[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.
____________________