[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5651-H5663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2160, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Rogan]. The gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Hastings] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding before 
he begins his formal remarks, because it is a little unclear to me and 
to many of the Members regarding the proceedings that are about to 
ensue.
  May I ask the gentleman a couple of questions to clarify how this 
rule that we will be debating differs from the rule under which we were 
operating last evening.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just advise the 
gentlewoman when I finish my remarks, perhaps the questions that she 
has will be answered. If not, then maybe we can engage in a colloquy at 
that time. If she allows me to finish my remarks, I will point out what 
is in the rule, then we can proceed from there.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman point out how this is different from 
the open rule under which we were debating last evening?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will let 
me finish my remarks, then she can ask me, and if there is any question 
specifically, I will be more than happy to respond.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman cover which Members will not be 
allowed to offer amendments under this rule?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think that is pointed out in the rule 
because in the rule all amendments that were preprinted are in order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. That were preprinted. But there were several amendments 
where Members under the open rule would have been permitted to offer 
their amendments but now they cannot. Will the gentleman list which 
amendments those are?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. There are three amendments that have been 
made in order. Taking back my time, if the gentlewoman will let me 
finish my remarks, and then if she has any questions, I will be more 
than happy to respond.
  During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules had 
no intention of reporting a rule on H.R. 2160, a bill making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies. Indeed, the Committee on 
Appropriations requested no rule and brought this bill to the floor as 
a privileged resolution, open to amendment at any point.
  Regrettably the decision by certain Members of this body to engage in 
an extended series of delaying tactics by offering dilatory motions has 
required us to offer this rule governing debate on this bill in order 
that the House may move forward with its legislative business in a 
timely and responsible fashion.
  Accordingly, the Committee on Rules reported last night a modified 
closed rule. The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting 
unauthorized and legislative provisions in an appropriations bill and 
clause 6 of rule XXI prohibiting reappropriations in an appropriations 
bill against provisions of a bill except as otherwise specified in the 
rule.
  The rule provides that no further amendments shall be in order except 
those amendments printed before July 22, 1997 in the Congressional 
Record; the amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 21, 
22 and 23; and the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
pending when the Committee of the Whole rose on July 22, 1997.

[[Page H5652]]

                              {time}  1730

  The rule provides that each amendment made in order shall be 
considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes except as 
otherwise specified in section 2 of the rule, equally divided and 
controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on any postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
  The rule also provides that after a motion that the committee rise 
has been rejected on a day, another such motion on that day may be 
entertained only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, or the majority leader, or their designee.
  The rule provides that after a motion to strike out the enacting 
words of the bill has been rejected, the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole may not entertain another motion during further consideration 
of the bill.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what I said in my opening remarks, that 
the Committee on Rules regrets that the rule now pending before the 
House is, in fact, before us. But it was necessary, and I urge its 
passage so that the House may move forward with the important business 
it must complete prior to the August recess, week after next.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
Washington, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the time. This is a modified 
closed rule which will allow for further consideration of H.R. 2160, 
which is a bill making appropriations for agriculture, rural 
development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies in the 
fiscal year 1998. The rule was opposed by the minority during the 
Committee on Rules consideration because the rule denies House Members 
full and fair debate over the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, hunger and malnutrition are a constant threat to 
hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and despite the 
riches of our Nation, millions of Americans face hunger on a regular 
basis. We have made many inroads to reducing hunger and malnutrition, 
but we can do more. The bill provides funding for lifeline programs 
that feed hungry people both in the United States and abroad, and I 
want to commend the members of the Committee on Appropriations for 
crafting this bipartisan bill which supports adequate funding for many 
of these programs.
  However, I believe this bill can be improved. Therefore I will be 
supporting an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
[Mrs. Clayton] and the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] to 
increase funding for the food stamp program, and I also support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] which 
would increase funding for the WIC Program which provides nutritional 
food for poor mothers and their children. These two amendments are 
consistent with the goals of H.R. 1507 which is the Hunger Has a Cure 
Act of 1997, and I am among the 86 cosponsors of this bipartisan bill 
to reduce hunger in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, as important as this bill is, the rule we are now 
considering is unnecessary, it is arbitrary, and it is overly 
restrictive. The rule is unnecessary because the bill can be brought up 
without a rule, and, in fact, it was brought up last week for general 
debate, and the amending process is already underway.
  The bill contains no extraneous or controversial riders, it complies 
with the rules of the House, but the rule is arbitrary because it makes 
in order only those amendments that were printed in the Congressional 
Record before July 22, with four exceptions. Members were not given the 
customary advanced notice that the Committee on Rules would restrict 
the rule. In fact, the Committee on Rules was suddenly called into 
session late last night, making it difficult for Members to testify 
about the rule.
  This rule is also overly restrictive. By permitting only those 
amendments printed in the Congressional Record, Members may not offer 
new striking amendments to eliminate what they consider wasteful or 
unnecessary spending, and this process is an important part of almost 
all the appropriation bills.
  And furthermore, the time limits for debate on the amendments are too 
restrictive. We all know about the series of events that led up to this 
rule, but there is another way to avoid the continued breakdown between 
the majority and the minority parties. I regret that by forcing the 
rule on the House, the majority party chose not to negotiate but 
escalate the confrontation. The result is more than denying House 
Members of both parties full and fair debate over the agriculture 
appropriation bill. It is a deep mistrust between the parties.
  I must oppose the rule, as the Members in the minority on the 
Committee on Rules will do, and with this statement of opposition I 
make the plea for leaders of both parties to seek negotiation, not 
confrontation, in resolving our difficulties. I would urge colleagues 
to vote against the rule and against the policy to tighten debate 
restrictions as a response to misunderstandings between the parties.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  I support this rule. I think it is unfortunate we must have a rule at 
this time, but under the circumstances we need to have this rule. I 
like to think of this as a very sweet rule, and, speaking about sweet 
rules, one of the amendments made in order is 30 minutes of debate time 
on a bill, on an amendment to reform the sugar program in this country. 
It is only incremental change in the sugar program, but it is very 
important.
  Last year when I tried to present a sugar repeal program, 
unfortunately I had a very difficult time getting a rule made in order 
that would allow that amendment under freedom to farm, so I am very 
pleased that it was made in order today. Even though I prefer more than 
30 minutes, I think 30 minutes will give us enough time for both the 
proponents and the opponents of this program because the sugar program 
is a very complex program, it is a cartel-type arrangement in this 
country where the price of sugar is kept at twice the world price of 
sugar so that in Canada, Mexico, Australia, other countries that have a 
free market of sugar, sugar sells for half the price it does in the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been that way for years. It was not reformed. In 
the freedom to farm bill last year, there was no change in the sugar 
program of any significance, just minor changes, and that is 
unfortunate because last year's freedom to farm bill was truly historic 
legislation. We really did make some meaningful changes in the farm 
programs of this country, but because the fact sugar was not changed, 
we are not getting full credit for all the reforms that were put 
through last year.
  This cartel arrangement works such that we cannot grow enough sugar 
to supply the demand in the United States so we must import sugar into 
the United States, and what the cartel is allowed to do with the 
Federal Government is restrict imports. By restricting the imports, we 
constrain the supply of sugar, thus the demand kept; demand is greater 
than the supply, and the price is forced up, and that is what happens 
with this program.
  And what I am proposing in this legislation and this amendment is the 
incremental change which is only addressing the nonrecourse loan, only 
the nonrecourse loan which does not go to farmers, it goes to 
processors, and what it does is it gives the incentive to the Federal 
Government. Because the nonrecourse nature, the Federal Government does 
not want to repossess sugar, they want to get paid for their sugar, the 
sugar loans. So the idea is let us do away with the nonrecourse part of 
the loan.
  The sugar program is a bad program for consumers, it is bad for jobs, 
it is

[[Page H5653]]

bad for taxes, it is bad for the environment, and that is the reason we 
need to have some incremental changes, not total repeal. It is only 
addressing the issue of the nonrecourse loan.
  The consumers get ripped off because of the cost of almost $1.4 
billion a year, according to a General Accounting Office report. The 
jobs, because we pay such a high price for sugar, we cannot compete 
with companies, for example, in Canada. The classic illustration is 
Bob's Candy in Albany, GA, largest candy cane company in the United 
States, but the candy canes which use a lot of sugar can be produced a 
lot cheaper in Canada and a lot of other countries because we have to 
pay this outrageously high price for sugar.
  The taxpayers get hit because of major purchases of food. It is 
estimated to be $90 million a year. We pay more as Federal taxpayers 
because of all the food purchases in the programs in the veterans area 
and the military and such.
  And then we have the environment, environment so dear to us in 
Florida because of the Everglades, and the impact of the sugar program 
on the Everglades. What is happening is we are having to buy a lot of 
the land in the Everglades to help preserve the Everglades. In fact, 
this year's appropriation bills has $300 million for the Everglades. A 
lot of that is used to buy the land of the sugar companies.
  And so a recent report from the administration shows we are going to 
spend an extra $100 million of taxpayers' money buying land because we 
have inflated the price, we have inflated the price of that land used 
for sugar, and we are growing far more sugar than this land can support 
down there.
  I think I look forward to having a full debate on that issue, and I 
appreciate the opportunity, and I hope my colleagues will support this 
rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, since last Friday, this House has been in a 
virtual stall on appropriations, and a lot of Members in both parties 
are asking why. I want to take this opportunity to try to explain why I 
think that is happening.
  On the Committee on Appropriations on each of these bills except one, 
we have worked out a very effective bipartisan working relationship 
where we may have had very strong differences of opinion on all of 
those bills, but with the exception of the legislative appropriation 
bill, we have had tremendous bipartisan cooperation and goodwill.
  The problem is that when those bills have moved out of the Committee 
on Appropriations, they have then gone to the Committee on Rules, and 
the Committee on Rules has imposed a partisan straightjacket on the 
debate for those bills, and it has in the process turned those 
bipartisan products into partisan war zones.
  Now I greatly regret that, but what has happened is that, first of 
all, the Committee on Rules has systematically attached nongermane 
amendments to be offered by Republican Members of the House, and at the 
same time they have systematically then denied alternatives to those 
amendments when the request was made to put those amendments in order 
by the Democratic managers of each of those bills.
  It happened first to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], then it 
happened to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], then it happened 
to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Now that unfairness has been recognized on the majority side of the 
aisle. We have had two Appropriations subcommittee chairs who have told 
me personally that they prefer to go to the floor with an open rule 
rather than going to the Committee on Rules because they, in their 
words, ``did not want the Committee on Rules to screw up bipartisan 
bills.'' And we have in the case of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, for instance, we 
have had an excellent bipartisan bill produced. We have had the Chair 
of that foreign operations subcommittee perfectly willing to take a 
bill to the floor without a rule to avoid the attachment of extremely 
divisive, nongermane authorization language to that bill, and he has 
been supported in that effort by those of us on this side of the aisle.
  So there have been no differences in working relationships between 
members of the committee. But because the Committee on Rules has 
imposed a partisan grip on these bipartisan bills, we have been engaged 
in a protest to try to get the Committee on Rules to change its mind.
  Now instead of responding to that in the way that a majority party 
has responsibility to respond, by trying to work out those differences, 
what has happened instead is that the majority leader has evidently 
chosen to impose an even more draconian rule on this bill. As a result, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] will be able to debate a 
major tobacco amendment for exactly 5 minutes. The gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse], who has a legitimate amendment, would not be 
allowed to offer the amendment at all. And the committee will even be 
precluded from the traditional ability of any Member of this House to 
strike spending items in the bill. That is so out of line that the 
Taxpayers for Common Sense oppose the passage of this rule, as I 
understand it.
  Now there is not much we, the minority, can do to persuade those in 
the Committee on Rules and in the majority party leadership to 
reconsider this rule. What I would say to each and every rank-and-file 
Member on both sides of the aisle is that all we are asking is that the 
Committee on Rules respect the bipartisan work which has been done, 
night and day, by virtually every subcommittee on the Appropriations 
Committee. Let us work our way through to common ground. That is what 
is being prevented by the actions of the Committee on Rules. I deeply 
regret it, because it turns this House into a needlessly partisan 
battle zone.
  We all have an obligation to our parties to define differences.

                              {time}  1745

  But after those differences are defined, we also have an obligation 
to try to overcome those differences and find a resolution on behalf of 
all the taxpayers we represent.
  In my humble judgment, the Committee on Rules is continuing to get in 
the way of that obligation and that process. Until it ceases to do 
that, we will have this needless dragging out of the process, which 
does neither party any good and certainly does not serve the interest 
of taxpayers.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] may be allowed to proceed for 5 more minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Rogan]. The time is controlled by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say, a lot of us regret being here for different 
reasons. I would agree with the gentleman that the Committee on 
Appropriations has worked very closely in trying to work these things 
out on a bipartisan basis, but unfortunately, the reason we are here is 
because of tactics that were by others, starting last Friday, because 
on a bipartisan basis this bill was supposed to have been done last 
Friday. Unfortunately, it did not because there were numerous motions 
to rise, which slowed down the process. We had the same process 
yesterday.
  Because the House wants to complete its business before the August 
recess, and I know Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle share 
that, as do we, we felt, regrettably, regrettably, that we had to have 
a rule, which is one of the responsibilities of the Committee on Rules, 
in order to expedite the process. But we made every amendment that was 
offered, that was printed, in order, plus three others.
  So I regret, as does the gentleman, that this happens. We just come 
at it from different ways. We want to expedite the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished associate, colleague, 
and friend, the gentleman from Washington, a member of the Committee on 
Rules, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that we do not have the unanimous-
consent request approved, which would be contrary to the rules. Can the 
Speaker

[[Page H5654]]

confirm that to me, that we do not have a unanimous-consent request for 
an additional 5 minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GOSS. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am here rising in support of this 
rule. I have listened very closely to what the distinguished gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has to say.
  This rule provides ample debate on all amendments and major issues in 
the bill that were pending as of yesterday. I realize that leaves a few 
out. But I want to make sure that Members are clear what has happened 
to this bill.
  Simply, this bill has been hijacked because of a series of unrelated 
issues and agendas. I think really the underlying question seems to be, 
who is in the majority in the House of Representatives. I think the 
majority is trying to operate under bipartisanship, but I do not think 
the majority is prepared to let the minority hijack the majority.
  The majority, in the great spirit of our former colleague, Mr. 
Natcher, and I should say bipartisan spirit, attempted to bring forward 
the fiscal year 1998 agriculture appropriations bill without a rule, 
actually letting Members offer amendments and conduct debate under the 
standing rules of the House. Some of our newer Members may not be aware 
of the fact, but actually it is within the regular order of the House 
to move appropriations bills without a rule. There was a time I guess 
when it was done. I commend Chairman Skeen for his hard work in 
crafting a bill that could come forward under what was standard 
practice in this House.
  Unfortunately, in this case we soon found that some Members had 
different plans for the proceedings on the floor, unrelated, as it 
seems, to the bill; that they felt it more important to use the 
agriculture bill to make points about a larger set of issues that in my 
view really have nothing to do with the issues in the agriculture 
spending bill. We heard as much from those Members today during 1-
minute remarks on the floor, when one of our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle informed us of the ``bigger picture relating to the 
supposed rights of ranking members.''
  We believe very much in cooperation, goodwill, yes. That is what we 
are trying to do in a bipartisan way. But special rights that somehow 
are coming forth for ranking members? This is something that is not 
provided for. We do not know about that. If there was a proposal to do 
something like that I would suggest that an offer be made. But again, I 
do not believe that it is fair to say that some special rights are 
being denied. It seems to me that perhaps a hijacking of the bill is 
going on under the false flag, in this case, of bipartisanship.
  I must say that I, too, am disappointed that we had to bring the 
agriculture bill under a rule. I would have preferred not to. It would 
be my hope that Members could conduct an open and unstructured debate 
on the substance of our national agriculture programs in a responsible 
way, without getting sidetracked or bogged down, allowing for the 
completion in an orderly manner.
  We have tobacco, peanuts, sugar, and a whole bunch of other stuff out 
there we are all interested in and want to get to, not to say the fact 
that we have domestic situations and social disorders in our country 
that are affected by this. It is unfair to keep these people waiting, 
just like it was unfair to keep the flood victims waiting. Now we are 
being held up by what is clearly a political problem on the other side 
of the aisle.
  We saw that this could not be the case in the environment, that we 
have to go forward in a bipartisan manner, so sometimes, as happens in 
the House, the Committee on Rules, which is provided for in the House 
rules, properly stepped in to restore order to the process.
  Any Members who are offended by the rule must first look to their own 
decisions and actions over the past several days for an explanation of 
how we have gotten to this point. The House has work to do on the 
Nation's business and it is vital business. We are not going to let the 
deliberative process be derailed. The majority's responsibility is to 
proceed. Dilatory tactics are provided for in the procedures. We all 
know it. There are ways to trump dilatory tactics, and there are ways 
to expose dilatory tactics. Those are provided for as well.
  I hope Members are going to support this rule. Regrettably, we had to 
come forward with it. But the majority is bringing forth this rule to 
exercise the overall priority responsibility we have not to become 
bogged down in nonsense by those who disagree with our politics or want 
to derail our responsible agenda.
  Yes, there are casualties, yes, there are consequences for actions, 
and I would suggest that the gentlemen or the gentlewomen who are left 
out in the process go to those on the other side of the aisle who have 
caused us to take this step of restoring order to the rule in this 
case, because therein lies their problem.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may state her inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. When the gentleman from Washington [Mr.  Hastings] made 
his opening statement, Mr. Speaker, he granted me the right to ask me a 
few questions. When he completed his remarks, he called on other 
Members. I wonder if he would be willing to answer the few questions 
that I have at this point. Would that be appropriate?
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. That is not a 
proper parliamentary inquiry. The gentlewoman certainly has the right 
to make inquiry if the gentleman would yield time when he is 
controlling time.
  At this time, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.  Hall] is recognized.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be allowed to yield time to me or answer my questions at this 
point?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is already controlled by both the 
majority and the minority. At this time the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.  
Hall] is recognized.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.  Hall] is 
recognized.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am being silenced, just as our 
amendments are being silenced here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.  Kaptur] will 
suspend.
  Ms. KAPTUR. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  At this time, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.  Hall] is recognized. 
Following that, the gentleman from Washington [Mr.  Hastings] will be 
recognized. He controls time for the majority. If the gentlewoman 
wishes to inquire of the gentleman from Washington [Mr.  Hastings] when 
he is recognized, she may do so to see if he wishes to yield time.
  With that having been said, if the gentlewoman has a legitimate 
parliamentary inquiry, she may state it at this time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want the opportunity to engage with the 
gentleman, and I will wait until after the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.  
Hall] makes his statement. Then I will ask for the opportunity for the 
gentleman to speak to answer my questions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr.  Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms.  Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
unfair rule. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I am angry. The 
Committee on Rules passed this rule late last night with virtually no 
notice to the members of the Committee on Rules. In fact, I did not 
really know about it until this morning on my office answering machine, 
so I was not present, nor were the members of the committee of 
jurisdiction, the appropriators.
  I want my colleagues to know that this is a truly extraordinary rule. 
Buried within it is language that limits the rights of the minority to 
move that the committee rise, so Members can no

[[Page H5655]]

longer use that procedure to protest the majority's repeated failure to 
make in order key amendments on majority bills. I am willing to stand 
corrected, Mr. Speaker, but I recall no time as a majority member on 
the Committee on Rules when we made a rule that restricted the 
minority's right to procedural motions.
  As the former minority leader, Robert Michel, once said, ``Procedure 
has not simply become more important than substance; it has, through a 
strange alchemy, become the substance of our deliberations.''
  The Committee on Rules has fallen into a pattern that does not bode 
well for the future of the democratic process within this House. This 
Congress is supposed to operate under procedures that allow for full 
and fair debate of the legislation we consider, and that permit all 
sides to be heard. But instead, this committee has repeatedly refused 
to permit Members, not just Members but ranking members, to offer key 
amendments. While it may not be written in the rules that all ranking 
members may have amendments, it has certainly been a courtesy of this 
House.
  This has happened in several instances in this Congress. The 
Committee on Rules refused to make in order an amendment to the defense 
authorization bill regarding the B-2 bombers that was presented by the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. Indeed, 
they took off the name of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
and stuck it onto another amendment, which he objected to strenuously. 
They relented later, as I pointed out, but they put his name on.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] who is trying so hard to speak 
here today, the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, had 
an amendment to restore WIC funding which was taken away from her 
altogether and given to another Member of the House, but later 
reversed.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], an august Member of this 
House and a ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, just 
recently was disallowed offering an amendment to the Interior 
appropriations bill, where he has served with distinction for a number 
of years, to restore the NEA funding. And just last week the Committee 
on Rules refused to make in order an amendment regarding international 
family planning to the foreign operations appropriations requested by 
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, the ranking member 
on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  This is certainly more, Mr. Speaker, than a pattern. The majority's 
determination to subvert the right of the minority to offer these 
amendments is not a matter of procedural maneuvering, it is 
substantive. It is not merely discourteous, it is undemocratic.
  I might add that the majority's actions are profoundly disrespectful 
to these ranking members, who have earned through their years of 
service in this institution the right to offer an amendment. But, in 
the middle of the night last night, the majority apparently decided 
that even cutting off the minority's ability to offer key amendments to 
legislation was not enough.
  Now with this rule, not only are they limiting the amendments that we 
can offer, but our right to offer procedural motions on the floor is 
limited as well. In other words, not only can we not offer amendments 
that we need, but now we cannot even use the procedural motions to 
protest the procedures. We are effectively muzzled. I urge my 
colleagues in the strongest possible terms to defeat this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly I have all respect for the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Hastings] as well as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], as well as all of the members of the Committee on Rules. 
Sometimes we get so caught up in personalities, and we get so caught up 
in passions, that we lose sight of where we are going.
  I happen to agree with the minority. I think they should have had a 
different rule. I was there for most of the time during the Committee 
on Rules. I saw what transpired. I saw what transpired in the back when 
the Greenwood amendment was presented in a different fashion from the 
manner in which the gentlewoman from California wanted. So what? Big 
deal. It disappoints her. So why should she not, as the ranking member 
of this committee, who has worked in a bipartisan fashion to establish 
a bill that could be passed by this House, and this is a very difficult 
bill to handle under the best of circumstances. So I have no quarrel 
with the gentlemen, and I have no quarrel with them. I think she has a 
right to be heard on an issue that she is tremendously interested in.
  Where are we at this point? We are at a stalemate. Now they are 
disappointed. They think that they should have the right to be heard. 
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 10 minutes. We are not 
talking about a 3-day debate. She wanted the opportunity to present her 
amendment and she wanted 10 minutes to talk about it. So, big deal? We 
have wasted 10 hours because of the controversy.

                              {time}  1800

  I have no fault with the Committee on Rules. I do not care when you 
bring my bill up. There is not a single person in Alabama that is going 
to lose a single night's sleep if we do not pass the foreign aid bill. 
So I do not care whether we pass one or not.
  The administration has sent me a request and they have said, Sonny, 
why do you not give us about, they wanted $16 billion, and I crafted a 
bill and convinced the Democrats that we are not going to give them $16 
billion. We are only going to give them $12 billion. We are going to 
cut last year's appropriation. We are going to be below the budget 
allocation. We are going to be $4 billion below the President's 
request. And lo and behold, I think that is a pretty good day's work. 
The people of Alabama would like that.
  So now we are involved in a controversy that I have no jurisdiction 
over. I sit on the floor sometimes and I listen to the chairmen of the 
authorizing committees chastising the Committee on Appropriations. What 
is wrong with you idiots, they say. How in the world can you possibly 
put authorization language in your bill. Maybe they are right. We ought 
not be doing that.
  So I tried to comply with those requests. And now here I am, faced 
with the proposition where the chairman of the authorizing committee is 
insisting that I pass authorization language. I do not want to pass 
authorization language. I am not an authorizer. I am an appropriator. I 
think we should be debating the appropriation bill.
  There is nothing wrong with this ag bill. I do not know of too many 
Members in the House that are disappointed with the ag bill. I think it 
is going to pass by a pretty good vote. Why do we not bring it up and 
pass it? If there is that much controversy on my bill, why do we not 
just bring up my bill without a rule? I do not care whether I have a 
rule or not.
  I respect what you all are doing, respect why you are doing it, but I 
really do not care. If you do not want to bring my bill up until 
September, I do not care either. I will go home and tell the people 
from Alabama that I have not given foreign aid any money. They are not 
going to throw me out of Congress for that, I will assure you. But we 
must work in a harmonious situation in order to resolve this dilemma 
that we are in.
  I would suggest that rather than go through all of these dilatory 
tactics, rather than cause further disharmony between the two parties 
here in the House, that we bring up the appropriations bills, that we 
have general debate. There is no problem on the rule or no problem with 
anybody in the House that I know of on general debate.
  We give every Member the opportunity to stand and talk about the 
bill. And when we get done with general debate we rise. What is wrong 
with that? I do not know anything wrong with it. I think it certainly 
would be a response and a favorable response from the minority side if 
we would do that. It

[[Page H5656]]

would be a step in the direction of trying to create some harmony in 
the House.
  But once again, I am a team player. I am a Republican. I am in the 
majority now. You all have to remember that. You have to understand 
that. I am going to go along with my leaders on this side.
  But I am just here to say to my leaders on this side that I think 
there might be a smoother way to do this. If we work out a solution to 
this, if we can just delay all of the controversial part of the foreign 
operations bill, then that is the way we ought to proceed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend, you are 
talking about an issue that is controversial and it is very, very 
important before this body. It is a question of the pro-life position 
and the pro-choice position. It is extremely important to those that 
carry strong feelings about it on either side. You have those on your 
side that feel the same.
  Now, when it comes to my good friend the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], when she came before our committee, see if I can recall 
exactly what she said, and I would then ask her to go upstairs, if she 
would care to, and examine the record, but I recall her saying 
specifically, If, however, the Rules Committee chooses to make 
legislative amendments in order, I would request that I would be 
allowed or someone would be allowed, listen to that now, I would be 
allowed or someone would be allowed to offer a perfecting amendment to 
the Smith amendment, in particular, again, if Mr. Smith's amendment 
imposes the Mexico City language.
  I recall saying to her specifically, The question of abortion, 
however, will have to be dealt with. If it is dealt with, if Chris 
Smith, if he has an amendment that is made in order, certainly there 
will be an amendment for the alternative viewpoint made in order as 
well.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] I recall saying, Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
  That is what happened.
  Now, we did exactly as we were requested, trying to be as fair as we 
could to both sides. I have attempted to do that at all times in the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, I will not yield right now.
  Then the question arises, I happen to be over in my office for the 
first time all week trying to sign some mail and take care of some 
constituent business and I hear my good friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] saying this is the first time ever that the 
ranking members have ever been denied the ability to offer an 
amendment.
  Well, I have had staff go back halfway through the 103d Congress, 
during 1993, 1994, and 1995. On the Campaign Finance Reform Act, no 
ranking Republican was allowed to offer his substitute. On the National 
Voter Registration Act, no ranking Republican, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], was allowed to offer his substitute. On the 
Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act, Mr. Fish, ranking member, was 
not allowed. And it goes on and on and on.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, I will not yield until I am through, and then the 
gentlewoman can get some time and I will be glad to respond.
  We have made a vow in the Committee on Rules for the last 3 years 
that we will be at all times more fair to the minority than we were 
ever treated when we were in the minority. I sat there for 10 years 
suffering under that kind of arrogance and, believe me, nobody feels 
more for the minority than I do.
  I am going to insist that when we have amendments filed with the 
Committee on Rules that we are going to make in order Republican 
amendments and we are going to make in order Democrat amendments and 
try and be as fair as we can. That is my job, even though I am 
criticized by some in my own party and some in your party for doing 
that because they want the rules closed down on both sides of the 
aisle. We are going to try to keep them as open and fair as we possibly 
can.
  I would say to the gentleman, he has a right to stand up here and 
defend the Committee on Appropriations. But the gentleman knows that 
this issue on abortion cuts both ways. It is terribly important. I will 
assure the gentleman it is going to be dealt with in this piece of 
legislation or this piece of legislation is never going to see the 
light of day. The gentleman can count on it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond briefly to my 
good friend and colleague from New York [Mr. Solomon], just following 
up on what the distinguished chairman of our committee has said, rather 
than go backward, Mr. Speaker, rather than talk about what happened and 
what did not happen, I think what our distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] wants to do is move forward. Our 
bill is ready. The appropriation bill is ready to go on the floor.
  The discussions and the differences of opinion have to do with 
authorizing language. Our distinguished chairman is just saying, we 
have a bipartisan solution. Let us move it. Let us make that 
determination now and let us do it. Otherwise, if we do not resolve 
this now, we are going to be having great differences of opinion for 
the next week and not get our business done.
  I would just respectfully suggest and request of the chairman that 
either we bring this bill to the floor without a rule or that the 
leadership has the responsibility to put a rule together.
  I would say to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss], the issue is not the agriculture bill. The issue is that 
the Republican leadership can put together a rule in a bipartisan way 
to move the foreign operations bill forward.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair 
how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogan). The gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Hastings] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting, 
anybody that has ever taken their first drag off a cigarette knows they 
can make you gag, but I never thought that the power of that cigarette 
would force the entire Committee on Rules to gag the House of 
Representatives.
  It is not just tobacco that is being gagged here today. It is also 
the tactics that we have seen in just the last 20 minutes or so. We 
heard a very reasonable presentation by the gentleman from Alabama on 
what it seems to me is a fair and evenhanded way of handling the kind 
of disputes that we are elected to have out here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives.
  There is an issue pertaining to abortion. Have it out on the House 
floor. Let Members talk about what is dividing them. Let us come 
together and vote on those issues but not have the rules of the House 
of Representatives turned into mush up in some back room and take away 
the intent of the individuals that offer amendments.
  All this comes down to is not all the yakking that we are hearing on 
the floor of the House of Representatives. What it comes down to is the 
fact that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] had an amendment 
that was changed in the Committee on Rules and was told to her was the 
same amendment that she had initially offered. That is all that this 
comes down to.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. No, I will not yield.
  I want to come back to what I came down on the House floor to 
discuss, which is the fact that we have got courageous Members of 
Congress like the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] who have come

[[Page H5657]]

out here on this ag bill to try to shut down the tobacco lobby once and 
for all, to try to deal with the fact that there are 3,000 kids that 
are going to be addicted to smoking today because we are unable to 
defeat the tobacco lobby. We are not even able to have a discussion 
about the power of the tobacco lobby here in the Congress of the United 
States because if we did so, maybe that would be exposed and maybe we 
would actually take action to stop smoking in this country, at least 
stop subsidizing those individuals that are making money off of this 
product which is killing so many of our children.
  It is time that we had an open debate, that we shut down smoking. 
Stand up for the Members that have the courage to shut down smoking in 
America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say on the record 
what happened in the Committee on Rules with the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] since she is not here to speak for herself. The 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] did come to the Committee on 
Rules and say, if the Smith amendment was made in order she would like 
another amendment made in order. She did not have one of her own. I 
want to be clear on that. She did not offer an amendment.
  However, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] believed that 
the amendment that would be offered was one put in by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood]. The Greenwood amendment was then 
changed and another amendment was written by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell] and I believe the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], after the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] had left the room.
  Recognizing that this was not the amendment the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] was talking about, I then requested that the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] be allowed to put forth the 
Greenwood amendment as the ranking member and that was denied.
  So I want to have the record perfectly straight on what happened in 
the Committee on Rules that evening.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I just want to say something, because I have served in this House for 
15 years. I say to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings], I 
never would have done to you what you just did to me. You said to me 
that you would yield me time and then you did not do it, as a 
representative of your committee. It made me extremely angry that you 
said it to me twice. It is right in that record.
  I am the ranking member on this committee. I have to say no to our 
Democrats that cannot bring amendments up because of the rule that you 
have filed. I have to say no to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse]. I have to say no to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn]. I 
have to say no to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]. I have to say no 
to Members who are not going to be allowed to bring their amendments to 
the floor.
  I have a responsibility to the Members on my side just like you have 
a responsibility to the Members on your side. And I am very angry. I am 
glad the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is here on the floor 
because I do not think you are calling the shots here. I think they are 
being called above your pay grade in this House by the leadership. And 
when I, as a ranking member, was denied the right to offer my WIC 
amendment and it was given to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
on your side of the aisle, he is not even on our committee, and I have 
the experience, I thought, well maybe I am a woman, they kind of 
ignored me. Then you did it to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Interior and now it is being done 
to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.

                              {time}  1815

  So it is a pattern. I can recognize a pattern. And I am embarrassed 
for the other side of the aisle as a party that they will not allow us 
to conduct decent debate on this floor. So I stand here today being 
sorry for them.
  I have never said this, maybe three times on the floor in my 15 years 
have I really felt outraged, and I am sorry that I have to say this to 
the gentleman in public, but my feelings are hurt. I would never have 
done to the gentleman what he has just done to me. And it is in that 
Record.
  So I want to say to my good friend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] and to my good friend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] and now to myself, we are all in the same boat. I do not know 
whether it is the Speaker, [Mr. Gingrich], I do not know if it is the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], I do not know who is doing this, but 
we have always brought the Agriculture bill to the floor in a 
bipartisan way. We have agreed. It has been usually under an open rule. 
We have had a good debate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would say to the gentleman that nobody yielded to me; I 
refuse to yield to him, and that is the problem with the way things are 
operating in this House today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, 
and I would like to respond to my friend from Ohio.
  The gentlewoman asked me very respectfully if she had some questions, 
if I would respond, and I said, and I remember saying this because I 
did not want to use my time, that if she wanted to ask me a question on 
her time I would be more than happy to respond if my remarks, if my 
remarks regarding the rule did not answer all her questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I have an 
amendment that is a very important amendment, very important not only 
to this House but very important to young people all across America. It 
is a bipartisan amendment that gives the FDA the resources it needs to 
effectively inform retailers of what they need to be doing; namely, 
carding potential consumers of tobacco.
  Now, I had 24 Members who were ready, willing, and able to come up 
and speak on this particular amendment. And after this rule came out of 
the committee at 11:30 last night, I only get 5 minutes to try to 
discuss this very, very important and critical amendment.
  We are at a critical and historic juncture in this country on 
tobacco. At the Federal level we have a unique opportunity to protect 
our children from nicotine addiction and tobacco-related disease. There 
is no better time to act than now.
  Attorneys general from all across America have been negotiating for 
months an effort to try to give the FDA the regulation and the teeth 
they need in order to protect America's children. All across America 
there has been a dialog in the health care community about the effects 
of tobacco on children, and here we are with the unique opportunity to 
fund the FDA, to help them protect America's children, and we do not 
want to debate. We give 5 minutes to an issue of critical importance.
  This particular rule is an outrage. No Member in good conscience 
should vote for this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which 
unfairly curtails debate in the House of Representatives.
  I have worked hard on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies and at 
the full Committee on Appropriations to make a strong case for strong 
measures to curb smoking amongst our children.

[[Page H5658]]

This is about saving lives. That is what the Meehan amendment is all 
about.
  I am disturbed that we are not going to be able to have a full and 
open debate about this issue in the people's House. The American people 
deserve to have a debate on the Meehan amendment, a debate about 
whether or not to back efforts to prevent our kids from using tobacco 
or, in fact, to provide more money and more commissions to crop 
insurance agents that is needed.
  This is wrong. Our current system clearly is not working to keep 
cigarettes and chewing tobacco out of the hands of children. Selling 
tobacco products to minors is illegal in 50 States. Nonetheless, 13 
studies showed that children can buy tobacco 67 percent of the time in 
this country. Three thousand young people under the age of 18 will 
begin to smoke each day; a third of them will die. They will join the 
ranks of the 400,000 people who die each year from tobacco related 
illnesses.
  Passing the Meehan amendment, fully funding the anti-tobacco program 
outlined by the FDA, will ensure that the FDA can enforce laws against 
tobacco sales to minors, also to conduct the needed outreach and 
education efforts. This has got to be a priority for all of us.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Meehan amendment, let us provide 
the $34 million to prevent young people from starting to smoke.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed 
rule which would severely restrict debate on several very important and 
complex issues.
  I will be offering an amendment shortly to eliminate federally 
subsidized crop insurance for tobacco. It makes no sense that we spend 
almost $200 million each year on programs designed to prevent the 
terrible health effects of smoking and then we turn around and spend 
millions of dollars more to encourage the growth of tobacco. My 
amendment will simply make our tobacco policy more consistent.
  Now, whether Members support my amendment or oppose it, this rule 
denies all of us the right to debate the issue fully.
  I will be the first to admit that some of my very good colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle disagree with me on the issue of tobacco 
subsidies, and many more of my colleagues agree with me. All of us 
deserve to be heard on this matter, but few of us will have that 
opportunity.
  Last year we spent more than 7 hours having a thorough debate on 
these issues. This year we will spend a fraction of that. There are new 
amendments, new facts, new Members that deserve much more than this 
rule gives them. I have a list of more than 25 Members that want to 
speak on this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, no matter whether they 
support or oppose the amendments, to oppose this restrictive rule. 
These issues deserve to be heard and to get a full hearing.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unfair rule. 
Before stating my reason for that let me just commend, first, the 
chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], because this 
action is not a part of his doing. He has been fair and open and 
cooperative, and certainly he has been a friend to the farmer.
  I also want to recommend and commend not only the dignity but the 
depth of our subcommittee's ranking minority member, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], for her persistence and her independence in 
standing up to unfairness.
  Now, there are differences on the amendment that the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Lowey] will put, but I still think we need more time for 
this. Some of us know that when these amendments are considered, 15 
minutes is not sufficient time to hear the pros or the cons.
  I happen to believe it is unfair, unfair to take the great decision 
about whether children should smoke or whether that is a public policy, 
and address it to the American farmer. That is a cheap shot. The other 
side may feel good about that, but that is not the way to do public 
policy. We are really making the most vulnerable people in the society 
responsible for all the acts we should hold others responsible for.
  That amendment will have nothing to do about keeping kids from 
smoking. It will have absolutely nothing to do about morality or 
mortality. The death of those 400,000 people should be addressed, but 
keeping insurance from small tobacco farmers simply means we remove the 
opportunity for them to make a decent living.
  If we want to make it illegal for them to smoke, that is a different 
question, but my colleagues I cannot let our consciences go 
unchallenged. We are doing nothing to keep children from smoking. We 
will do nothing to end the great mortality that is caused by smoking.
  So if we are to have this discussion, hopefully we will be fair. The 
question should be about fairness and access to opportunity.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HEFNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogan). The gentleman may state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, is a motion to adjourn in order at this 
time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, there has already been one motion 
pending the rule.
  Mr. HEFNER. Was that in this rule that we are considering now, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. HEFNER. But this rule we are considering now is not passed yet.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There was previously a motion to adjourn 
once this rule was brought up, so a motion to adjourn at this time is 
not in order.
  Under clause 4 of rule XI, there may only be one motion to adjourn 
during the pendency of a rule. There was previously a motion made to 
adjourn. That motion was defeated. So a motion at this time would not 
be in order.
  Mr. HEFNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 5 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair 
gag rule.
  This rule was written in the middle of the night, midway through 
debate on this bill, and it blocks me and others from offering 
amendments that the Subcommittee of Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations had known about for over a week.
  The amendment I planned to offer would have saved the American 
taxpayer over $11 million. It would have reduced a sweetheart deal with 
the Western livestock industry and the animal damage control program. 
We were told originally that no preprinting of the amendment was 
required, yet this rule, which happened last night, has barred any 
amendment that was not preprinted on Monday or earlier. That is great. 
It means that as of last night at midnight, when Members first heard of 
this rule, they were already too late to comply with the rule.
  The argument for this gag rule is that Members are merely being 
obstructionist in offering frivolous amendments. Let me tell my 
colleagues that the American people do not think it is frivolous to 
save $11.3 million, their dollars. What is more, it is no secret that I 
intended to offer this amendment. I had sent out four ``dear 
colleagues'' including one bipartisan letter signed by six Members.
  The Committee on Rules has chosen to gag me and other Members. I say 
to my colleagues, if they do not like my amendment, so be it, they are 
free to vote against it. But under this rule they will not be given the 
opportunity, the opportunity to save the American taxpayer $11.3 
million. Maybe they would have liked that opportunity.
  And I say to my colleagues, if they want to vote ``yes'' for 
democracy, vote ``no'' for this unjust rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

[[Page H5659]]

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, for the 17 years that I have 
been a Member of Congress, abortion advocates have often let the 
Republican abortion advocates offer pro-abortion amendments. It has 
played well with the press, it is contrarient, 80 percent of our caucus 
is pro-life, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] certainly have pro-abortion credentials. They were 
among 7 members of our caucus who voted against the partial-birth 
abortion ban.
  Let me just make it very clear that when the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] appeared before the Committee on Rules, and I 
listened intently to every word she said, she said that either she or 
someone else would be allowed to offer a perfecting amendment. That 
someone else is the so-called pro-choice Republicans.
  Their perfecting amendment, let it be very clear, absolutely guts the 
Smith-Hyde-Oberstar-Barcia amendment. It is a totally gutting 
amendment. So they get their opportunity, which makes me wonder about 
this whole proceeding that we are watching.
  I also wanted to make the point that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] said he does not want to deal with legislative policy 
language on an appropriations bill. Then do not authorize the 
appropriation itself. At some point there will have to be a waiver. Let 
there be no waiver; let the authorizing committees do both, the funding 
and the policy.

                              {time}  1830

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Rogan]. Does the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Hastings] seek recognition at this time?
  The gentleman reserves his time to close.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 3 
minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I wanted to inquire of the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Hastings], there was a possibility of a change in the 
rule of an amendment that could be offered to the rule; and actually, 
that is what I have been kind of waiting for, to see if they are 
willing to make the change. Because I am willing to speak to the 
amendment and, at least from my portion, to accept on this particular 
amendment a change in the rule. It is very necessary. But I am waiting 
for them to make the motion.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for this to 
be drafted. Does the gentleman have some time that maybe perhaps he 
would like to yield.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to explain it. I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  The problem with the rule and the situation that we have today, when 
we had the rule on the floor, originally the Agriculture appropriations 
bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] had an amendment, and I 
had a perfecting amendment to his amendment. His amendment, I felt, 
went way too far, because what would happen is it would cut off all 
humanitarian aid to North Korea.
  I amended that, with his support, saying that no food aid, no 
humanitarian aid should go to the government or to the military of 
North Korea but do not deny, do not deny humanitarian aid to the 
people, the innocent people. These are always the people that get the 
short end of the stick.
  So, as a result of that, as a result of passing this modified closed 
rule, I am prohibited from offering a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]. Therefore, what 
we will have is an amendment that really does injustice and great harm 
to a lot of innocent people that are now facing famine. And this is the 
problem with the rule that we now have before us.
  So what is needed is a change in the rule. It is my understanding 
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] or the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Hastings] was going to offer a change in the rule that 
they could offer an amendment to change the rule to accept a compromise 
amendment from Cox-Hall, which would be acceptable to me. That is about 
the best explanation I can give.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, he has 
explained exactly what we would like. We would just as soon do it by 
unanimous consent.
  Also, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] had mentioned to me 
that there was a possibility of a Wynn compromise as well, and I 
believe that they would be willing to accept that over here, too, 
either with a unanimous consent request. So I just offer that to the 
gentleman in the spirit of comity and trying to cooperate.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, for Members that are not privy to what my 
colleagues are doing, that are not familiar with the Committee on 
Rules, what have you, is there any way that the membership watching in 
their offices, or wherever, might know what these amendments are going 
to be, what they are going to say that you are going to amend here on 
floor?
  I have never seen this happen before, a rule amended on the floor. 
Could we know what is in the Cox amendment and the one so-called Wynn 
amendment. I do not know what they are.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, do we have any time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak for 5 additional minutes on this. Can I do that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It would be appropriate for the gentleman to 
ask for both sides to have an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both 
sides have an additional 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Washington yield for 
that purpose?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Ohio.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Hastings] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] each 
will be recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, I have not heard what 
is in these amendments. This is like we are marking a bill here and 
somebody has offered an amendment nobody has seen. It has not been 
printed. I would just like to know what it entails. I am pretty sure 
that a lot of Members that are watching would like to know what we are 
doing here.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. There is an amendment that has been printed in the 
Record by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]. That is, there is an 
amendment and it is amended by myself. I believe the amendment is with 
the Clerk at this particular time. I have explained the amendment.
  What it has to do with is cutting off humanitarian aid to North 
Korea. That has already been printed in the Record Except for aid going 
to the military. There will be no humanitarian aid going to the 
military of North Korea, but humanitarian aid will not be cut off to 
the other people.
  All I am trying to do is get that amendment in order so that we will 
have a chance once the bill comes up to debate it.
  Mr. HEFNER. I do not know if I want to make a parliamentary inquiry 
or if we need more than 5 minutes here. Because if we are going to 
correct this rule and allow amendments that are not in the rule, why do 
we not have several amendments here that allow some of these and clear 
up some of the things the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] was 
talking about where we can go ahead with all of this and get it over 
with and not waste a lot of time here.
  It seems to me we are amending a rule here and nobody knows what we 
are doing. I do not know what is in the amendment. Was not the 
amendment

[[Page H5660]]

that the gentleman wanted to offer, was it not made in order by the 
rule and we are correcting that now? Is that what we are doing? Was Mr. 
Cox not in order?
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. My amendment is in order under the rule.
  Mr. HEFNER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. HEFNER. The gentleman's amendment is not in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will please suspend.
  The Chair reminds all Members that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] 
controls time. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to yield to the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding just to 
clarify a point that I think my colleague has already made, and that is 
that the Cox amendment is made in order by this rule unamended, but 
that the minority and the concerns especially represented by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] have offered a way to improve that that 
the author of the amendment accepts.
  And so, out of deference to the minority, I would be happy, on the 
grounds that it would improve the amendment that is already made in 
order by the rule, based on suggestions from the other side, to accept 
a unanimous consent request to make that improved amendment in order. 
If that unanimous consent request is not accepted, then I would just go 
ahead and offer my amendment as permitted by the rule, which, to my 
understanding, is less acceptable to the minority.
  Mr. HEFNER. This amendment is not in order until this rule passes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair again reminds all Members that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] controls the time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I would say to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Hefner] the Cox amendment is in order. My amendment to his is not 
in order. The only way for my perfecting amendment to make his 
amendment acceptable to most of us on this side is for them to change 
the rule.
  This is a very awkward situation. It is terribly awkward. Because 
what we are doing is amending the rule on the floor of the House, and 
the problem is if we do not amend the rule at this particular time, 
what my concern is is that with Mr. Cox's original amendment, which is 
in order, cuts off all aid to North Korea, and that goes against 
everything that this country is all about. With Ethiopia, Angola, we 
never cut off humanitarian aid to innocent people. We cut off aid to 
the military.
  So that is what our compromising amendment does. Both sides are 
caught in a very awkward situation. And if we do not pass this 
amendment, what could happen is a very odious thing, a lot of innocent 
people will lose out on medicines and foods.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Well, if you can do that with the Cox amendment, why can 
you not amend it to allow these other Members to offer their amendment? 
It does not make any sense to me. It seems that this is something that 
you can do, you can tie that to the Cox amendment. I just do not 
understand the procedure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] has expired.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is an effort 
being made or that there is an intention on the part of the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules to offer an amendment to the rule accommodating 
the amendment that the gentleman from Ohio was seeking and that there 
will be a rollcall on that issue followed by an effort on the part of 
the chairman of the committee to offer a unanimous consent request to 
allow the Wynn amendment to be made in order.
  Could I ask, what is the proper method by which the gentleman can 
explain that to the House so Members know what they are voting on and 
we might be permitted to ask a couple questions of him about that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is still debate time remaining with 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings]. However, there is no 
amendment to the rule pending before the House at this time. The Chair 
is not privy of any negotiations between the Members and the parties.
  Ms. FURSE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon will state her 
inquiry.
  Ms. FURSE. Would the Chair tell me how I might go about getting a 
unanimous consent request so that I too could have my amendment made 
possible?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The manager of the rule must yield for a 
unanimous consent.
  The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] is recognized.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can have closure 
on this. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment, which is at the desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington:
       Page 2, line 17, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through ``1997'' on line 19, and insert in lieu thereof: 
     ``the amendment by Representative Obey of Wisconsin pending 
     when the Committee of the Whole rose on July 22, 1997, and 
     one amendment by Representative Cox of California regarding 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea''.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is intended to be a substitute 
for the Cox amendment published in the Congressional Record on July 15, 
1997. It is a compromise fashioned by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] to address the 
critical issue of food aid delivery for North Korea.
  I stress that it is a bipartisan amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that question so that the Members might 
understand what is about to transpire. Is it correct that the gentleman 
is offering this amendment, that this amendment will be subjected to a 
rollcall vote, and that after the vote on that amendment, the gentleman 
from New York, or the bill manager, I am not sure which, will then 
offer a unanimous-consent request to also place in order the Wynn 
amendment? Could I ask if that is the understanding of the gentleman 
from New York? I do not know if there is general concurrence in that or 
not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the 
gentleman that those negotiations are going on as we speak.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may, to indulge the gentleman, since we have time, 
I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
McInnis]. And maybe at the end of that time, we can have closure on 
this.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that I think we 
should clarify. I am glad to see that the floor has settled down. It 
seems that both sides here are attempting to negotiate. But I do think 
it is important to discuss what the function is of the Committee on 
Rules. The primary function of the Committee on Rules is to manage 
bills on the House floor.
  In doing that, of course we did have a Committee on Rules when the 
Republicans were in the minority, and that was run by the Democratic 
Party. In fact, during that period of time when the minority, which was 
the Republicans, had a motion to recommit, they were not allowed at 
times to offer that motion to recommit with instructions. We changed 
that. The Republicans changed that because we wanted to see more 
fairness on the floor, more openness on the floor.

[[Page H5661]]

  When we took office, what we did is we always guaranteed the minority 
a motion to recommit with instructions. What does that mean? That means 
that the minority has the right to be heard. Under the type of 
governmental system that we have in this country, the majority has the 
right to rule, but the minority has a right to be heard, and that is 
exactly what that motion to recommit does.
  We have heard from a couple of people, frankly from the State of 
Massachusetts, who complained about the fact that the tobacco amendment 
was not going to be heard. In fact, it is going to be heard. It has got 
as much time or more time than any other amendment that is going to be 
on there. But the fact is that both of these gentlemen on a continuous 
basis talked about how important it is that we immediately hear the 
tobacco amendment, that we not be evasive, that we put this to the 
forefront, and then they continue to vote for motions to adjourn.
  The reason we went to the Committee on Rules last night is because we 
in good faith, the Committee on Rules, determined not to put a rule 
onto this bill, go ahead, put the bill out on the floor and let it run 
its course. Well, what happened is we ran into delay tactic after delay 
tactic. I hope now that these negotiations calm the floor down, allow 
us to pass this rule and allow us to get on with the business of the 
House, which is the business of the people that we represent. This time 
that we are wasting is precious time that we cannot recover.
  We have a lot of major issues, including the tax cut that is sitting 
out there, the children's tax credit, the education tax credit, the 
capital gains reduction, the death tax exemption, raising up the 
exemption. Instead of addressing issues like that, we see people up 
here continuing to delay and delay. I do not know how many motions we 
have had to adjourn or motions to rise, which of course takes a half-
hour to an hour each time that is made and a vote is requested upon it.
  It is important for us to remember that when that Committee on Rules 
met last night, it was not because it was a regularly scheduled 
Committee on Rules. It is because we were forced by a few individuals 
who wanted to do delay, delay, delay, and that is why we met, to bring 
some order to the floor. This Committee on Rules meeting was not held 
in the middle of the night, not at all. It obviously was an open 
meeting. The minority had their chairman up there. In fact, we sat in 
our chairs up there waiting for 30 or 40 minutes for the printing 
process to be done. So last night when our committee met, it was forced 
to meet.
  I used to be a police officer. I would see somebody speeding. Most of 
the time if the speeding was not egregious, I would give a warning. 
Time after time after you give somebody a warning, at some point you 
have got to do something. In this case, you give them a ticket, and 
then the person that gets the ticket is complaining.
  Here is what has happened in the last few days. We have warned and 
warned this body. The Committee on Rules has determined that the 
business of this House must move forward. The American people are 
demanding we do something, quickly, on this tax cut. We need to move on 
these appropriations bills. It is important for the lives of the people 
that we represent. And if some Members out there continue to stall and 
stall and stall, we will have to adjourn, we will have to go upstairs 
to the Committee on Rules, have an open committee hearing where the 
minority is represented as well as the majority, put out a rule which 
manages this bill, and that is exactly what happened. It is not unfair. 
It is certainly not unnecessary. It became necessary as the result, 
frankly, of abuses that we observed here on the floor.
  Now, that meeting, and I want to stress this because it came up 
several times. I heard that somebody called it the mesh meeting. 
Somebody called it in a dark room in the Capitol. Somebody said it was 
unannounced. One member of the committee itself said, we wondered why 
they were not there, they said they did not get notice. They sure did 
get notice. Everybody on the Committee on Rules got notice. It is 
necessary.
  Again, I want to soften my comments by saying that the comity that we 
are now seeing on the floor, frankly it is about time. The Republicans 
feel it is very important for us to move forward with this business. 
The Republicans feel very strongly about this tax cut that we want to 
deliver to the American people. In order for us to deliver a tax cut to 
put money back into the taxpayers' pocket, we need to get on with the 
House's business. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogan). The question is on ordering the 
previous question on the amendment.
  Does the gentleman also move the previous question on the resolution?
  Mr. HASTINGS. No; just on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 269, 
nays 160, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               YEAS--269

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--160

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop

[[Page H5662]]


     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Barton
     Pallone
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)
       

                              {time}  1914

  Messrs. COYNE, BLUMENAUER, and DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. RILEY, DELLUMS, FRANK of Massachusetts, and VENTO, Ms. 
JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Messrs. BOSWELL, FORD, CUMMINGS, KANJORSKI, SMITH 
of Texas, DELAHUNT, DICKS, HOYER, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, and Ms. 
RIVERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


  Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment on which the previous question has just been ordered be 
modified in the form that I have placed at the desk and be considered 
adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogan). The Clerk will report the 
amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Hastings of 
     Washington: Page 2, line 17, strike ``and'' and all that 
     follows through ``1997'' on line 19, and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``the amendment by Representative Obey of Wisconsin 
     pending when the Committee of the Whole rose on July 22, 
     1997, one amendment by Representative Cox of California 
     regarding assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of 
     Korea, and the amendment printed in the Congressional Record 
     and numbered 35 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution, as amended.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded Vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 202, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--226

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

                               NOES--202

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Barton
     Pallone
     Porter
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1934

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

[[Page H5663]]

 REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2203, ENERGY 
             AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a 
privileged report (Rept. No. 105-198) on the resolution (H. Res. 194) 
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2203) making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________