year 1997 is rescinded.

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                              construction

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances under this heading from amounts 
     made available in Public Law 103-317, $1,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


                     industrial technology services

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading 
     for the Advanced Technology Program, $7,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


            fleet modernization, shipbuilding and conversion

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $2,000,000 are rescinded.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                   Federal Communications Commission


                         salaries and expenses

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $1,000,000 are rescinded.

                      Ounce of Prevention Council


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 104-208, $1,000,000 are rescinded,

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Energy Programs


           energy supply, research and development activities

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 104-206 and prior years' Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Acts, $22,532,000 are rescinded.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                         Clean Coal Technology


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in fiscal year 1997 or prior years, $17,000,000 
     are rescinded: Provided, That funds made available in 
     previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any 
     ongoing project regardless of the separate request for 
     proposal under which the project was selected.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in previous 
     appropriations Acts, $11,000,000 are rescinded.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Federal Aviation Administration

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the unobligated balances authorized under section 14 of 
     Public Law 91-258 as amended, $750,000,000 are rescinded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph on page 33 lines 14 through 21. I also want to advise the 
Chair I will be raising points of order, three more points of order, 
against the paragraphs which follow this paragraph.
  Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against this paragraph in that 
this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it rescinds $750 
million in airport and airway trust fund contract authority, not 
general fund appropriations for aviation projects.

[[Page H2760]]

  Airport and airway trust fund contract authority, as with highway 
authority, which my next three points of order will deal with, while a 
form of direct spending, is legislative in nature, and rescinding such 
authority is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations but of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  This rescission constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and 
clearly violates House rule XXI.

                              {time}  1845

  This rescission constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and 
clearly violates House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman of the committee wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I would, Mr. Chairman.
  I would concede the point of order. The gentleman is well within his 
rights to assert the point of order. I only would say in addition, 
though, that I regret that he sees fit to assert this point of order, 
because in fact what it does is to strike $1.7 billion in the 
rescissions in this bill, which leaves the bill exposed.
  We have made it a point since January 1, 1994 to offset all increases 
in appropriations with rescissions. This $1.7 billion was part of the 
total package that offset the additional spending in this bill, and I 
know that this will lead to additional amendments to strike provisions 
of this bill, which could lead to reductions in disaster relief. I 
regret that. I think that is unfortunate.
  Frankly, I had hoped that this point of order would not be lodged, 
but it has been lodged and there is nothing I can do about it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
paragraph is stricken.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 34, 
lines 1 through 6.
  The provision violates rule XXI in that it is an appropriation and 
should be under the purview of the authorization committee, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is a little ahead of the Reading Clerk. 
The gentleman will withdraw until the Clerk reads.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, if we have raised a point of order against 
the first paragraph, does it have to be read anyway?
  The CHAIRMAN. The lines the gentleman is raising a point of order 
against have not been read. If the gentleman would withhold, the 
gentleman's right would certainly be protected.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                          (highway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the available contract authority balances under this 
     heading, $13,000,000 are rescinded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, this provision violates rule XXI, and I 
would raise a point of order in that it deals with the Highway Trust 
Fund, whose jurisdiction to rescind contract authority is clearly 
within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, not the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  I will say, as to this point of order and to the next two which I 
will raise, that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
would be glad to work with the Committee on Appropriations at a future 
date.
  I renew my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order has been insisted on.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] wish 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would make the same comments to all 
of the gentleman's points of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I understand it is a package deal, and 
I ask unanimous consent that the remaining points of order all be 
considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will read the next 2 paragraphs.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Federal Transit Administration

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                          (highway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the available balances of contract authority under this 
     heading, $271,000,000 are rescinded.

                          Discretionary Grants


                          (highway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the available balances of contract authority under this 
     heading, for fixed guideway modernization and bus activities 
     under 49 U.S.C. 5309(m) (A) and (C), $588,000,000 are 
     rescinded.


                            Points of Order

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has raised a 
point of order against both paragraphs.
  The points of order are conceded and sustained.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order before the 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order of the gentleman from Alabama was 
conceded and sustained.
  Mr. BACHUS. On all four points?
  The CHAIRMAN. On all four paragraphs, that is correct.
  Mr. BACHUS. All right. I thank the Chairman.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which proceedings were postponed in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-
Balart]; Amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas].


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DIAZ-BALART

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-
Balart] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 345, 
noes 74, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               AYES--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)

[[Page H2761]]


     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--74

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ganske
     Goode
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kingston
     Largent
     Latham
     Miller (FL)
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickering
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Stump
     Sununu
     Taylor (MS)
     Thune
     Tiahrt

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Andrews
     Condit
     Crapo
     Hefner
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Manton
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Velazquez
     Watkins

                              {time}  1909

  Mr. COMBEST changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KENNELLY and Messrs. GALLEGLY, SOUDER, and GOODLATTE changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 133, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          personal explanation

  Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during 
rollcall vote No. 133, the Diaz-Balart/Meek amendment.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                              {time}  2030


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I was absent at rollcall vote 133. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gekas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 197, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               AYES--227

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     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
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan

[[Page H2762]]


     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Hefner
     Hinojosa
     Jefferson
     Manton
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Watkins

                              {time}  1928

  Mr. CONDIT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FAWELL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, earlier I was in the Chamber and cast my 
vote. I inserted my card and thought my vote had been recorded. I have 
been informed that it did not take. Had it been taken on rollcall vote 
134, it would have been ``no.''

                              {time}  1930

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

                         Federal Buildings Fund


                (limitations on availability of revenue)

                              (recession)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     ``Repairs and Alterations, Basic Repairs and Alterations,'' 
     in Public Law 104-208, $1,400,000 is rescinded: Provided, 
     That these funds shall be reduced from the amounts made 
     available for the renovation of the Agricultural Research 
     Service Laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

                   Expenses, Presidential Transition


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 104-208, $5,600,000 are rescinded.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                            Housing Programs


               annual contributions for assisted housing

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts recaptured under this heading during fiscal 
     year 1997 and prior years, with the exception of the 
     recaptures specified in section 214 of Public Law 104-204, 
     $3,823,440,000 are rescinded: Provided, That of this amount, 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     recapture $3,573,440,000 in amounts heretofore made available 
     to housing agencies for tenant-based assistance under the 
     section 8 existing housing certificate and housing voucher 
     programs (42 U.S.C. 1437f and 1437f(o) respectively): 
     Provided further, That the foregoing recaptures shall be from 
     amounts in the annual contributions contract (ACC) reserve 
     accounts established and maintained by HUD.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. BARR of Georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       Page 35, after line 25, insert the following:


        commission on the advancement of federal law enforcement

       For an additional amount for the operations of the 
     Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement, 
     $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.

  Mr. BARR of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply 
restore $2 million to the Law Enforcement Commission, which was created 
in section 806 of the Effective Death Penalty and Anti-terrorism Act of 
1986.
  Last fall in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996, the 
House passed and approved the $2 million in funding for this bipartisan 
commission, which already has three of its five members appointed. At 
the last minute, however, Mr. Chairman, this funding was stripped out 
of the omnibus bill by the Senate. Therefore, the commission has not 
yet been able to begin its important work.
  I would urge we seize the moment afforded by this supplemental 
appropriations bill to restore this funding immediately. The commission 
has bipartisan support in the House. The sole purpose of this 
commission is to put forth recommendations to the Congress to make 
Federal law enforcement better and more accountable.
  The public safety is law enforcement's top priority and this 
commission would find ways to make us more successful in achieving this 
mutual priority. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to 
support my amendment in order that this commission may begin its 
important work.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment to 
provide $2 million for the establishment of the Commission on the 
Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement. The House-passed Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill for this year included $2 million, 
and I regret that the funding was dropped in our conference with the 
Senate last fall.
  The commission was authorized as a part of the Anti-terrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which was signed into law by the 
President on April 24 of last year. I think this is a good amendment, 
and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
the gentleman's comments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. NEUMANN

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Neumann:
       Page 35, after line 25, insert the following new chapter:

                               CHAPTER 9


                      FURTHER SPENDING REDUCTIONS

       Sec. 901. The amount otherwise provided by this title for 
     ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--Disaster Relief'' (and 
     the portion of such amount that is specified to become 
     available for obligation on September 30, 1997) are hereby 
     reduced by $1,700,000,000.

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening, on a point of order 
on page 33 of the bill, lines 14 through 21, through page 34, lines 1 
through 19, were stricken from the bill. That effectively removed 
$1.622 billion of rescissions.
  Earlier this evening the chairman and I had a discussion about 
whether the bill was paid for in BA or outlays, and we have a 
difference of opinion over that. But there is no question at this point 
that it is no longer paid for even in budget authority. As that point 
of order was raised, they lost $1.622 billion of rescission, so the 
bill is no longer paid for in outlays either.
  What our amendment does is it simply reaches back to page 28 in the 
bill. And let me be very, very clear about this, because our rescission 
deals with money that could not be spent prior to September 30 of this 
year. On page 28 in this amendment, and I read, quote, ``That $2.387 
billion shall become available for obligation on September 30, 1997.''
  What we have done is removed $1.7 of this $2.4, roughly, billion to 
put the bill back in balance so that at least in budget authority the 
bill is paid for.
  Once again, I would point out that our amendment is very 
straightforward. It simply reaches back in the bill, removes $1.7 
billion of advance funding for FEMA. Advance funding does not affect 
any of the flood spending going on around the country today and in no 
way affects defense in this bill. It does not affect any of the flood 
victims today, but rather it only goes in and takes out some money that 
could not be spent until after September 30 when the normal 
appropriation process would have completed itself anyway.
  So, simply put, this bill puts the bill back to a point where it is 
at least paid for in budget authority. I will restate that the bill is 
no longer paid for even in budget authority.

[[Page H2763]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important that Members focus upon this 
amendment for it goes right to the heart of why we have an emergency 
supplemental. If this amendment were to be successful, it would 
interrupt FEMA's ability to go forward consistently without having to 
close back their operations at a very critical time.
  Remember that the time when these funds will be most needed takes us 
directly into the heart of the hurricane season, which has been 
predicted to be among the worst on record.
  There is little question that if Members at this time vote in a 
fashion that would undermine FEMA funding, an agency that among all the 
agencies has begun to do things right, we will be in a position of 
having stood on this floor and essentially voted against those people 
facing very difficult times at this critical moment.
  I urge the Members to be very cautious about this vote. I also urge 
the Members to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and 
rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment.
  First of all, let me say that the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
absolutely right in his assessment of the budgetary impact of this 
bill. As the bill was reported from the committee to the House, it was 
in balance. It included spending for Bosnia and for disaster relief 
roughly $8 billion, and it provided offsets, roughly $8 billion. It was 
paid for in budget authority.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin offered an amendment because he felt 
that it was not paid for if we considered just outlays. But as we have 
pointed out, all supplemental appropriations bills have been paid for 
in budget authority, and that was a practice that was never adopted by 
the Congress until January 3, 1995. So we thought we had accomplished a 
great deal.
  Now along comes one of the committees, and it has invoked a point of 
order to eliminate some of the pay-fors, some of the rescissions, in 
the amount of $1.6 plus billion. That was the transportation trust fund 
rescissions which were deleted. That is unfortunate because, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out, by taking those rescissions 
out on a point of order, however meritorious, the fact is this bill is 
not paid for anymore. We appropriate about $8 billion and we have paid 
for it with about $1.6 billion less than that total amount.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations in bipartisan fashion 
felt it very necessary to provide offsets and report a bill that was 
paid for. With the point of order that has been raised, we acknowledge 
it is $1.6 billion short of being paid for. Let me say that I do regret 
that, because I believe very strongly that all of this money is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had any number of speakers who have gone before 
the House, came today and pointed to pictures and talked about 
devastation throughout this country, various locations that have been 
wreaked by damage from floods, tornadoes, and other disasters. People 
in 35 States are affected by the contents of this bill and are looking 
forward to being able to be assisted with the Federal moneys available 
in this bill. I think that it would be nonsense to reduce the moneys in 
this bill simply because we have not applied all of the nuances that 
some people might consider their proper rights to issue on points of 
order.
  The fact is that the Federal Emergency Management Administration 
funding is needed, and I do not believe that this is the way, as the 
gentleman points out in his amendment, to get the bill back in balance. 
I do not think we should just arbitrarily say, well, it is not in 
balance and therefore let us cut the amount of money. The money was 
recommended appropriated by the committee, and a like amount of money 
in the other body was to be appropriated, because it is needed by the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that making up that $1.6 
billion that was struck on a point of order will be very difficult. The 
budget neutrality for this bill has been carefully confected because, 
in fact, outlays are difficult to come by this late in the fiscal year 
so we paid for this bill in budget authority. By asserting a point of 
order, the fact is it is now short $1.6 billion. I would hope that the 
Members would understand that the American people who are devastated by 
floods and tornadoes and other disasters need this money.
  Therefore, this amendment should be defeated. If it is defeated and 
if this bill is passed, I guarantee that I will do everything in my 
power as chairman of this committee to make sure that when this bill 
returns from conference, it will be fully paid for regardless of 
whatever points of order may have been asserted. And I would hope that 
the members of the committee that asserted those points of order would 
join with me and vote to get this bill out of the House and over to the 
other body where we can meet, confer, and make sure that the conference 
is completed and that the work is done and that the bill comes back, so 
that we can send the entire bill to the President of the United States 
for his signature, and that those people who have been afflicted so 
adversely by disaster get the money that they deserve.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know 
everyone is ready to get going this evening. I have got a few points 
that I think should be made as we consider this.
  It comes down to the responsibility of the people in this 
institution. There are people that send us here to act responsibly for 
the future of this great Nation we live in. I think that as we start 
thinking about doing things like helping flood disaster victims around 
the United States of America, I think we have a responsibility to help 
these people and I think this bill should move forward.
  But I think we have a responsibility to future generations of 
Americans, too. I think it is our responsibility in our generation that 
if we are going to send money to help flood victims, at least we should 
take the money out of our generation's pockets, not put it on the 
burden of our children.
  That is what this debate is about. Is it fair for us in this Congress 
to take credit for sending this funny money from Washington, because 
that is how we are treating it, is it fair for us to take credit for 
sending flood disaster relief to victims all over America and then add 
the debt to our children's burden? That is not right. Our generation 
has a responsibility to pay for the flood disaster relief money that is 
going elsewhere.
  I would like to clear up a couple of other points. Number one, none 
of the money that we are talking about could possibly be used in any 
way, shape or form for a hurricane that hit next month or the month 
after, nor could it be used for any of the current flood disaster 
victims we are talking about. In fact, page 28 of this bill says for an 
additional amount of disaster relief, $3.5 billion to remain available 
until expended, provided, $2.4 billion shall become available for 
obligation on September 30, 1997.
  What that means in English is that none of the money we are talking 
about could have been spent before September 30, anyway. September 30 
is the last day of this fiscal year. On October 1, we have normal 
appropriation bills in place. So there is absolutely no impact in any 
way, shape or form on any of the hurricane victims or any of the 
current flood victims that are being affected by this money.
  Further, and I think this is very important, I think we have to look 
at this advanced funding and understand why the advanced funding is in 
the bill. The advanced funding is in this bill, and let everyone 
understand this, it is in this bill so it can be called emergency 
spending, even though it is not going to be spent on any of the 
disasters around America today or any of the disasters that have 
occurred; but disasters that occur after September 30 when it gets 
classified as emergency spending, we no longer have to count it toward 
spending caps. So by putting it in this bill, classified as emergency 
spending, instead of in an appropriation bill, we do not have to count 
it toward the spending caps.

[[Page H2764]]

  What that means in plain, simple English is that we get to spend 
another $2 billion or $1.7 billion later this year. This is really not 
about flood disaster relief and the victims out there today. This is 
about getting to spend another $1.7 billion later this year in the 
appropriations process without counting it toward the caps that are in 
place.
  Let me just conclude by saying, I think we of our generation have a 
responsibility to help the flood victims, and I think we also have a 
responsibility to pay the bill out of our pocket, not put it on the 
backs and the burdens that are going to be passed on to our children in 
this great Nation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I asked 
the gentleman to yield simply because I did enjoy the gentleman's 
speech but he just happens to be wrong. The fact is that FEMA moneys, 
advance payments of FEMA moneys are making up for funding of floods and 
disasters that have taken place in the past. We have got to continue 
that funding forward. If we do not continue that funding forward, there 
could be a gap in FEMA's services. The last thing we need to do as a 
result of this bill is to allow any gap to occur in those fundings for 
those disasters that are so important to the American people.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Just to make the record 100 percent clear, if this 
amendment is passed, there is still $700 million of unexpended FEMA 
money in here. So the gap that the gentleman is talking about and, by 
the way, I very much respect the chairman of our subcommittee, but the 
gap he is talking about is more than covered by the $700 million of 
unobligated and unallocated funds that are still in here. So make no 
mistake, this does not wipe out all the money like it should. It only 
wipes out $1.7 billion of it, leaving $700 million still available to 
cover what the gentleman is referring to.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to put this in the context of either 
being for or against the Neumann amendment. I would simply like to make 
some observations about where I am concerned we are going to be.
  Right now, FEMA tells us that if we proceed as the House would 
proceed under this amendment, that come the middle of September, they 
expect to have less than $200 million available to meet all problems 
that they are required to deal with, funds that would be unallocated at 
that point.
  I would simply make the observation, this is May 14 or 15, if my 
calendar is right. This is a month after the budget resolution is 
supposed to be finished. We have yet to pass all of our regular 
appropriation bills for this year. What we need to be able to focus on 
in this House is the passage of all of those appropriation bills if we 
are to be anywhere near finished by the end of the fiscal year. The 
last thing we are going to need to do is to have to deal again and 
again with more emergency supplementals because God has deigned to 
ignore the budget resolution and has caused natural disasters, or 
allowed them to happen, in any part of the country.
  The real fix, I would submit, is not the Neumann amendment or 
anything else that has been offered tonight. If my colleagues really 
want to get the government out of this constant hole of having to find 
how to finance disasters, what we really need to do is to bring to the 
floor of this House a new way of dealing with disasters. What we really 
need to do in my view is to have an insurance fund into which each of 
the States pay on an experience-rated basis so that if they have 
disasters, we do not have to go through this month after month and year 
after year, that there will already be an insurance fund created for 
the purpose of funding those disasters on a regular basis. Otherwise, 
no matter what budgets we adopt on an annual basis, we will constantly 
be jerking them around to make up for the fact that we cannot predict 
acts of God.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge every Member of this House to 
remember, it is not an easy thing to chair the Committee on 
Appropriations or each of the 13 subcommittees. Most of the time, all 
of the choices that you have to make are bad ones. No matter what 
choice you make, somebody is going to be unhappy, somebody is going to 
be sore and somebody is going to insist that you have not made a 
pluperfect decision. It seems to me that the committee has made the 
best decision it could under the circumstances, and I would simply urge 
my colleagues to recognize that as we consider this and any other 
amendment before the House tonight.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to if I could, comment briefly on this 
because I happen to be from a State that is affected by this disaster. 
I can tell my colleagues one thing. The people in the Dakotas and 
Minnesota do not understand what a CR is. A lot of them do not even 
understand exactly what this whole process is all about, about trying 
to adopt a supplemental appropriation. But they do know that there are 
a lot of them who are displaced from their homes, there are a lot of 
them who have lost property, and I have been in those Red Cross relief 
shelters, I have seen some, not all of them, but we have got 200,000 
dead cattle in South Dakota. In the State of North Dakota I have flown 
over and looked at the damage. Those people have been decimated. We 
have an entire community in Grand Forks, North Dakota, in East Grand 
Forks, Minnesota, that has been entirely decimated by this. They have 
people out there who are outside of their homes, who have not had 
utility service and they are waiting for this assistance to be 
delivered.
  We have been talking about this for the last 2 or 3 weeks and every 
time it is something else that bogs down the discussion, it goes on 
longer and longer and longer. I am probably as fiscally conservative as 
anybody in this body and I happen to believe that the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations is also very fiscally conservative. When he 
gives me his assurance that when we go to conference with this bill 
that they are going to come out with a bill that is paid for, I believe 
that. I believe that we have to as a body rally around the people who 
have been damaged and afflicted by these flooding conditions and many 
other disasters around this country and do what needs to be done here. 
We will see that these things are taken care of.
  I do not have any intention at all of having a conference report come 
out that is not paid for. But we desperately need assistance. We have 
critical needs in our State, in the State of North Dakota, in the State 
of Minnesota and many others who are affected by disasters in this 
country and who are going to benefit from the assistance that is 
provided in this supplemental appropriation bill, and I think that it 
is high time we get on with it and take care of the business at hand 
and vote down all these ancillary amendments and get the bill passed, 
get it conferenced and get the assistance to the American people and 
the people in our States who really need it.

                              {time}  2000

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what my colleagues have heard here today are 
some brilliant theorisms; we have heard some brilliant theories, but 
there is no time for theories now. We have heard from every side of 
this House, people who want to predict what is going to happen in 1998 
and what is going to happen in 1999, and my colleagues are thinking 
about some other brilliant nomenclature with whom each of my colleagues 
is familiar.
  But I am standing here to ask my colleagues to get real, to get real 
and pass the good budget that the appropriations chairman has come out 
with. He has had to work very, very hard; so has the Committee on 
Appropriations; so has the ranking member and everyone on this floor.
  I am not against theory, but it is just not time for theory. We have 
people who are covered with mud out there after this particular 
flooding season.
  I come from an area that in 1992 was overcome by hurricane, and had 
it not been for this Congress acting and acting with dispatch, we would 
have still had people with an aftermath, and I want to say to my 
colleagues there is going to be an aftermath to the flood and to the 
disasters. It cannot be cured

[[Page H2765]]

in one small sweep of our hand here on this floor.
  So I stand to say to my colleagues let us pass this good bill. 
Nothing has been perfect in this Congress since the very beginning, and 
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this one will not be perfect, but the 
people who have been overcome by this disaster need us to act.
  What the people who are bringing in theory would like for us to do is 
to dig a big hole in the 1998-99 VA HUD appropriation, but they just 
cannot do it by blinking an eye. They have got to prepare for this.
  So let us not take this good bill and get it out so that people who 
have been devastated by the flood can be helped, just as we were helped 
in 1992 in south Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the House to vote yes on this bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not consume 5 minutes. I do think it is worth 
noting to people that not only is this a matter of saying that no 
relief money is stricken by the Neumann amendment, but because of the 
language adopted previously in the Gekas amendment, as of October 1 
there will be further funding available for FEMA that is guaranteed to 
make sure that at that time, if there are further disasters occurring, 
there is money available to FEMA.
  So advanced funding for disasters that have not happened yet is not 
necessary because of the Gekas amendment which we already adopted that 
guarantees funds will be available October 1.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes either, and the last speaker 
did not, but I move for us tonight to support the chairman, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The fact is that States like Pennsylvania and States in the Far West 
have been devastated by the flooding. This legislation moves that 
forward for the Federal emergencies while still doing right by the 
budget, and therefore I would ask that we vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
his statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that these arguments that we can 
have our cake and eat it too, that one can vote in this particular 
instance to in fact cut out the $1.6 billion and somehow that FEMA is 
going to be funded on a forward basis, I think what is being pointed 
out here is that there are going to be a series of events that occur 
this summer across this country and where FEMA is going to be called to 
be active. We are not going to be able to come up here in every 
instance with another supplemental appropriation bill, and I think we 
ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the chairman in this 
instance, and others that have worked on it.
  There are people in the State that I represent, in the western part 
of the State, that have suffered greatly under this particular process, 
and they need to have a positive answer. I think they deserve a 
positive answer from this House as we have responded to other natural 
disasters across this country in the many years I have served in this 
House.
  So I think that this amendment, while well intentioned, I think 
offers false hope as to what the consequence of it will be. It will 
hurt, it will hurt the people that we are supposed to and holding 
ourself up to help, not really representing.
  We need our colleagues' help in this instance, and I implore them to 
vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 305, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               AYES--115

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Deal
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Goode
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Paul
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White

                               NOES--305

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker

[[Page H2766]]


     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Berman
     Conyers
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Manton
     Molinari
     Radanovich
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Watkins
     Yates

                              {time}  2023

  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. LEACH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are currently on page 35 of the 
bill, and in order to expedite the process, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill, through page 51, line 23, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 51, line 23 is as 
follows:

                                TITLE II

         EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR PEACEKEEPING

                               CHAPTER 1

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $306,800,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $7,900,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $29,100,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (Including Transfer Of Funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Contingency 
     Operations Transfer Fund'', $1,566,300,000: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to 
     operation and maintenance and DoD working capital fund 
     accounts: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall 
     be merged with and shall be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period, as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided in this paragraph is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                      OPLAN 34A/35 P.O.W. Payments

       For payments to individuals under section 657 of Public Law 
     104-201, $20,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

               Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund

       For an additional amount for the Reserve Mobilization 
     Income Insurance Fund, $72,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS, CHAPTER 1

       Sec. 2101. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     title shall remain available for obligation beyond the 
     current fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.


                          (Transfer of Funds)

       Sec. 2102. The Secretary of the Navy shall transfer up to 
     $23,000,000 to ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'' 
     from the following accounts in the specified amounts, to be 
     available only for repairing damage caused by hurricanes, 
     flooding, and other natural disasters during 1996 and 1997 to 
     real property and facilities at Marine Corps facilities 
     (including Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Cherry Point, North 
     Carolina; and the Mountain Warfare Training Center, 
     Bridgeport, California):
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $4,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $11,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps, 1996/
     1998'', $4,000,000; and
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps, 1996/1998'', $4,000,000.
       Sec. 2103. In addition to the amounts appropriated in title 
     VI of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (as 
     contained in section 101(b) of Public Law 104-208), under the 
     heading ``Defense Health Program'', $21,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated and made available only for the provision of 
     direct patient care at military treatment facilities.
       Sec. 2104. In addition to the amounts appropriated in title 
     II of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (as 
     contained in section 101(b) of Public Law 104-208), under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', 
     $10,000,000 is hereby appropriated and made available only 
     for force protection and counter-terrorism initiatives.
       Sec. 2105. Without prior and specific written approval from 
     the Appropriations Committees of Congress, none of the funds 
     appropriated in this or any other Act for any fiscal year may 
     be used to compensate military personnel or civilian 
     employees who (1) are newly assigned to or newly employed by 
     the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial 
     Management and Comptroller) on or after May 1, 1997, (2) 
     occupy positions in the Department of the Navy's Financial 
     Management/Comptroller organization on May 1, 1997 and who 
     are subsequently reassigned to another organization in the 
     Navy for the purpose of compensation yet who otherwise 
     continue to be directed by or report to the Department of the 
     Navy Financial Management/Comptroller organization, or (3) 
     are temporarily assigned from other Department of Defense 
     organizations to the Department of the Navy Financial 
     Management/Comptroller organization on or after May 1, 1997: 
     Provided, That the preceding limitations shall also apply to 
     funds for compensation of military personnel or civilian 
     employees in the organization of the Deputy Chief of Naval 
     Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements, and Assessments) 
     whose primary function is budgeting or financial management: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this or any other 
     Act for any fiscal year may be used to reprogram funds within 
     any Navy appropriation (other than Military Construction and 
     Military Family Housing) under the authority of Department of 
     Defense Financial Management Regulation without prior written 
     approval from the Appropriations Committees of Congress.

                               CHAPTER 2

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


                             (Rescissions)

       Sec. 2201. Of the funds provided in the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 
     101(b) of Public Law 104-208), amounts are hereby rescinded 
     from the following accounts in the specified amounts to 
     reflect savings from revised economic assumptions (with each 
     such reduction to be applied proportionally to each budget 
     activity, activity group, and subactivity group within each 
     such account):
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $19,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $24,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $18,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $8,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $1,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $2,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $3,000,000;
       ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', 
     $2,000,000;
       ``Environmental Restoration, Army'', $250,000;
       ``Environmental Restoration, Navy'', $250,000;
       ``Environmental Restoration, Air Force'', $250,000;
        ``Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense 
     Sites'', $250,000;
       ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'', $2,000,000;
       ``Defense Health Program'', $10,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'', $8,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army'', $2,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
     Army'', $5,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army'', $1,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army'', $15,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $28,000,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', $6,000,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', $33,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy'', $8,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', $20,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force'', $11,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $7,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $5,000,000;
       ``National Guard and Reserve Equipment'', $8,000,000;
       ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense'', 
     $2,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     $10,000,000;

[[Page H2767]]

       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', 
     $9,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     $22,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
     Wide'', $15,000,000.


                             (Rescissions)

       Sec. 2202. Of the funds provided in the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 
     101(b) of Public Law 104-208), amounts related to foreign 
     currency are hereby rescinded from the following accounts in 
     the specified amounts, except as otherwise provided by law, 
     to reflect savings from revised foreign currency exchange 
     rates:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $37,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $9,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $12,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $124,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $22,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $79,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $14,000,000;
       ``Defense Health Program'', $11,000,000.


                             (Rescissions)

       Sec. 2203. Of the funds provided in previous Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, amounts only associated with 
     unobligated balances expected to expire at the end of the 
     current fiscal year are hereby rescinded from the following 
     accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 1995/1997'', $1,085,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army, 1995/1997'', $2,707,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 
     1995/1997'', $2,296,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1995/1997'', $3,236,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 1995/1997'', $2,502,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 1995/1997'', $34,000,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 1995/1997'', $16,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps, 1995/
     1997'', $812,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1993/1997'', 
     $10,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 1995/1997'', $4,237,000;
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps, 1995/1997'', $1,207,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1995/1997'', 
     $33,650,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1995/1997'', $7,195,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 1995/1997'', $3,659,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide, 1995/1997'', $12,881,000;
       ``National Guard and Reserve Equipment, 1995/1997'', 
     $5,029,000;
       ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, 1995/
     1997'', $456,000;
       ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, 1996/
     1997'', $652,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 1996/
     1997'', $4,366,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 1996/
     1997'', $14,978,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     1996/1997'', $28,396,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     1996/1997'', $55,973,000;
       ``Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense, 1996/1997'', 
     $890,000;
       ``Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense, 1996/1997'', 
     $160,000.


                             (Rescissions)

       Sec. 2204. Of the funds provided in previous Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, funds are hereby rescinded from 
     the following accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1994/1998'', 
     $28,700,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1995/1997'', 
     $14,400,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1995/1997'', $4,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 1996/1998'', $18,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 
     1996/1998'', $26,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1996/1998'', 
     $34,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 1996/1998'', $3,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1996/1998'', 
     $52,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 1996/1998'', $10,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force, 1996/1998'', 
     $21,100,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide, 1996/1998'', $34,800,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 1996/
     1997'', $4,500,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     1996/1997'', $2,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     1996/1997'', $71,200,000;
       ``Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense, 1996/1997'', 
     $12,200,000;
       ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, 1996/
     1998'', $22,000,000;
       ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', $7,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $17,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $10,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1997/1999'', 
     $10,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 1997/1999'', $6,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 1997/1999'', $48,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1997/1999'', 
     $35,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1997/1999'', 
     $120,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 1997/
     1998'', $15,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 1997/
     1998'', $28,500,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     1997/1998'', $237,500,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     1997/1998'', $100,000,000.

                         MILITARY CONSTRUCTION


                             (RESCISSIONS)

       Sec. 2205. Of the funds appropriated in the Military 
     Construction Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-32), 
     amounts are hereby rescinded from the following accounts in 
     the specified amounts:
       ``Military Construction, Air Force Reserve'', $5,000,000;
       ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'', $41,000,000;
       ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part II'', 
     $35,391,000;
       ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III'', 
     $75,638,000; and
       ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV'', 
     $22,971,000.

                               CHAPTER 3

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                      MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY


                              (RESCISSION)

       Sec. 2301. Of the funds appropriated for ``Military 
     Construction, Navy'' under Public Law 103-307, $6,480,000 is 
     hereby rescinded.

                 FAMILY HOUSING, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

       Sec. 2302. For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, 
     Navy and Marine Corps'' to cover the incremental Operation 
     and Maintenance costs arising from hurricane damage to family 
     housing units at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North 
     Carolina and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North 
     Carolina, $6,480,000, as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2854.

                               TITLE III

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

       Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.

                         Assistance to Ukraine

       Sec. 3002. (a) The President may waive any of the earmarks 
     contained in subsections (k) and (l) under the heading 
     ``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former 
     Soviet Union'' contained in the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, as 
     included in Public Law 104-208, if he determines, and so 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of Ukraine--
       (1) is not making significant progress toward economic 
     reform and the elimination of corruption;
       (2) is not permitting American firms and individuals to 
     operate in Ukraine according to generally accepted business 
     principles; or
       (3) is not effectively assisting American firms and 
     individuals in their efforts to enforce commercial contracts 
     and resist extortion and other corrupt demands.


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following new title:
            TITLE III--ADDITIONAL DISASTER RELIEF PROVISIONS
           Subtitle A--Depository Institution Disaster Relief

     SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Depository Institutions 
     Disaster Relief Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 4002. TRUTH IN LENDING ACT; EXPEDITED FUNDS AVAILABILITY 
                   ACT.

       (a) Truth in Lending Act.--During the 240-day period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System may make exceptions 
     to the Truth in Lending Act for transactions within an area 
     in which the President, pursuant to section 401 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, has 
     determined, on or after February 28, 1997, that a major 
     disaster exists, or within an area determined to be eligible 
     for disaster relief under other Federal law by reason of 
     damage related to the 1997 flooding of the Red River of the 
     North, the Minnesota River, and the tributaries of such 
     rivers, if the Board determines that the exception can 
     reasonably be expected to alleviate hardships to the public 
     resulting from such disaster that outweigh possible adverse 
     effects.
       (b) Expedited Funds Availability Act.--During the 240-day 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may make 
     exceptions to the Expedited Funds Availability Act for 
     depository institution offices located within any area 
     referred to in subsection (a) of this section if the Board 
     determines that the exception can

[[Page H2768]]

     reasonably be expected to alleviate hardships to the public 
     resulting from such disaster that outweigh possible adverse 
     effects.
       (c) Time Limit on Exceptions.--Any exception made under 
     this section shall expire not later than September 1, 1998.
       (d) Publication Required.--The Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System shall publish in the Federal Register 
     a statement that--
       (1) describes any exception made under this section; and
       (2) explains how the exception can reasonably be expected 
     to produce benefits to the public that outweigh possible 
     adverse effects.

     SEC. 4003. DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS.

       (a) In General.--The appropriate Federal banking agency 
     may, by order, permit an insured depository institution to 
     subtract from the institution's total assets, in calculating 
     compliance with the leverage limit prescribed under section 
     38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an amount not 
     exceeding the qualifying amount attributable to insurance 
     proceeds, if the agency determines that--
       (1) the institution--
       (A) had its principal place of business within an area in 
     which the President, pursuant to section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, has 
     determined, on or after February 28, 1997, that a major 
     disaster exists, or within an area determined to be eligible 
     for disaster relief under other Federal law by reason of 
     damage related to the 1997 flooding of the Red River of the 
     North, the Minnesota River, and the tributaries of such 
     rivers, on the day before the date of any such determination;
       (B) derives more than 60 percent of its total deposits from 
     persons who normally reside within, or whose principal place 
     of business is normally within, areas of intense devastation 
     caused by the major disaster;
       (C) was adequately capitalized (as defined in section 38 of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) before the major disaster; 
     and
       (D) has an acceptable plan for managing the increase in its 
     total assets and total deposits; and
       (2) the subtraction is consistent with the purpose of 
     section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       (b) Time Limit on Exceptions.--Any exception made under 
     this section shall expire not later than February 28, 1999.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term 
     ``appropriate Federal banking agency'' has the same meaning 
     as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       (2) Insured depository institution.--The term ``insured 
     depository institution'' has the same meaning as in section 3 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       (3) Leverage limit.--The term ``leverage limit'' has the 
     same meaning as in section 38 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act.
       (4) Qualifying amount attributable to insurance proceeds.--
     The term ``qualifying amount attributable to insurance 
     proceeds'' means the amount (if any) by which the 
     institution's total assets exceed the institution's average 
     total assets during the calendar quarter ending before the 
     date of any determination referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A), because of the deposit of insurance payments or 
     governmental assistance made with respect to damage caused 
     by, or other costs resulting from, the major disaster.

     SEC. 4004. BANKING AGENCY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--A qualifying regulatory agency may take 
     any of the following actions with respect to depository 
     institutions or other regulated entities whose principal 
     place of business is within, or with respect to transactions 
     or activities within, an area in which the President, 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, has determined, on or 
     after February 28, 1997, that a major disaster exists, or 
     within an area determined to be eligible for disaster relief 
     under other Federal law by reason of damage related to the 
     1997 flooding of the Red River of the North, the Minnesota 
     River, and the tributaries of such rivers, if the agency 
     determines that the action would facilitate recovery from the 
     major disaster:
       (1) Procedure.--Exercising the agency's authority under 
     provisions of law other than this section without complying 
     with--
       (A) any requirement of section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code; or
       (B) any provision of law that requires notice or 
     opportunity for hearing or sets maximum or minimum time 
     limits with respect to agency action.
       (2) Publication requirements.--Making exceptions, with 
     respect to institutions or other entities for which the 
     agency is the primary Federal regulator, to--
       (A) any publication requirement with respect to 
     establishing branches or other deposit-taking facilities; or
       (B) any similar publication requirement.
       (b) Publication Required.--A qualifying regulatory agency 
     shall publish in the Federal Register a statement that--
       (1) describes any action taken under this section; and
       (2) explains the need for the action.
       (c) Qualifying Regulatory Agency Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``qualifying regulatory agency'' 
     means--
       (1) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
       (2) the Comptroller of the Currency;
       (3) the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision;
       (4) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
       (5) the Financial Institutions Examination Council;
       (6) the National Credit Union Administration; and
       (7) with respect to chapter 53 of title 31, United States 
     Code, the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (d) Expiration.--Any exception made under this section 
     shall expire not later than February 28, 1998.

     SEC. 4005. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Board of Governors 
     of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the 
     Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National 
     Credit Union Administration should encourage depository 
     institutions to meet the financial services needs of their 
     communities and customers located in areas affected by the 
     1997 flooding of the Red River of the North, the Minnesota 
     River, and the tributaries of such rivers.

     SEC. 4006. OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED.

       No provision of this Act shall be construed as limiting the 
     authority of any department or agency under any other 
     provision of law.
                Subtitle B--HUD Disaster Waver Provision

     SEC. 4011. DISASTER WAIVER AUTHORITY.

       To address the damage resulting from the consequences of 
     the natural disasters occurring in the winter of 1996 and 
     1997 and the spring of 1997 (including severe weather in the 
     Western United States, damaging tornadoes, and the March 1997 
     flooding in the Midwest), upon the request of a recipient of 
     assistance the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     may, on a case-by-case basis and upon such other terms as the 
     Secretary may specify--
       (1) in applying section 122 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974, waive (in whole or in part) the 
     requirements that activities benefit persons of low- and 
     moderate-income; and
       (2) in applying section 290 of the HOME Investment 
     Partnerships Act, waive (in whole or in part) the 
     requirements that housing qualify as affordable housing.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I have worked out 
with the acceptance of the majority and the minority. It provides 
regulatory relief for banking activities in the Minnesota and Dakota 
area where we have been hit by the floods and some relief in terms of 
the use of CDBG and home funds. It is a noncontroversial amendment. 
There are similar provisions like it in the Senate, and I appreciate 
the support of the manager of the bill and the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an unfiled amendment at the desk.
  This Vento amendment is basically legislation I have introduced, H.R. 
1461, the Depository institutions Disaster Relief Act [DIDRA] of 1997. 
The bill is modeled on a DIDRA enacted into law in 1993. I introduced 
H.R. 1461 on April 24 and it is supported by the delegations of the 
affected Midwestern States and key Members of the Banking Committee. I 
have been working with the Chairman of the Banking Committee to attempt 
to pass this noncontroversial legislation on the Suspension Calendar. 
These attempts to move the bill on the Suspension Calendar have been 
stalled by the supplemental appropriations bill because the version of 
this legislation in the other body contains similar DIDRA provisions.
  As an amendment to the supplemental or as a separate bill, this 
legislation will help make credit available faster to those in need in 
the disaster areas, especially those in Minnesota, South Dakota, and 
North Dakota, and will reduce some of the administrative burdens faced 
by banks in reacting to this crisis.
  Specifically, the amendment gives time-limited authority to the 
Federal Reserve Board to make exceptions to the Truth in Lending Act 
[TILA] and the Expedited Funds Availability Act [EFAA] for disaster 
areas declared so after February 28, 1997, when the board makes the 
determination that such an exception will alleviate hardships to the 
degree that it outweighs possible adverse effects. This will have the 
effect of expediting the availability of loan funds to the community 
and will provide flexibility to grant exceptions from the availability 
of funds schedules.
  This amendment authorizes the Federal banking agencies to subtract 
insurance proceeds from qualified institutions total assets. This will 
have the effect of not limiting institutions to regulatory capital 
rules when they receive large amounts of insurance proceeds which they 
subsequently disburse to help rebuild local communities faced by the 
disasters.

[[Page H2769]]

This will allow the regulators to relieve institutions of the 
restrictive capital rules in a manner consistent with safety and 
soundness through February 28, 1999.
  Further this amendment authorizes banking regulators to expedite 
regulatory actions which otherwise would be delayed by Federal notice, 
comment and hearing requirements for depository institutions or other 
regulated entities whose principal place of business is within a 
disaster area if the agency determines the action would facilitate 
recovery from the major disaster. This authority would extend through 
February 28, 1998.
  My amendment includes a sense of Congress that the financial 
institution regulators should encourage depository institutions to meet 
the financial services needs of their communities and customers located 
in areas affected by the 1997 flooding of the Red River of the north, 
the Minnesota River and their tributaries.
  At the suggestion of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], I 
included additional waiver authority for current funds administered by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the HOME and CBBG 
programs. This language will apply a waiver of low- to moderate-income 
benefit requirements under CDBG and would apply a waiver of the 
requirement that housing qualifies as affordable housing for HOME 
funds. These waivers would apply to regular, as in not supplemental, 
funds available to the recipients that they chose to use to alleviate 
the effects of the disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, I am seeking to move this legislation via the most 
expeditious route or routes. At this time, the supplemental 
appropriations bill seems to be the appropriate avenue. Because the 
bill with which we will conference on the supplemental has slightly 
more restrictive DIDRA provisions, I ask for my colleagues support in 
adding this legislation to the supplemental to represent a strong House 
position on these needed exemptions. Midwestern flood victims, other 
disaster victims and financial institutions struggling to bring 
essential credit and normalcy to the communities need this strong 
waiver authority as soon as possible. Support the Vento amendment to 
provide additional disaster relief through financial institutions and 
through CDBG and HOME waivers.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have seen the amendment, we 
agree with the amendment and accept it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
the majority has no objection to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the Chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. Livingston], and the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and others that have worked with us on this, and 
cosponsors, and the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 
I am happy to.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, given that both the House and the Senate 
have provided funds to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 
community development block grant to help affected communities rebuild 
natural disasters, I ask the Chairman's commitment to work in 
conference on an issue regarding a community in my district that was 
recently struck by natural disaster.
  On April 22, the town of Rainsville, Alabama, in my district was 
severely damaged by a tornado. The town's fire department, police 
department and municipal buildings, as well as numerous homes and 
businesses were destroyed. Fortunately, there was no loss of life. 
However, the town of Rainsville only has a population of 3,800 and 
there are very limited local resources to help rebuild the municipal 
infrastructure.
  Although the State of Alabama has provided resources to rebuild the 
city, there is a small shortfall needed to reconstruct the city hall 
building. I am asking that the gentleman consider allocating funds to 
be administered by the Alabama Department of Economic and Community 
Affairs to assist Rainsville in rebuilding the city hall. I would hope 
that the gentleman would consider this urgent request as H.R. 1469 
moves to conference committee with the Senate.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Alabama bringing this important matter to my attention. We 
certainly will be working with the gentleman as we go towards final 
passage of the bill. We will do everything we can to work with the 
gentleman, and I appreciate his attention.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments?

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] in a colloquy about the availability of 
emergency funds for communities that have been devastated by 
catastrophic snowstorms.
  As I am sure the gentleman is aware, the past two winters brought 
record-breaking snowfalls across the United States. In my district, 
which includes the Upper Peninsula and the upper section of the Lower 
Peninsula of Michigan, there were areas that received a total snow 
accumulation of 367 inches, or 31 feet. Records that were set last year 
were broken only this winter. Even this past Monday parts of my 
district received over 14 inches of snow, resulting in school closings 
and further financial strain on communities.
  My northern Michigan communities were unable to deal with this 
onslaught of continuous snow. Yet, it is absolutely necessary for the 
road commissions to keep roads open to ensure that emergency vehicles 
can pass. The financial havoc these storms wreaked on the people and 
local governments of my district will be felt long after the next set 
of winter storms arrive. The storms caused snow and flooding damage to 
roads and structures, curtailed agricultural planting, delayed home 
building and tourism, and induced other personal and financial effects. 
The true impact of these past two winter storms will be felt for years 
to come.
  It is my understanding that the Federal Government already has 
provisions in place that would help communities that have been 
devastated by these natural disasters. As a result of this past 
January's storms, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota will 
receive Federal aid this year for snow removal assistance. In each 
State the Governor of that State issued a major disaster declaration.
  I would just like to clarify with the gentleman that under present 
law a declaration must be made by the Governor of that State within 30 
days of the event, followed by a declaration by the President, in order 
for local communities to receive Federal aid, and if such declaration 
was made, the affected communities would be eligible for aid under this 
bill, as in my case, where communities have been financially devastated 
by the costs of emergency snow removal.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan is 
correct, a disaster declaration by the Governor must be made first.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to clarify further, we 
would have to change current law in order for these communities to 
receive Federal assistance without a declaration from the Governor. But 
due to House rules, such an amendment would not be in order on this 
bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, again, the gentleman from Michigan is correct. Without a 
disaster assistance declaration from the Governor, followed by a 
similar declaration from the President, Michigan or any other State 
cannot access funds under this supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, the Stafford Act requires that a major disaster request

[[Page H2770]]

must be based on a situation of such severity and magnitude that 
effective response is ``beyond the capabilities of State and local 
governments and supplemental Federal assistance is required.''
  What about those situations where it is beyond the capabilities of 
local governments, but the State refuses to act? I would hope that 
politics do not become a factor when our citizens cry out for help, but 
unfortunately, that seems to be the case sometimes.
  Mr. Chairman, currently our system of Federal assistance is like a 
chain, with each link dependent upon the other. When a disaster 
strikes, our citizens desperately cling to the bottom of this chain, or 
lifeline, if you will, while waiting for help from above. If one link 
in the chain fails, however, our citizens' needs fall by the wayside.
  I do not believe that the well-being of our citizens should rest 
solely with a chain that could contain a faulty link. I believe there 
needs to be a safety line, one that you hope will never have to be 
used, but that exists should the current system fail to ensure that we 
do not drop our citizens that are desperately seeking help.
  In an attempt to exhaust every possibility to help my citizens, I 
offered an amendment before the Committee on Rules that sought to 
address this matter. However, it was not made in order. I realize that 
this bill is not a proper vehicle for this legislation. Therefore, I 
hope to work with the committee to address this situation in a more 
appropriate manner in the future.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I believe the gentleman understands that the committee makes 
every effort to work with Members of the body who have problems of this 
kind.
  There must be interaction between the States that are involved with 
the committee, but, indeed, I agree with the gentleman from Michigan's 
concerns. I appreciate his leadership on behalf of his constituents, 
and I look forward to working with him in the future in this matter. 
There must be, however, cooperation that is more than just a one-way 
street.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, I thank my 
distinguished colleague from California for his leadership.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on National Security in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, in order 
to pay for the many unforeseen costs in this bill while meeting our 
fiscal responsibilities, the committee was forced to offset funding 
with corresponding cuts in programs throughout the Government.
  In the case of the Department of Defense, that resulted in a $40 
million rescission for the THAAD program, a centerpiece for our theater 
missile defense effort that enjoys broad bipartisan support in this 
body. It is my understanding that this rescission only affects a 
portion of fiscal year 1996 program funds which could not be obligated 
before they expire on September 30 of this year due to an in-depth 
program review.
  I also understand that the committee supports efforts to resume 
testing as soon as feasible after completion of the review, and that 
there are adequate program funds remaining to accomplish that goal in 
1997.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond that the 
subcommittee made every effort to offset all of the defense 
supplementals for the Bosnian deployment from funds from the Department 
of Defense. We did that successfully. We were extremely careful to look 
at programs where the funding would have expired because the programs 
had been delayed.
  I would say to the gentleman that he is absolutely correct. Missile 
defense systems to protect our troops is one of our highest priorities. 
THAAD remains one of the highest priorities in the missile defense 
program. We are committed to providing adequate funds to keep the 
program on track.
  Our recommendation to rescind a portion of 1996 funds was strictly 
one of timing. Due to the ongoing program review and resulting schedule 
changes, all of the fiscal year 1996 funds could not have been executed 
by September 30, the date when they would expire. However, there are 
still sufficient 1996 funds remaining, as well as fiscal year 1997 
funds, to carry the program forward. The department assures us that 
there are adequate funds to resume testing later this year upon 
completion of the review.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate the chairman's assurances that this rescission will not 
hamper the fiscal year 1997 THAAD effort, and of the committee's 
continued commitment to the program. As chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Research and Development, I will work with the gentleman to 
ensure there are no program setbacks after 1997 due to inadequate 
funding.
  It has been 6 years, Mr. Chairman, since we lost 28 service members 
to a Scud attack in Dhahran, and there is still no system in place to 
prevent a similar attack in theater. It is absolutely essential that we 
provide the funding to get this system in the field for our troops at 
the earliest possible date, especially with North Korea's deployment of 
the No Dong missile. I am confident that nothing we are doing in this 
bill will prevent us from moving forward at this time. We will have 
opportunities in fiscal year 1998 and in future years to restore funds, 
if necessary, to keep the program on track.
  I am, however, concerned that the committee's actions may be 
interpreted outside Congress as a sign that support for the program is 
waning, or that we are no longer supporting an aggressive schedule. I 
say that because I am told the administration may propose reducing 
THAAD over future year defense plans by as much as $2 billion. Such a 
move would kill the program, and is unacceptable.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, as I stated earlier, the committee only approved this 
rescission after it was determined there would be no impact on planned 
fiscal year 1997 testing efforts. The committee did not and would not 
approve any action which would delay program development.
  In the early stages of the THAAD program success was all over the 
place, but recent tests have been not quite as successful, so the 
review is necessary. But this rescission should have no impact on the 
ability to deploy a user operational evaluation system by 1999. We are 
committed to getting this system and other critical theater missile 
defense systems into the field to protect our troops at the earliest 
possible date.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank 
the gentleman for that clarification. I thank the committee and the 
full committee chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                 amendment no. 21 offered by mr. hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 21. The name of the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] is on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Hoyer:
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following:
       Sec. 3003. (a) Chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after subchapter V the following:

      ``SUBCHAPTER VI--LEAVE TRANSFER IN DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES

     ``Sec. 6391. Authority for leave transfer program in 
       disasters and emergencies

       ``(a) For the purpose of this section--
       ``(1) `employee' means an employee as defined in section 
     6331(a); and
       ``(2) `agency' means an Executive agency
       ``(b) In the event of a major disaster or emergency, as 
     declared by the President, that results in severe adverse 
     effects for a substantial number of employees, the President 
     may direct the Office of Personnel Management to establish an 
     emergency leave transfer program under which any employee in 
     any agency may donate unused annual leave for transfer to 
     employees of the same or other agencies who are adversely 
     affected by such disaster or emergency.
       ``(c) The Office shall establish appropriate requirements 
     for the operation of the emergency leave transfer program 
     under subsection (b), including appropriate limitations on 
     the donation and use of annual leave

[[Page H2771]]

     under the program. An employee may receive and use leave 
     under the program without regard to any requirement that any 
     annual leave and sick leave to a leave recipient's credit 
     must be exhausted before any transferred annual leave may be 
     used.
       ``(d) A leave bank established under subchapter IV may, to 
     the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Office, 
     donate annual leave to the emergency leave transfer program 
     established under subsection (b).
       ``(e) Except to the extent that the Office may prescribe by 
     regulation, nothing in section 7351 shall apply to any 
     solicitation, donation, or acceptance of leave under this 
     section.
       ``(f) The Office shall prescribe regulations necessary for 
     the administration of this section.''.
       (b) The analysis for chapter 63 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

      ``SUBCHAPTER VI--LEAVE TRANSFER IN DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES

``6391. Authority for leave transfer program in disasters and 
              emergencies.''.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that has 
passed the House, has passed the Senate. I believe there is agreement 
on both sides of the aisle, and it deals with emergency leave for 
Federal employees adversely affected by a disaster such as we are 
dealing with in this bill, and any time that the President declares a 
disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Ms. Norton, I am pleased to offer an 
amendment to set up a leave bank for Federal employees affected by the 
recent flood disasters in the Midwest.
  This amendment would allow the Office of Personnel Management to 
establish a leave transfer program whenever the President declares a 
major disaster or emergency.
  No one can question the need to help the men and women who are 
affected by these disasters.
  They may have injuries or illnesses that require extensive recovery 
periods.
  Or they may simply need additional annual leave to rebuild their 
home, help neighbors replant crops, or stay with children while damaged 
schools are repaired.
  It makes sense to let other Federal employees help those who are in 
need. There would be no cost to the Government under the amendment.
  Federal employees are generous people.
  They contribute millions each year to the Combined Federal Campaign. 
In fact, since 1964 CFC has collected almost $3 billion in voluntary 
contributions for a wide range of charities.
  They volunteer in their communities--such as Treasury's program to 
help provide mentors for the D.C. public schools.
  And it might surprise a few of my colleagues who love to denigrate 
Federal workers, that many actually give back annual leave at the end 
of each year--voluntarily working days they don't have to because of 
their dedication to their jobs.
  It makes sense to allow such employees to share that leave with 
others who need it.
  This leave bank is a great idea and I urge adoption of the amendment.

 Talking Points on Norton Amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations 
                                  Bill

       1. This amendment would simply allow the President to 
     direct the Office of Personnel Management to set up a special 
     leave transfer program to assist Federal employees adversely 
     affected by a major disaster or emergency. It would allow 
     individual employees and agency leave banks to donate leave 
     which could be reallocated to those in need within the same 
     or other agencies.
       2. This amendment is noncontroversial. It is based upon a 
     proposal sent to the Congress by OPM on behalf of the Clinton 
     Administration. Its provisions are identical to legislation 
     introduced in 1995 by Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted 
     Stevens which passed both the Senate and the House during the 
     104th Congress. Senator Stevens' bill was not enacted because 
     unrelated legislation (Rep. Mica's veterans preference bill) 
     was attached to it on the House floor and the Senate failed 
     to take up the amended bill before adjournment.
       3. The Congressional Budget Office prepared an estimate of 
     this legislation prior to its consideration by the House last 
     September. CBO determined that it would not affect direct 
     spending or receipts and would otherwise have no significant 
     budgetary impact. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
     CBO's letter be made a part of this hearing record.
       4. Civil Service Subcommittee Chairman John Mica supports 
     this legislation and is for it being attached to the 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority has reviewed the amendment. We think it is 
in the interests of good government. We would accept it, and certainly 
we have no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the ranking 
Member also agrees with the Norton amendment, is that correct?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if it is Norton, I am for it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my original intention to offer an amendment 
tonight that would rescind $689 million from Air Force procurement 
accounts and direct that these savings go to debt retirement. This 
figure represents the amount of money that currently is being wasted by 
the United States Air Force, according to its own reporting, by not 
implementing the dictates of the 1995 BRAC commission. During the BRACC 
process in 1995, the five Air Force depots were thoroughly reviewed by 
the BRAC commission. The BRAC commission directed that two of those 
depots, namely Kelly Air Force Base in Texas, McClellan Air Force Base 
in California, be closed because they were creating an inefficiency 
problem within the five Air Force depots.
  I have in my hand a GAO report dated December 19, 1996, from which I 
wish to quote. This report said as follows: ``Air Force Materiel 
Command analyzed potential savings from workload consolidation, 
including how increasing the efficiency of underused military depots 
would lower fixed overhead rates. This analysis showed that annual 
savings of $367 million can be achieved through consolidation of 
workloads and remaining DOD depots. Further, an additional $322 million 
can also be saved by relocating workload to depots that already have 
lower hourly rates.''
  Instead of following the directives of the BRAC commission, the 
President moved to privatize these depots in place, thereby, simply 
stated, wasting taxpayers' money.
  There are things that we should and could do to encourage public-
private partnerships in order to increase efficiency of our maintenance 
structure, but privatization for the sake of politics is not the 
answer. In the next several days the Secretary of Defense will be 
putting out the Quadrennial Defense Review. He will recommend further 
base closings and reforms in our maintenance system in an effort to 
fund badly-needed modernization. Meanwhile, past savings from these 
initiatives are unknown in many cases, and in many cases, overstated.
  Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot proceed with further base closings 
until the BRACC process of 1995 is completed. We must not further waste 
taxpayer money by continuing these bases to remain open.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to 
me. I certainly support his statement.
  I might ask, does the gentleman intend to withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I do intend to withdraw my amendment.

                              {time}  2045


             amendment offered by mr. sam johnson of texas

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas:
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following:


      approval of certain plans for integrated enrollment services

       Sec. 3003. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     any State plan (including any subsequent technical, clerical, 
     and clarifying corrections submitted by the State) relating 
     to the integration of eligibility determinations and 
     enrollment procedures for Federally-funded public health and 
     human services programs administered by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture 
     through the use of automated data processing equipment or 
     services which was submitted by a State to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services and to the Secretary of Agriculture 
     prior to October 18, 1996, and which provides

[[Page H2772]]

     for a request for offers described in subsection (b), is 
     deemed approved and is eligible for Federal financial 
     participation in accordance with the provisions of law 
     applicable to the procurement, development, and operation of 
     such equipment or services.
       (b) A request for offers described in this subsection is a 
     public solicitation for proposals to integrate the 
     eligibility determination functions for various Federally and 
     State funded programs within a State that utilize financial 
     and categorical eligibility criteria through the development 
     and operation of automated data processing systems and 
     services.

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply tries 
to rectify an injustice against the State of Texas, who has been trying 
to resolve a welfare problem for some time and getting no response out 
of the administration.
  Texas, Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin have all worked to meet the 
challenge that Congress and the President issued in last year's welfare 
bill to design innovative welfare systems. Specifically, Texas has 
designed a system that accomplishes two important things:
  First, it consolidates 21 existing programs into one, making it much 
simpler for welfare recipients to receive and collect benefits.
  Second, it saves the taxpayers $10 million a month or about $120 
million a year. Those savings, put back into the welfare system, could 
provide health coverage for an additional 150,000 children a year. But 
it has been 10 months since Texas submitted its proposal, and to this 
day they still have not received a satisfactory answer from the Federal 
Government.
  The administration will not approve the proposal because of pressure 
from the unions, and they will not deny the proposal because it would 
contradict everything that this administration, the President, has said 
about ending welfare as we know it. So the result is that the citizens 
of Texas and every other State needlessly suffer.
  This amendment is necessary because we do not want any other State to 
have to battle and fight like Texas has for the ability to do what is 
best for its citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, Texas and the rest of the Nation's Governors deserve an 
answer from the administration.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I rise in support of the amendment and would say one of the key 
features of the welfare reform legislation that we passed last year was 
the principle that States should be allowed to try innovative 
approaches to improve the welfare system. I would like to take this 
opportunity to encourage the administration to approve the waiver 
allowing Texas to explore the possibility of contracting out part of 
the welfare eligibility system.
  The Texas integrated enrollment system would allow private vendors to 
compete with a public agency for a contract to develop and operate an 
integrated enrollment system. The Texas legislature determined that a 
private contractor working in partnership with the public agency might 
be able to make the transition to an integrated process more 
efficiently than the current structure and achieve savings that could 
be used to assist needy individuals more directly.
  I do not know if that assumption is correct or not. Some of my 
colleagues have raised valid concerns about the impact that 
privatization would have on the welfare system. But we are not debating 
whether or not privatization is a good idea. All we are debating or at 
least all we should be debating is whether Texas should be allowed to 
explore the options of allowing private contractors to administer a 
part of the welfare system.
  It is not possible for anyone to know what impact privatization will 
have until the bids are submitted. I would say to those who oppose 
privatization as well as those who support it, let us wait and see what 
proposals are made for privatization before we jump to a conclusion 
either way.
  I regret this issue has become so politicized. I would urge all 
parties involved to cool our rhetoric and try to work together to find 
a way to allow Texas to explore this option while providing safeguards 
against the concerns we all share.
  I know Governor Bush and Commissioner McKinney are committed to 
finding a constructive solution and believe that the administration is 
willing to work with them as well. I hope they will continue their 
dialogue to find a solution that will allow Texas to move forward with 
this proposal.
  One of the key features of the welfare reform legislation that we 
passed last year was the principle that States should be allowed to try 
innovative approaches to improve the welfare system. I would like to 
take this opportunity to encourage the administration to approve the 
waiver allowing Texas to explore the possibility of contracting out 
part of the welfare eligibility system.
  The Texas integrated enrollment system would allow private vendors to 
compete with public agencies for a contract to develop and operate an 
integrated enrollment system. The Texas Legislature determined that a 
private contractor, working in partnership with a public agency, might 
be able to make the transition to an integrated process more 
efficiently than the current structure and achieve savings that could 
be used to assist needy individuals more directly.
  I don't know if that assumption is correct. Some of my colleagues 
have raised valid concerns about the impact that privatization could 
have on the welfare system. But we are not debating whether or not 
privatization is a good idea. All we are debating--or at least all we 
should be debating--is whether Texas should be allowed to explore the 
options of allowing private contractors to administer a part of the 
welfare system. It is not possible for anyone to know what impact 
privatization will have until the bids are submitted. I would say to 
those who oppose privatization as well as those who support 
privatization: Let's wait and see what proposals are made for 
privatization before we jump to a conclusion either way.
  Injecting some competition into this process may produce a welfare 
system that is better for welfare recipients and taxpayers. I would 
hope that those who oppose privatization will put their energy into 
improving the current system instead of trying to prevent any 
competition.
  Approving the Texas waiver request does not necessarily mean that 
Texas will privatize any part of the welfare system. The Federal 
Government still must approve any contract with a private company 
before any privatization can become final. We should wait until we see 
the proposals from private companies before we decide whether or not 
privatization makes sense. We can't honestly debate the merits of 
privatization until we know the facts about what privatization will 
mean.
  If the bids by private contractors don't adequately address the 
concerns that have been raised about the impact that privatization will 
have on individuals applying for assistance and on the current 
employees, or if the public sector can demonstrate that they can 
administer welfare programs more efficiently and effectively than any 
of the private contractors, I will be the first to argue that we 
shouldn't go forward with privatization.
  I regret that this issue has become so politicized. I would urge all 
parties involved to cool our rhetoric and try to work together to find 
a way to allow Texas to explore this option while providing safeguards 
against the concerns we all share. I know Governor Bush and 
Commissioner McKinney are committed to finding a constructive solution, 
and believe that the administration is willing to work with them as 
well. I hope that they will continue their dialog to find a solution 
that will allow Texas to move forward with this proposal.

[[Page H2773]]

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this issue is of great 
importance to the entire country. When we have the chance to help those 
less fortunate, especially their children, nothing, including political 
interests, should stand in our way.
  Let me tell the gentleman that tomorrow Mr. Erskine Bowles has agreed 
to meet with some of us and try to resolve this question.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
yield--I oppose the gentleman's amendment that relates to seeking a 
waiver for the Texas welfare plan allowing for the computerization and 
privatization of determining eligibility for benefits under the plan.
  First it is a violation to take eligibility determination away from 
the government process. Second, Representatives of the Texas 
legislature feel this plan as proposed is wrong-headed; and if we act 
on this amendment we would be interfering with the legal position that 
State employees should determine eligibility. Third, I will not 
tolerate the dehumanizing of my most needy constituents--mothers, 
children, and the elderly in the 18th Congressional District by taking 
away the ``reasonable human factor'' in determining eligibility. Last 
week the chief of staff for the President agreed to my request to hold 
a meeting on the issue to hear from those of us in the Texas 
Congressional Delegation who oppose this computerization plan. The 
President should disallow this untenable plan.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have heard 
this last colloquy between my colleagues from Texas. Let me give you, 
as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.
  This is not as easy as they would say because the White House has 
given a response. It is not a response that maybe the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, wants or my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Stenholm. But it is a response that is reasoned and it will 
work and it is also a response that I hope the Texas legislature is 
dealing with right now.
  The concern some of us have on this side of the aisle is that we do 
not particularly want a blanket waiver, which is what is being 
requested. We want to have the competition and also what the private 
business can do without determining the eligibility.
  Let me tell my colleagues what this blanket waiver request would do.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, are we not debating the issue of 
whether or not the gentleman is entitled to withdraw his amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. That unanimous-consent request is pending. The 
gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Texas is reserving the right 
to object.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. The gentleman from Texas offered a request to 
withdraw his own amendment, and we are now debating that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is reserving the right to 
object to the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Sam Johnson, to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the Chair. I just wanted to be sure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas could withdraw his objection 
and strike the last word.
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
was not going to take the time of the Congress tonight except my 
colleagues brought a local issue of Texas to the floor of this House. 
That is why I think we should be concerned, because this battle is 
being fought in the Texas legislature right now. And if we believe in 
local control, then let us let that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``1997 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Recovery from Natural Disasters, and 
     for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in 
     Bosnia''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


             amendment no. 4 offered by mr. barr of georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:

     SEC.   . USE OF FUNDS FOR STUDIES OF MEDICAL USE OF 
                   MARIJUANA.

       None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any other Act 
     shall be used now or hereafter in any fiscal year for any 
     study of the medicinal use of marijuana.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana reserves a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the 
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the so-called 
drug czar, from using any money under this legislation to study the 
legalization for so-called medicinal uses of marijuana.
  With the efforts being made to balance the budget, it seems entirely 
appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that we prohibit the administration from 
spending $1 million, which it proposes to do, on a study to evaluate 
the so-called medicinal uses of marijuana. We should not do this at any 
time, but especially not when we have many truly pressing law 
enforcement needs.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would strictly restrict the drug czar 
from using any money on a study of this kind. This amendment is 
consistent with the professed explicit policy of the administration to 
oppose the legalization of marijuana or any other controlled 
substances.
  I quote from the testimony of General McCaffrey. ``We are unalterably 
opposed to the legalization of drugs or the surreptitious legalization 
of drugs under the guise of medicinal uses.''
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this amendment I believe is in keeping with 
the professed policy of this administration to continue its efforts to 
oppose the legalization of marijuana, including so-called legalization 
purporting to have so-called medicinal uses. I urge the adoption of 
this amendment. It simply restricts funding and is in order at this 
time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment. It proposes to change existing law, constitutes legislation 
on our appropriation bill, violates clause 2, rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw that amendment, and I have another one at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       Page 51, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC.     . USE OF FUNDS FOR STUDIES OF MEDICAL USE OF 
                   MARIJUANA.

       None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used 
     for any study of the medicinal use of marijuana.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would simply direct my 
colleague's attention to my remarks previously and note that this 
amendment does essentially the same thing as the previous one, which 
the language was not quite in keeping. This simply provides that none 
of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used for any study of 
the medicinal uses of marijuana.
  As I stated previously, and I would respectfully direct the attention 
of my

[[Page H2774]]

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to my previous remarks, that this 
is in keeping with the professed explicit policy of the administration 
that they are unalterably opposed to the legalization of any drugs 
including for surreptitious purposes under the guise of medicinal use.
  This is an effort, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that $1 million, which 
they may want to use, at least the funds for that purpose, do not come 
out of this legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would simply say there are no moneys in this legislation for any 
studies of the medicinal use of marijuana. Therefore, the amendment has 
absolutely no effect and it is immaterial whether it is adopted or not.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, when this bill came to the floor, it was in shape to be 
supported on a bipartisan basis and it was in shape that was going to 
be signed by the President. At least that was my understanding. Now, 
with the adoption of the Gekas amendment tonight, it is pretty apparent 
that this bill is on a collision course with the President.

                              {time}  2100

  I would simply observe that this body appears to be in such a hurry 
to get in yet another conflict with the White House that it is willing 
to leave the House in a State of total confusion, and the Nation as 
well.
  Three years ago, I remember being told by many Members on the other 
side of the aisle that the Mississippi flood should not be funded until 
every dollar that was expended for that flood was offset in both budget 
authority and outlays. Then the rule seemed to change over the past 
year and a half. Then the rule seemed to be, well, at least it ought to 
be offset only with respect to budget authority. Now, given the action 
which struck some $1.6 billion on a point of order tonight, this bill 
now has a $1.6 billion hole.
  So it seems to me that in addition to putting this bill on a track 
for a veto, which will mean the needed disaster assistance will not be 
delivered, it also leaves us in a total state of confusion about what 
the policy of this House is supposed to be with respect to whether or 
not disasters are supposed to be offset or not. I would simply suggest 
that that gives us two good reasons to vote against this bill.
  I do not understand how we can have a changing standard depending 
upon which natural disaster we are faced with. So it seems to me that 
this bill is in far worse shape than it was when it left here in 
several respects, most certainly because it is not now in balance.
  I did not support the Neumann amendment because I did not want to see 
FEMA funds reduced, but I certainly am in a massive state of confusion 
about what the policy of this House is supposed to be with respect to 
offsets.
  I do know this bill is not going anywhere, but if it does in its 
present form, it would simply mean we will have a significant addition 
to the deficit, and I do not think that is what Members wanted to do 
when they started out today.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we brought to the floor today a very good bill. It was 
paid for, and it provided very necessary and needed relief to the 
citizens of some 35 States that have been devastated by natural 
disasters.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that we have a confused 
situation. Well, I want to clear up the confusion. I want to take this 
bill, as it has been amended by the body, to conference; and I can 
assure Members on both sides of the aisle we will clear up the 
confusion, and when the bill comes back from conference it will be paid 
for, and it will provide the necessary relief for our citizens.
  So, notwithstanding any partisan differences we may have had on the 
floor on one issue or another today, give us the opportunity to go to 
conference and bring the bill back. Members will have a good bill. It 
will be paid for, and before we go off on recess the American people 
will have some relief for the natural disasters that they have faced.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, under the rule the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
LaHood] having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 149, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 244, 
nays 178, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               YEAS--244

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--178

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra

[[Page H2775]]


     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Campbell
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Green
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Neal
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Souder
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Boehlert
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Manton
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Watkins
     Yates

                              {time}  2125

  Mrs. CHENOWETH changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RAHALL and Ms. HARMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________