[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1786-H1797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3579, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 402 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 402

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

[[Page H1787]]

     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of 
     the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule 
     XI, clause 7 of rule XXI, or section 306 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall not 
     exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes of general debate confined 
     to the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and 30 minutes of general debate confined to 
     title III equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Skaggs or his designee and a Member opposed to title III. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The amendments printed in part 1 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. Points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 or 
     6 of rule XXI are waived. No other amendment shall be in 
     order except the further amendment printed in part 2 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. That amendment may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against that amendment are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendment as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1145

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate on this issue only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 402 is a modified closed rule that will 
allow the House to consider H.R. 3579, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998, in an expeditious and responsible 
manner.
  The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI, requiring a 3-day 
layover of the committee report; clause 7 of rule XXI, requiring a 3-
day availability of relevant printed hearings and reports on general 
appropriations bills; or section 306 of the Budget Act of 1974, 
prohibiting consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on the Budget unless reported by that committee.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. It also provides an additional 30 minutes 
of debate on the provision of the bill in title III relating to the 
prohibition on the use of funds in the bill for military operations 
against Iraq. This time is to be equally divided between the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and an opponent of the bill language.
  I am sure Members on both sides of this issue would agree this is a 
timely and important debate, and I am pleased we were able to 
accommodate additional time for this purpose.
  The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and that 
amendments printed in part 1 of our Committee on Rules report be 
considered as adopted. The rule waives points of order against the 
bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, 
prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in a 
general appropriations bill, or clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting 
reappropriations.
  Additionally, the rule makes in order the amendment printed in part 2 
of the Committee on Rules' report and provides that such amendment may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for a division of the question.
  The rule waives all points of order against this amendment, which is 
a manager's amendment designed to meet a specific need in the 
Northeast.
  For the record, I have been advised by the chairman, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), that additional specific needs for the 
State of Florida, this recent emergency and tragedy that has happened 
in that State, have not been incorporated in this bill because of the 
timing of matters. These points will be addressed in conference with 
the other body, I am informed.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a motion to recommit with 
or without instructions. It is a somewhat complicated rule, which is 
why I have taken so long to lay it out. There are other points about it 
that are worth noting by Members.
  What we are attempting to do today is move ahead with an important 
supplemental spending bill made necessary by a series of natural 
disasters and several ongoing military missions in need of additional 
funding in this fiscal year.
  I have heard little disagreement about the merit of the funding 
proposals that are included in today's legislation. We have all been 
saddened, in fact horrified, by the devastating impact of a series of 
storms and weather phenomena associated with El Nino in congressional 
districts across the country.
  I think we also all recognize that the young men and women doing the 
hard work of peace in such places as Bosnia and the Persian Gulf rely 
on us to ensure that they have the resources necessary to conduct their 
missions as safely as possible. Whether we agree with the long-term 
policy that put them in harm's way or not is not the issue at this 
point.
  On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there has been much public commentary 
and disagreement among Members about the process by which these needs 
are to be met. We did hear much testimony yesterday from Members 
seeking to offer amendments to this bill. Most of the amendments were 
in some way or another in violation of House rules. Some of them dodge 
the tough issue of offsets, and some were not germane to the subject 
matter of this bill.
  Based on that, and the importance of getting this bill done quickly, 
we have crafted a structured rule that seeks to keep the focus on the 
matters at hand; that is, the emergencies and keeping our military 
supported.
  For instance, I know that some of our colleagues believe this bill 
should have been tied to funding for the IMF and United Nations 
funding. Given the complexity and the clear controversy surrounding 
both of those matters, I believe that marrying them with the disaster 
and defense proposals would only serve to delay our ability to get 
needed relief to victims and provide adequate funding for our troops 
overseas.
  We cannot allow our efforts to help flood- and storm-ravaged 
communities or bring peace of mind to our troops to become bogged down 
in protracted negotiations over International Monetary Fund and United 
Nations funding. Those matters will be the subject of a subsequent bill 
next month.
  In addition, we have discussed the ramifications of funding these 
needs with and without spending offsets. I am pleased that this 
legislation incorporates offsets for the spending it proposes, a 
difficult task in these times of tightened belts in light of last 
year's budget agreement.
  By adopting this rule, the House will go a step further and declare 
its support for the general policy that all spending in this bill 
should be offset. I salute the appropriators for doing due diligence in 
coming up with the offsets for the new spending in this legislation. 
They have remained true to the principle of fiscal responsibility our 
majority has espoused since taking control of this House in 1994: There 
is no free lunch when it comes to taxpayers' money. Everything has a 
price, and all spending must be done in the context of making choices.
  They are tough choices, but we are accountable. That does not mean 
that I agree with each and every choice that was made in this bill, nor 
does every other Member.
  In one area involving funding for the airport improvement program, I 
think

[[Page H1788]]

the wisdom of this House will enhance the judgment made by the 
Committee on Appropriations. In adopting this rule, we will adopt an 
amendment that restores cuts proposed to the airport program, cuts that 
could have seriously jeopardized the continued progress of airport 
expansion and air travel safety across this country, in my view, and in 
the view of many others.
  Mr. Speaker, we know this bill will not meet every need for the 
current fiscal year. Even as the Committee on Appropriations was 
marking up this bill, the administration was preparing an additional 
natural disaster-related funding request of $1.6 billion. Since that 
time, sadly, we have seen additional damage done to communities from 
violent storms. I gather the weather forecasters say we could see more. 
Mother Nature has never adhered to our congressional timetable and 
probably does not care much about our policies, either.

  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, I 
continue to be troubled by the difficulty we face each year in coping 
with such natural disasters, emergencies whose specific timing, 
severity and targets are not predictable, but our only certainty is 
that we know that they are going to come at some time, somewhere, in 
some form. Somebody is going to be hurt, and we are going to have 
victims looking to the government for relief.
  I will continue my efforts to find a better way, perhaps through a 
rainy-day type of reserve fund that we can better plan for these 
contingencies and make our spending decisions more predictable and 
rational in the future, but now we have to cope with the disasters at 
hand.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me speak in general to an issue raised by 
the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations about funding in this bill for intelligence-related 
activities and programs.
  There is some money within this bill for intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities that are critical to our national 
security interests. Although some have suggested that this funding is 
only a result of congressional prompting, let me assure the Members 
that this request is not from whole cloth. These are areas that the 
administration has identified as being a significant need at this time. 
The requests go to the very fiber of protecting our domestic 
tranquility.
  This is accomplished by ensuring that we will have the human and 
technical means necessary to protect our deployed forces, to protect 
American citizens abroad and their interests, and to provide the eyes 
and ears that truly supply the first line of defense for our Nation.
  We have let down this defense, particularly over the past year, and 
we have to make some repairs. These investments that we have before us 
are not always easy, but who among us is ready to further put our 
Nation at risk? I daresay, not a Member of this House.
  Having been charged by all of this House to keep the portfolio on 
intelligence and to keep watch over this area of our national security, 
I can affirm to every Member that the items in this bill are needed and 
they are needed now.
  In closing, I wish to commend, again, our colleagues on the Committee 
on Appropriations for their hard work in getting this bill to the House 
expeditiously and in a fiscally responsible way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow for the consideration of H.R. 3579, 
which is a bill that makes $2.9 billion in emergency supplemental 
appropriations. As my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), 
has described this rule, it provides 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. It provides an additional 30 minutes 
of debate on title III of the bill.
  The rule self-executes three amendments. Only one amendment will be 
made in order on the House floor. Members will not have the opportunity 
to offer other amendments.
  I oppose this restrictive rule, and all the Democrats on the 
Committee on Rules opposed it. A total of 32 amendments were submitted 
to the Committee on Rules. By permitting so few changes in the bill, 
the House will not be permitted to work its will. Members will not be 
able to fully represent their constituents during the floor amendment 
process.
  The bill provides vital funding for our troops overseas and for 
recovery from natural disasters. That is good. However, the bill itself 
is seriously flawed. The increased appropriations contained in this 
bill are emergency spending, and they do not have to be matched with 
offsetting decreases in spending.
  However, the Republican majority has chosen to include offsets 
anyway, using this bill as an excuse to cut important domestic 
programs. These cuts include a major reduction in housing for low-
income people and the elderly. The cuts would also force the AmeriCorps 
program to shut down, ending this valuable source of people-to-people 
assistance for the poor, the needy, and the hungry.
  I am constantly amazed, especially in the last few years, how, when 
we bring a bill like this to the floor, we, in order to find some money 
someplace, the first thing we do is always cut the programs that hurt 
the most needy of people in our country. I do not know what the reason 
is. It seems like maybe these people do not have a voice. They do not 
seem to maybe vote like they should. They do not have PACs or what have 
you. But we always cut them. This is another example of that.
  My friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), wanted to offer an amendment striking the offsets. His 
amendment would remove the cuts that hurt the poor and the needy. By 
removing the bill's most controversial section, his amendment would 
reduce the chance that the bill would get bogged down in partisan 
politics and ensure that the emergency funds for our military troops 
would be delivered as quickly as possible.
  The Committee on Rules denied the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) the opportunity to offer his amendment, and it denied the House 
the right to vote on it.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked the Committee on Rules 
permission to offer an amendment that would combine this bill with 
other emergency supplemental appropriations bills reported by the 
Committee on Appropriations. This action was requested by President 
Clinton.
  Again, the Committee on Rules denied the gentleman from Wisconsin the 
opportunity to offer his amendment, and it denied the House the right 
to vote on it. So it went with most amendments that House Members 
wanted to offer.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill is a mean-spirited, 
controversial, and very partisan bill.

                              {time}  1200

  It should not go to the floor without the opportunity for Members to 
improve it. I urge the defeat of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time remains on 
either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall) has 26 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy at this time if the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) would yield some more of his time so we 
could equalize the time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed and 
cruel rule. This rule is cruel because it is closed and it does not 
allow any Democratic amendments, including the amendment that I offered 
to respond to the emergency facing this Nation's farmers and ranchers. 
It is also cruel

[[Page H1789]]

because it cuts programs vital to children, vital to senior citizens, 
immigrants, and others of those who are most unfortunate.
  This closed and cruel rule does not allow an amendment that would 
have corrected the provision contained in the 1996 farm bill that 
treats American farmers and ranchers worse than we treat individuals 
who declare bankruptcy, worse than we treat foreign governments to whom 
we extend credit, and it sought to correct this provision before the 
planting season is over and before it is too late for many of these 
farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent situation. This is an emergency 
situation. Contained in the 1996 farm bill is a provision that denies 
thousands of family farmers and ranchers eligibility to receive FSA 
direct and guaranteed loans if they have received a loan write-down or 
a settlement. There is no lending practice in the private sector as 
harsh and limited as the provisions in the 1996 farm bill, and it is 
particularly cruel because spring planting season is now and without 
access to credit, many farmers and ranchers will indeed go out of 
business and will not be able to produce.
  Mr. Speaker, these farmers are not derelicts; they are hard-working 
citizens, many of whom face a credit crunch because of a hurricane, 
flooding, drought or other unanticipated economic downturn. This 
unique, callous provision was not contained in either the House or the 
Senate version of the 1996 farm bill. It was added in conference 
without the benefit of hearings, committee consideration or public 
debate. It was added without the vision of what its impacts would mean 
on thousands of small farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. Speaker, it is especially brutal to those farmers who have been 
discriminated against and have pending cases. They are being denied a 
remedy of past discrimination, and they are also being denied the right 
that most of us have, a right to work and provide for their families.
  It is even more astonishing that this closed rule does not permit the 
amendment that I offered, because the very same amendment is included 
in the Senate version of the emergency supplemental bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate what this rule does to small and 
family farmers who so much want to be a part of the American dream. But 
it is equally shameful that H.R. 3579, if passed, will take money from 
public housing and will shut down AmeriCorps.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this closed and cruel rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH.  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule which self-
executes the McIntosh-Neumann amendment to H.R. 3579. This amendment 
expresses the sense of this House that any fiscal year 1998 emergency 
supplemental appropriations considered by the 105th Congress must not 
result in an increased level of total Federal spending.
  I think it is absolutely critical that we stick to this principle in 
this Congress, that if we are going to spend more than the balanced 
budget, we will have offsets to reduce spending in other areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I personally support the President's request for 
emergency supplemental appropriations to fund disaster relief and U.S. 
troop deployments in Bosnia and Iraq. However, this funding does not 
have to come at the expense of last year's budget agreement.
  After working diligently to balance the budget for the first time in 
30 years, many members of the Republican Conference, especially members 
of the Conservative Action Team, believe it is counterproductive for us 
to consider funding the President's emergency spending requests without 
providing the means to pay for them.
  For this reason, I want to personally express my gratitude to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Livingston) of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and all of the members of that committee that voted to 
include a package of offsets in the emergency supplemental bill. This 
was the right thing to do, and I applaud their efforts.
  Unfortunately, while the House bill contains these offsets, the 
Senate version does not. To send the strongest possible message to both 
the other body and the White House that this House is fully committed 
to offsetting the President's request for additional spending, this 
rule self-executes the McIntosh-Neumann amendment. This amendment 
demonstrates the House's commitment to fiscal responsibility and is 
intended to ensure that the Federal deficit does not increase as a 
result of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is this Congress is perfectly capable of 
providing emergency spending relief to disaster victims and our troops 
without retreating from our commitment to the American people to keep a 
balanced budget and not go back to deficit spending.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to speak out of order 
for 1 minute.)


     Announcement of the Death of Former Congresswoman Bella Abzug

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty to inform the House of 
the passing of a distinguished former Member of this House. Bella 
Abzug, who served here from 1970 to 1976 and had a distinguished career 
before her service here and after her service here, passed away this 
morning.
  We will arrange a special order to talk about Bella and her many 
contributions to the welfare of this country. When we know about 
arrangements, we will inform the House, but we have just found out and 
she passed away just about an hour and a half ago.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Rodriguez.
  (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill for 1998 is a vicious Republican attempt to pit children against 
the disaster victims. It is an attempt to pit children against the 
situation that we find ourselves in in Bosnia.
  The bill cuts bilingual and immigration education programs by $75 
million. The cuts mean that half a million youngsters will be denied 
the opportunity to be able to learn English as quickly as possible.
  I want to add again that this particular cut will strike deeply into 
the States of California, Florida, Texas, and several other States; 
that at the same time yesterday the particular amendment that came up 
regarding the investigation of making sure that citizens were made 
citizens before they vote, that that particular amendment struck at 
those particular States instead of trying to make it universal.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a deliberate attempt to go after Hispanics. The 
administration strongly opposes these offsets, none of which are 
included in the Senate-based version of this bill. The President's 
senior advisors are recommending a veto of the bill as drafted in the 
House.
  In addition, the Republican leadership has refused to let the House 
debate the bill under a fair rule, and we only ask that the leadership 
give us an opportunity to debate it in a fair rule so that we have an 
opportunity, so that the House, both Republicans and Democrats, will be 
able to vote up or down whether we should cut those education programs 
or not.
  Bilingual and immigration education services for the neediest 
children are critical. This is important for them to continue to be 
able to learn English. For the House leadership and the Committee on 
Rules to deliberately not allow this democratic process to go forward, 
to not allow us an opportunity to continue to be able to debate this 
issue, is an outright attack on Hispanic youngsters throughout this 
country.
  At a time when we are moving to a global economy, we should be making 
sure that youngsters learn as much about other languages as possible. 
We are doing just the reverse. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we make sure 
that we vote this down.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who we are pleased to welcome back.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the previous speaker, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), I have great respect for the 
gentleman. He is one of the Members that stands and speaks his piece on 
the floor. We

[[Page H1790]]

know it comes from his heart, and I understand that. But maybe after 
the gentleman hears my statement here, he might understand a little 
bit, because there is certainly no intent ever to go after anyone in 
this country. That is why we have fought to remain the greatest, freest 
Nation on earth and we are the beacon of hope for all people in the 
world, and we want to continue to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, last night I was unavoidably detained on my return from 
Europe where the plane we were flying in had the door burst its seals 
on two separate occasions and we had to return twice. I would say to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), we came back and hitched a 
ride back from Europe in a C-141, and I tried to sleep on the floor of 
that cargo plane, but it did not work. So I may not make any sense here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules, under the very able leadership 
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) reported out this rule 
which attempts to be as fair as possible while providing for expedited 
consideration of this emergency spending bill.
  It is true that we were not able to make many amendments in order. I 
personally favored an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) which would have added money to badly 
underfunded defense procurement accounts, paid for with cuts in 
unproductive and unfunded foreign aid programs like aid to Russia. I 
would much rather have seen the offsets come from there.
  But the vast majority of amendments submitted to the Committee on 
Rules did in fact have violations of either germaneness, and we have to 
pay attention to this because we, unlike the other body that has no 
rules over there, we have to live by the rules that we have in the 
House. These amendments did, in fact, violate the germaneness, 
legislating in appropriation bills or Budget Act waivers, and we have 
sworn to the men and woman that we will not bust the budget, these 
waivers, and we are trying to stick to that.
  So all in all, this is a fair rule that will expedite this badly 
needed legislation in the wake of this winter's disasters around the 
country, whether it is El Nino in the western part of the country or 
the terrible ice storms up in my district, up on the Canadian border.
  On the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased that the 
supplemental helps alleviate some of the costs of the devastating ice 
storm that struck the northern part of my district, the entire northern 
part of New York, as well as Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine and a 
great deal of the Northeast, as a matter of fact. I could not possibly 
describe to any of my colleagues the damage that was done to the 
terrain, to the livelihoods and infrastructure of the area, but I ask 
my colleagues to just listen to a couple of them.
  This storm lasted for 3 days and by many accounts left more than 5 
inches of ice coating, toppling trees and telephone poles and power 
lines, just falling like dominos all across this entire north country 
in the Adirondack Mountains. One million people were without power, 
some for as long as 3 weeks, in the dead of winter and below zero 
temperatures. If any of my colleagues have had to live through that, I 
can tell them it was devastating.
  FEMA, HUD and the SBA, among State and local government agencies, did 
yeoman's work in the immediate aftermath to help get people back on 
their feet and get their electricity back on so they would not freeze 
or starve to death.
  However, there is still long-term damage to the roads, to the 
forests, whether it is the apple trees where the limbs were just 
totally decimated, whether it was maple trees that produced 90 percent 
of the syrup in this country that were just absolutely decimated, 
utility companies, and especially the struggling dairy farmers of that 
region.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I am particularly pleased that this bill 
provides some much-needed additional relief to the dairy farmers up 
there who lost their livestock and lost their milk. These people, Mr. 
Speaker, live on an income of maybe 10 or 11 or 12 or $13,000 per year. 
Per year. And now they have lost 50 percent of that income for the 
remainder of this year. I mean, that is absolutely devastating to 
people like this. They operate on the tiniest of margins and a storm 
with devastating costs like this threatens to put them all out of 
business.
  Thankfully, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), 
whose district was literally devastated even more than mine, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) sitting over here, who represents 
the Syracuse area and some of the northern reaches, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations, we were able to come through with additional relief for 
these farmers.
  The relief came most importantly through two forms, Mr. Speaker. Four 
million dollars is included to help cover the cost of livestock that 
was lost during the storm. That is where the cows literally died 
because they could not be milked, and if they are not milked they die 
by the hundreds.

                              {time}  1215

  Just as importantly, we were able to add $6.8 million for the milk 
that was lost due to the power outage, and to help with diminished 
future production of cows who were struck with mastitis because they 
couldn't be milked for days.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the least we can do for these areas that have 
been so hard hit by unexpected storms. I have stood here in this well 
and helped many areas throughout the country, whether it was the 
flooding in Iowa and North Dakota in the past, and now we would 
appreciate this little bit of help for the northern reaches of New 
York, which benefit from very, very few Federal programs. There is no 
way to prevent these tragedies but thankfully we can help them with 
this hardship. This bill starts to do that, Mr. Speaker.
  On the defense portions of the bill, and this is even more important, 
I think, or just as important, let me say that I am extremely pleased 
that the additional funding for our military operations overseas is not 
paid for with cuts in other areas of the defense budget. That is very 
important.
  For several years running now, this administration has made a habit 
of underfunding the defense budget, overcommitting our forces 
throughout the year time after time, and then coming to this Congress 
with a supplemental funding request for those operations paid for with 
cuts in defense procurement and research and development out of 
military personnel.
  In other words, this administration has been robbing tomorrow's 
military preparedness in order to pay for the multiple overseas 
adventures on which they have sent the U.S. military, adventures like 
in Bosnia and Somalia and a half dozen other places. In fairness, most 
of this supplemental request is for operations in Iraq, a mission that 
I strongly support. However, it is imperative that even that funding 
not come out of tomorrow's military.
  Mr. Speaker, this year we will most likely cut the defense budget for 
the 14th straight year, over my objections, but it is probably what 
will happen. And the logical, predictable results of that are now 
plaguing the United States Armed Forces and my colleagues all know it, 
if they go back home and talk to their recruiters. Our force structure 
has shrunk massively. The Army does not have the number of divisions 
today to repeat Desert Storm without pulling our forces from Bosnia and 
perhaps even Korea, which we cannot afford to do.
  Our weapons systems are aging rapidly. I know. I was a victim of one 
trying to come back from Europe last night. Just the other day, the 
Pentagon announced it was grounding some Vietnam era Huey helicopters 
for safety reasons. It goes back to what we were doing with the old B-
52 bombers when the doggone wings were falling off because they were so 
old and in disrepair.
  How could this situation be? We have cut the military procurement 
budget by nearly 70 percent since 1985, 70 percent. What else could we 
expect? Recruiters are failing to meet their quotas. Go into your 
recruiters and ask them if they are getting a cross-section of American 
young men and women today. No, they are not, because they know they 
cannot depend on the military for a career anymore because of

[[Page H1791]]

what we have been doing here in Congress. Pilots are leaving the Navy 
and Air Force in record numbers. This slide has got to be halted, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This bill is a good start in that direction because we do not allow 
for these supplemental spending increases to come out of the military 
budget. The choice is this: If President Clinton wants to deploy the 
U.S. military every time there is a problem throughout the world, some 
civil strife someplace, he is going to have to provide adequate funding 
for defense on top of it. And if he does not, he is going to have to 
pay for those military missions with cuts in some of the domestic 
spending programs that he considers a priority such as in this bill 
now. The bottom line is simple. There is no free lunch, Mr. Speaker.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to proceed out of order for 
1 minute.)


                In Honor of the Memory of Michael Cardin

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we just heard, minutes ago, about the death 
of one of our former colleagues, Bella Abzug. She had a full career and 
made contributions that her talent and commitment enabled her to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great sadness to honor the memory of a 
young man who did not get the time to live out the promise of his 
ability, of his character, of his unbelievably goodwill. The son of our 
colleague, Ben Cardin, and his wife, Myrna, died suddenly last week. I 
know, Mr. Speaker, that the entire House of Representatives joins me in 
extending condolences to the very sad Cardin family on the loss of a 
gifted and caring young man.
  Mr. Speaker, I have known Michael Cardin since he was a very young 
boy. His father and I went to the general assembly in 1967 together. 
Ben first became a member of the Maryland general assembly on the year 
that Michael was born. He graduated from the University of Maryland law 
school on that day as well, in that year. But the proudest event of 
1967 in the Cardin family was the birth of Michael.
  I and some of the rest of my colleagues, perhaps, had the opportunity 
to watch Michael grow as he and his sister, Deborah, and their mother, 
Myrna, would visit their father in the House of Delegates and here in 
Congress. There were two characteristics, Mr. Speaker, that I remember 
most about Michael. He cared more for others than for himself, and he 
was an intelligent young man whose greatest concern was for those less 
fortunate than himself.
  As a student at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, Michael continued 
to develop the commitment to serving others that he had shown even as a 
child. He served as editor in chief of the school newspaper where he 
demonstrated his strong communication skills and dedication to justice. 
In 1993, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, a great and 
good man, who has celebrated 93 years of service to his State and 
Nation, and his father, like both of them, Michael graduated from the 
University of Maryland School of Law. With his grandfather in 
attendance, Michael received his juris doctorate degree after hearing 
his father deliver the commencement address.
  The occasion was a fitting honor for the Cardin family, which has 
contributed so very, very much to this State and this Nation. At the 
University of Maryland, Michael was remembered as being a talented 
student dedicated to becoming a lawyer to help people, not for profit. 
This past winter Michael was admitted to the Maryland bar, a bright 
future lay ahead. After passing the bar, he worked in Baltimore for the 
special counsel and volunteered at the Hamden Family Center working 
with children and families.
  Everyone that I have talked to who worked with Michael at the Hamden 
Center said he was one of the brightest lights for all the children who 
were benefited by that center. His willingness to help others has 
always been a core value to Michael, and he demonstrated it in every 
part of his life.
  At the service this past Sunday, his father rose and said that there 
were many instances of which he and Myrna had no knowledge, incidents 
that demonstrated with individual people, homeless, children, people in 
trouble, Michael repeatedly showed the character that he had, which I 
suspect was in his genes, because it was consistent with the Cardin 
contribution.
  Mr. Speaker, Michael was 30 years of age. He left us too soon. All 
those who know him are heart sick. We can take comfort, perhaps, in 
knowing that in the time he spent with us he made a tremendous 
difference in the lives of all those he touched. His parents can take 
comfort in knowing, and I know they do, that Michael was a wonderful 
son from a wonderful family.
  I do not know any family that I have ever met, Mr. Speaker, that is 
more supportive, closer, more giving, more respectful of one another 
than the family headed by Ben and Myrna Cardin. They are wonderful 
human beings, good and decent people who loved and nurtured their son 
without reservation. Michael, for the 30 years that he had, got the 
best that there was in the Cardin family.
  I know that all my colleagues who know Ben so well, some who know 
Myrna and some who know Michael will join all of us in Maryland in 
honoring the memory of Michael Cardin, this compassionate and caring 
young man, and we will join together in extending our deepest 
sympathies, love and caring to Ben, Myrna, the Cardin family. We are a 
lesser land for Michael's loss.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Without objection, the time 
of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) will not come out of the 
time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if I might just speak out 
of order for 30 seconds, I would like to join with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to just let our good friend, Ben 
Cardin, know on his first day back how much we care for him, how much 
we respect what he has accomplished here in the House but, more 
importantly, the kind of individual he is, and how much he has given, 
not only to his family, but to his country, and the quiet confidence 
that he walks these halls with and the important contribution that he 
will continue to make to this country. Ben, you are a dear friend to 
many of us, and we welcome you back.
  Given the gravity of these last few minutes on the House floor, it 
seems almost inconsequential to go back to the normal business of what 
we take up in this Chamber. But the bill that is before the House 
today, which will provide badly needed assistance and aid to families 
throughout our country that have been devastated by storms, to people 
in Bosnia, and to our military troops is something that everyone on 
both sides of the aisle support. There is money in our country to 
provide that support. In fact, as many of us have talked about, for the 
first time in several decades, there is actually going to be a surplus 
this year. But rather than deal with that surplus issue, what this bill 
says is something different.
  What this bill says is in order to provide payments to these 
programs, we are going to go out and we are going to cut money that 
needs to be spent to fight homelessness in America. We are going to go 
out and cut money that needs to be spent on providing Section 8 
housing. We are going to provide cuts on money that needs to be spent 
on education programs.
  There is no reason, there is no reason why we have to cut the 
homeless, why we have to cut Section 8 housing, why we have to cut 
education in order to fund people that have been devastated by storms. 
There is a process laid out called emergency spending. The President 
has paid attention to that process. He has declared an emergency. That 
is what this bill is about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has 19 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are all in favor of emergency help to 
people who suffered from storms and to pay the bills for what we are 
doing in Bosnia. But, Mr. Speaker, some of the offsets here are 
unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, in the entire budget there is $10 billion for section 8 
housing. This is not for new section 8 units.

[[Page H1792]]

 This is for supplementing the rent payments of low-income people in 
existing housing. This bill proposes to cut that by $2.2 billion, 22 
percent.
  And since there is no new section 8 housing, what does it mean? It 
means we are going to not renew the contracts of existing section 8s. 
It means that, in the next couple of years, we are going to say to 
350,000 families, leave your homes. We are going to throw them out on 
the street. We are going to tell them the subsidies end. The rent 
doubled, they are guaranteed not to be able to pay that because, if 
they could afford it, they would not be in the program in the first 
place.
  So, in order to meet some people's definition that we should not fund 
emergency programs out of emergency funds, those 350,000 people are out 
of their homes. I hope that is not what we want to do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who is on the Committee on 
Appropriations and who is able to talk on this subject.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and also in strong 
support of the emergency supplemental. This rule allows for emergency 
disaster help to thousands of people throughout the country, and it 
also allows for a manager's amendment that will allow for additional 
CDBG funds which are offset.
  Mr. Speaker, these people were harmed by these storms. They lost 
livestock. They in many cases lost the farm in this disaster.
  In the northern part of New York State, literally thousands of power 
poles came down when the ice came. And then the wires laid across the 
road. Snow came on top of the wires. The plows could not get out. The 
roads were closed.
  Farmers were absolutely isolated. Some of these folks live on roads 2 
miles off the main drag with nothing on their road but their farm. So 
they were in a terrible condition. We need to get this aid to them as 
quickly as possible so that they can get about getting their lives back 
in order.
  Mr. Speaker, we have done the responsible thing. We have chosen to 
offset these expenditures. That has not been done in the past. We put 
it on the credit card and let our children pay for those bills. We are 
going to pay for these expenses now.
  The way we do it primarily is through section 8 housing. And the 
comments have been made that we are going to put people out on the 
street, that people are going to lose their subsidies, that they are 
going to be thrown out of their homes. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. 
That is absolutely not true.
  These are future obligations under section 8 housing. These are next 
year's expenditures under section 8 housing. Our subcommittee, under 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations, has pledged to make this program whole. These funds 
will be put into the budget.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if the President of the United States had done the 
responsible thing and funded the military adventures that he is not 
paying for, we would not be put in this position.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it pains me to talk about the situation in 
which we find ourselves. Our colleague from New York pointed out a few 
moments ago the underfunding of the defense budget, and I agree; of our 
overcommitting our troops, and I agree. But that is not the issue 
before us today.
  The issue before us today is whether we truly recognize an emergency, 
as has been so recognized by the White House and has been so recognized 
by the Senate, or whether this is to be an offset against other items 
in the budget.
  The rule before us authorizes us to take up a bill that allows 
offsets. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a mistake. This is a matter of 
process. It is a matter of doing it right. Though 80 percent of the 
bill's appropriations are for military programs, all of the measures 
are offsets in the domestic programs. I think there should be no 
offsets, whether they come from the military or whether they come from 
the domestic.
  This is an emergency. We do not plan on hurricanes. We do not plan on 
tornadoes. We do not plan on floods. We do not plan on those 
international crises, such as Bosnia and Iraq. And yet, this is not 
treated as an emergency.
  This bill rescinds money from the low-income rental housing 
assistance, from the airport program, from the National Community 
Service Program, from bilingual education. Should this bill pass in 
this forum, it is a sure invitation for a presidential veto, an 
invitation that I am sure will not be refused.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a statement of the time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) controls 8 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
controls 16 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me the time; and I rise in what I would call tepid support of 
the rule here.
  I believe that what we are going through could be prevented, and I 
think we need to start discussing this on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. We may have a balanced budget this year, I think CBO 
says by perhaps $8 billion. But in the 5 years, now my sixth year, that 
I have been in this Congress, every year we have wrestled at least 
once, if not more than once, with the emergency appropriations process; 
and the question is, do we offset it or not offset it? And now that we 
are starting to balance the budget, we are starting to offset it.
  If we do not offset it, all of a sudden we have spending out there 
which has just been added to the debt in the past and now may take away 
from the surplus in the future.
  If we do offset it, what are we going to offset it with? There lies 
an entirely different fight, which we will get into later when we get 
to the bill itself.
  But the bottom line is there is a way of avoiding this. I have 
introduced legislation to this effect which is of a particular 
consequence because it is budget mechanisms we need to look at. A 
budget reserve account would do this. They do it in virtually every 
State and city and county government now. They have an emergency set-
aside so that if they run into problems such as these very real 
emergencies, and they are going to happen, then they are able to pay 
for it out of that amount of money, which is built into the budget to 
begin with, and we prevent all this.
  Do we not all want to prevent this? Can anybody possibly enjoy what 
we are going through here?
  It is very simple. We look back over a period of 10 years. It comes 
out to about $5 billion or $6 billion a year. We already have the White 
House preparing another emergency request right now which would fall 
into this. If there are large exceptions, such as a war, whatever it 
may be, obviously, we would have to waive the act in that circumstance 
and treat it in a different sense. But for the average expenditure, the 
average emergency which comes along, it could fit into that. And then, 
instead of talking about set-asides and how we are going to pay for it, 
that amount of money would already be put into our budget. It makes all 
the sense in the world.
  And, yes, there is a jolt when we initially do it; but the bottom 
line is this is less than 1 percent of the entire budget amount that we 
appropriate each year. There is simply no reason why we are not able to 
do it. It is called a rainy day fund in some States. I think we should 
call it a budget reserve account.
  I believe we should do it. I believe we should do it rapidly so that 
we can prevent these incredible struggles, which are very 
counterproductive to what we are doing in Congress.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)

[[Page H1793]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me also add my sympathy 
and love to the Cardin family.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 
said, it seems almost without meaning to be here discussing these 
issues at this very sad time for one of our colleagues. But I do want 
to say that what concerns me about this legislation, and I vigorously 
oppose the rule, is that we seem to be returning to the radical 
legislative agenda of the 104th Congress, no bipartisanship, no caring.
  There is no doubt that we are concerned as Americans about those who 
have suffered at the hand of these terrible, disastrous weather events. 
However, this supplemental appropriations legalization that we bring 
today is a cold wind from the winter as we enter into the spring to 
displace thousands upon millions of citizens out of their housing by 
cutting $2.2 billion from Section 8 housing for those who need housing 
in this Nation? Twenty-five thousand people are on the list needing 
public housing in Houston, Texas, alone.
  Section 8 housing gives a push to those who are moving from welfare 
to work. It allows opportunities for young families and women to be 
housed throughout the community. We are pitting airline safety with 
housing for the poor. How tragic. How ridiculous. How shameless. Vote 
no on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my dissent to the rule prohibiting the 
two amendments I offered to the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  The first amendment moved to strike the rescission of $1.9 billion 
cuts from the Department of Health and Urban Development (HUD) Section 
8 program. The program provides Section 8 subsidies to owners of low 
income housing.
  The program is among our Nation's core housing programs--it provides 
safe, decent and affordable housing to families, the elderly and the 
disabled.
  It is, therefore, a shame that I will not be able to give voice to 
the supporters of the Section 8 program since there are many 
supporters. The American people strongly support this program. The 
administration and the Banking Committee Democrats support this 
program.
  Because of the Draconian cuts in this program, 2.1 million units now 
are at risk and 4.4 million Americans face the cold possibility of 
homelessness.
  Let me be clear: A vote to restore the funds taken away from the 
Section 8 contract subsidies is not in any way a vote against the 
expenditures for recovery efforts from natural disasters, support of 
our troops in Bosnia, IMF loans or the payment of arrearages to the 
U.N. The two are unrelated. Therefore, it is disappointing to me that 
the Section 8 subsidies were used to offset the emergency 
appropriations when such offsets were not required to keep the budget 
balanced. We had the opportunity to provide for the Section 8 program 
and to address the urgent needs arising in Bosnia and areas hit by 
natural disasters at home. What we chose instead was to tell the 
American people that although we are engaged in a peacekeeping mission 
in Bosnia and attending to the victims of natural disasters around the 
country, there will be no relief for the economically disadvantaged, 
the elderly and the disabled to maintain affordable housing.
  The second amendment moved to strike the rescission of $250 million 
from the AmeriCorps program in the supplemental emergency 
appropriations bill. AmeriCorps embodies the spirit of public service 
where young people nationwide are involved in community work, education 
and senior citizen programs.
  The National Service Program was founded in the same tradition 
created by President Kennedy, who challenged each American citizen, 
``ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for 
your country'' according to the CEO of Corporation for National 
Service, Harris Wofford, the Rescissions mean that approximately 85% of 
all AmeriCorps programs will be shut down by September 1, and no new 
programs will start as planned this coming summer and fall. In 
addition, eighty percent of the Learn and Serve America Program will be 
closed. For the residents of my home State of Texas, the cuts mean that 
the AmeriCorps state program will be slashed from $14 million to $2 
million; the AmeriCorps National Program, from $2 million to $500,000; 
the Learn and Serve America Program, from $2 million to $500,000. The 
total amount of cuts is nearly $16 million.
  AmeriCorps encourages its members to attend college by offering 
financial assistance for tuition purposes if they complete a term of 
service. In a single stroke, the rescissions will squash any hopeful 
expectations that the 4,181 currently qualified AmeriCorps members in 
Texas may have had to apply for the education awards.
  In summary, the fate of the AmeriCorps Program is now tied to that of 
the emergency supplemental bill and unnecessarily, I may add. I hope 
that for the sake of our young people that AmeriCorps will be saved.
  Thank you for allowing me to voice my dissent to the rule before the 
committee.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of maintaining our 
presence in Bosnia until lasting peace is established. I was privileged 
to visit our troops in Bosnia to witness the progress being made. Our 
continued presence in that region is important to the stability of the 
region. Yet I rise to oppose the rule and the emergency supplemental 
appropriation bill.
  It is a disservice to Americans to force Congress to vote between 
full funding of important domestic programs and funding for 
peacekeeping. It is a disservice that is not necessary. These 
appropriations do not have to be offset. A choice between helping the 
survivors of genocide overseas and the much-needed domestic programs in 
the United States is a choice worthy of this House.
  $1.9 billion in low-income housing assistance is at risk here, 
resulting in more than 800,000 Americans losing their housing beginning 
in October, many of them elderly. The Bible says, ``Who among you, when 
your brother asks for bread, would give him a stone?'' I ask, who among 
you, when your brother asks for shelter, would you turn a deaf ear? Who 
among you, when your brother suffers from devastation in one place, 
would take money from brothers in another place where they suffered 
devastation?
  We speak of the requirements of budget mechanisms. Let us also speak 
of the requirements of people who are trying to survive.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me quote from a letter that I recently 
received from Colchester, Vermont, from a senior citizen who does not 
have a lot of money. She wrote, ``The list of persons who qualify for 
the section 8 program'' that she is applying for ``puts my name on a 
list with 990 persons ahead of me. When you enter your seventh and 
eighth decade, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to surmise that 
the likelihood of ever deriving benefit from this program is pretty 
minimal.'' And that is the story all over this country, elderly people 
needing affordable housing, working people needing affordable housing.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have given huge tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in America, when we spend $2 billion for B-2 bombers 
that the Pentagon does not want, when we provide $125 billion a year on 
corporate welfare, we do not have to continue the assault on affordable 
housing and on education.
  Yes, the Northeast and the rest of this country was hurt by a 
disaster; and, as Americans, we must rise up, as we always have, to 
protect those people who were hurt. But let us not take away from the 
elderly and the working people and the poor to do so. It is 
unnecessary. Vote down this rule and support emergency relief.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while I am not authorized, I 
think on behalf of the Clinton administration I can thank the 
Republican Party.
  There has been a lot of controversy about the President's decision to 
have troops in Bosnia. This bill, if it passes as is, will give him 
full legal authorization to keep troops in Bosnia longer.
  The current law says the funding runs out June 30. This 
appropriations bill specifically earmarks $486 million to continue the 
troops in Bosnia beyond the June 30 deadline. For as long as this 
appropriations bill is in effect, it gives the President the authority 
to keep the troops in Bosnia.
  Now I differ with the President. Because the Republican Party 
believes that to pay for the additional 3 months

[[Page H1794]]

in Bosnia prospective, not because of any back pay, we should cut 
section 8. The President and the Republican Party both want to keep 
troops in Bosnia for 3 more months. I disagree. The Republicans want to 
pay for it in part with section 8 reductions. The President disagrees.
  I think the President's position, while wrong, is a little better 
than theirs. But be very clear, if we pass this bill--and I offered an 
amendment that was rejected by the Committee on Rules that would have 
let the House vote and restrict and give the President only 1 more 
month in Bosnia and then they would have had to pull out in 90 days. 
But this bill, and we are not talking about past money owed to Bosnia 
that was authorized and appropriated through June 30, this bill says 
$486 million for July and August and September.

                              {time}  1245

  Pass this bill as is, those of my colleagues who vote for this rule 
and this bill, and understand that there is no basis for criticizing 
the placement of the troops in Bosnia. My colleagues are voting here 
prospectively to give the President authority, but I am not sure how 
grateful he will be in the end.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me say what worries me about this whole 
procedure.
  We anticipated that this bill would come out of committee not offset. 
We expected to have some sort of a vote on the floor, where on the 
floor they could make a decision one way or the other.
  Now the normal procedure in the House is that we pass a version and 
the Senate passes another version, and in most cases we can reconcile 
that. Here is the problem with this bill: This bill is so different 
from the Senate version of the bill. From everything I can get from the 
Defense Department, there is a high degree of possibility that we will 
be laying off civilian employees in the Defense Department after this 
is passed because they cannot anticipate that a bill will be passed 
finally that will be agreed to beyond the Senate and the House.
  For instance, the version in the Senate side has IMF in, it has all 
the things that many Members in the House do not agree on. The House 
obviously does not have all those things in it. The Mexico City 
language will come into play.
  So we have a strong possibility, if this rule passes and we are not 
able to amend it, that this bill may never be passed into law. It means 
that training will be cut back substantially, it means that we could 
only train at the platoon level, that recruiting would have to be cut 
back. The Defense Department right now is working on a plan about what 
they would have to do because there is only four months left in the end 
of the fiscal year after we get back in June.
  So I would urge the Members to vote against this rule. I will offer a 
motion to reconsider in the bill which will eliminate the offsets, and 
I think it is important that the Members of the House recognize the 
seriousness that this supplemental is in if it passes the House because 
there is a great danger that neither will be reconciled and that the 
Defense Department, because of the short time they have left, will lay 
off substantial numbers of civilian employees.
  So I urge the Members to vote against this rule, come back with 
another rule where we can offer some amendments which will allow us to 
adjust the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to 
the Committee on Rules for making the amendment, the Neumann-McIntosh 
amendment, self-enacting in this rule. The amendment that we propose to 
this bill would simply say that if we spend money, if our generation is 
going to spend money on something useful and productive, that we have 
to pay the bill for it.
  I have heard a lot of discussion out here today about whether or not 
this should be paid for, or offset, as we call it here in Washington. 
We need to all understand that the alternative is not simply that money 
is going to flow to here from heaven or some other way. The alternative 
to not paying for this bill is that we simply add it to the debt that 
is going to be passed on to our children.
  I am not opposed to spending money for an emergency disaster relief 
bill. I think that most people in Wisconsin and most people in this 
country would look at a disaster situation and say we are willing to 
help the folks that have been hit by this disaster. I think that is 
common sense in America, and I think common decency in America would 
allow us to do that. The question is, when we spend the money to help 
those people where the disaster has occurred, do we offset that 
spending by reducing government spending elsewhere someplace in the 
budget, and that is really what is being debated here.
  I heard a lot from the other side that we cannot do the offsets in 
the way they have been proposed, but I have heard very little about 
what we might do instead to reduce wasteful Washington or wasteful 
government spending someplace else. If somebody has got a better idea 
of how to reduce spending elsewhere so that we do not have to pass this 
additional expenditure on to our kids, I for one would certainly be 
listening.
  But the bottom line is this: If our generation is going to spend 
money on something, on virtually anything, whether it be disaster 
relief or to pay for the fact that our President has forced our troops 
to stay in Bosnia or the Iraqi situation, when our generation spends 
that money, we do have a moral and ethical responsibility to pay for 
what we are spending.
  Before 1995 nobody ever paid for these bills. They just simply spent 
the money, and it was tacked onto the amount of debt that we are going 
to pass on to our children. Since 1995 I am happy to say that has 
changed, and since 1995 every time one of these supplementals the has 
been proposed, at least in budget authority the spending has been 
offset. That is, we have paid attention to where the money is coming 
from.
  Somehow in this city, in Washington, D.C., I get out here and there 
seems to be this huge disconnect between spending money and where the 
money is coming from. That money is coming from the taxpayers' pocket; 
it is not free.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio has one more speaker, and he is going 
to yield to that speaker in a minute. I am going to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and then ask 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to close for our side.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Alan Greenspan has told us that we dare 
not break the budget caps, that the growing economy, interest rates, 
low inflation are because of that, that the balanced budget is a very 
important document that we bipartisanly worked on in this House. But if 
my colleagues take a look, we pay nearly a billion dollars a day on 
just the interest of the debt. That is before we pay for anything, one 
area.
  Now some of us feel that those offsets, some offsets are good, but 
one cannot find any offsets in this body that people will agree on that 
is not painful, should it be National Endowment for the Arts, should it 
be AmeriCorps that costs $27,000 per volunteer, should it be such 
things as bilingual education, which over 72 percent of Californians 
want to get rid of because we are last in literacy, it has been in 
effect all this time.
  But regardless, it is difficult, and we are going to have to make 
those kinds of decisions, but we feel that instead of going ahead and 
spending the money, which when we did not have the majority was the 
case for 30 years that put us into debt, then we have got to offset 
these and it is going to be painful.
  I disagree with my own side on the housing issue; I think that is one 
area where we need to invest, but I would also say that Somalia was put 
there by the White House. The White House did Haiti without our input, 
they armed the Muslims in Bosnia without our

[[Page H1795]]

input, they kept us in Bosnia, $16 billion without any offsets or just 
increases in spending.
  And so when we make these deployments, 300 percent uptempo increase 
for our military while it is about half the size, it means our kids are 
overseas and doing three times the work and we have a retention rate of 
our senior enlisted of only 24 percent. That means the quality. Our 
equipment is 1970s technology. I have got squadrons that have one or 
two airplanes left in the United States because their parts and all the 
equipment has got to be to the deployed units. And our kids are saying, 
``Enough is enough, in a growing economy I can't hack this away from my 
family.''
  We need to offset this. The fraud, waste and abuse in the military 
and other areas we need to eliminate, and it is going to be a difficult 
job, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) certainly the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
very much for the time.
  Let us review why we are here. We have this legislation before us 
today because the President determined that we had an emergency with 
respect to Iraq; that we have an emergency need for additional funds to 
support our troops in Bosnia; that we have had a number of natural 
disasters around the country which require assistance to localities; we 
had a severe economic emergency facing the country because of the 
collapse of Asian currencies, something which will result in a huge 
trade deficit in this country which will close American factories and 
put American workers out of work; and that it was also time for us to 
pay the almost $1 billion in back dues that we owe the United Nations 
and its associated agencies.
  The normal process under the budget rules is that, if the President 
declares an emergency and if Congress concurs, that these funds will be 
provided without offsets, on the theory, for instance, that if God 
decides that there is going to be a hurricane somewhere, he does not 
first have to check with the House of Representatives to make certain 
that his actions fit under our rules. Some people I guess disagree with 
that.
  The response that we have had from the Congress and from the majority 
party leadership has been to insist that a number of large cuts in 
domestic programs be attached to the President's emergency request. And 
what has happened is that instead of dealing with this bill in an 
atmosphere of conciliation and partnership, instead we are facing an 
atmosphere of extreme confrontation as a result of that decision.
  Now I believe there are 3 basic problems with the rule before us and 
with the legislation before us. First of all, it strips out of the bill 
any ability to deal with the economic crunch facing the country because 
of the disequilibrium between Asian currencies and our own. That is, in 
my view, the most serious economic problem faced by the country at this 
time. And yet we are not going to be allowed to do anything about that 
despite the fact that the President requested we do so on an emergency 
basis.
  Secondly, this proposal blocks our consideration of 75 percent of the 
President's request for disaster assistance. That will mean that if we 
have one more major storm in summer, our ability to deal with emergency 
needs of communities will be gone, it will be eliminated, we will not 
have funds readily available to deal with those problems and we could 
face not only substantial delay in providing assistance to those 
communities, but they would also see the need for FEMA to take money 
from States who have already experienced disasters in order to try to 
deal with those emergency problems. That would slow down the recovery 
effort in States that are already receiving Federal funds.
  Thirdly, it breaches the agreement of the budget deal last year which 
said that we would not raid domestic programs to pay for defense and we 
would not raid defense programs to pay for domestic, we would keep a 
fire wall between the two. This blows that away. Instead it says we are 
going to cut $2.2 billion in housing costs.
  Now it was asserted by one Member on that side of the aisle that that 
will not cause a problem because these funds are not needed until next 
year. The fact is we do not just need $2.2 billion in funds next year 
in order to renew the contracts for subsidized housing for low-income 
citizens and the elderly. We need $10.8 billion in the budget next year 
for that purpose or else, if we do not provide that $10.8 billion, 
there are going to be millions of low-income people and senior citizens 
knocked out of their housing.
  This bill takes 20 percent of that money and uses it for this 
purpose. That means if it is not replaced, if it is not replaced we 
will have 935,000 low-income Americans evicted from their supported 
housing, and one-third of those folks are elderly. I do not believe 
that is what America wants to see done.
  This bill also terminates one of the President's favorite programs in 
a stick-it-in-your-eye response to the President, namely AmeriCorps.
  It also cuts $75 million from bilingual education. I do not know 
about my colleagues' districts, but in my district I have thousands of 
Hmong refugees who do not even have a written language, who desperately 
need help in order to learn language, and I resent the fact that my 
local taxpayers are going to get stuck with the tab because the Federal 
Government will not meet its responsibilities in this area.
  This reminds me of something an old friend of mine used to say when I 
served with him in the legislature, a fellow by the name of Harvey 
Dueholm who said, ``You know the problem in American politics is that 
all too often the poor and the rich get the same amount of ice, but the 
poor get theirs in the wintertime.''

                              {time}  1300

  That is what the Congress is doing by reshuffling priorities the way 
it is doing it here. I can find no rule, I can find no rule, which 
governs the debate for supplementals, I can find no rule that has ever 
in the past denied the minority an opportunity to offer an amendment to 
a supplemental appropriation. But that is what this rule does. That 
alone is reason enough for Members to turn it down.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, in its refusal to move ahead with the IMF, 
represents a reckless disregard for the future economic security needs 
of this country, and we ought not to ignore that problem today.
  There is one other problem associated with the bill. I will be moving 
immediately after the rule to ask the House to go into executive 
session, that means secret session, to discuss a classified item in 
this bill.
  The reason I need to do that is because last year this Congress made 
significant cuts in the intelligence programs of the country in order 
to pay for a number of projects not requested by the administration. 
The two major add-ons in the bill last year were a $700 million piece 
of pork for the Senate majority leader in Mississippi, and a $500 
million piece of pork for the Speaker of the House in his home State of 
Georgia.
  Now, this bill would make further domestic cuts in order to restore 
some of those intelligence fund reductions. Since that funding is 
contained in the classified portion of the bill, the House has to go 
into executive session to discuss this bait-and-switch strategy. So I 
will be making that motion at the end of consideration of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote 
``no'' on the gag rule, and to vote ``no'' on the bill. This is no way 
to establish bipartisan consensus. This is no way to establish a decent 
working relationship between the executive and legislative branches of 
government.
  We need to try to find common ground between the two parties. I 
thought we had done that fairly well in the appropriations process last 
year, but apparently the confrontation artists in the majority caucus 
won the day, and so the rule today, instead of cooperation, is going to 
be confrontation. I think that is highly unfortunate. I think the best 
way to avoid needless confrontation is to turn down this rule and start 
over.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to Members in response to a procedural 
statement just made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that 
there is no need

[[Page H1796]]

for the House to go into secret session, because the gentleman's 
complaint is about the offsets, not about the need for the intelligence 
matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Florida 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2 minutes I certainly do not have time to respond to 
all of the arguments I heard here today. I just want to remind Members 
that in the last 13 years, we have seen the investment in our national 
security go down dramatically every year, while at the same time 
spending on the other parts of the government was going up, up and up. 
So the argument that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has just 
made about domestic spending versus national security, I think Members 
should analyze that very closely before making that decision.
  I was interested in the comment that our colleague from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) made about not voting for the supplemental that provides 
for the balance of the year in Bosnia. I would say to the gentleman, 
whether you vote for that or not, the President is not going to bring 
those troops home at the end of June. We know that and the gentleman 
knows that.
  The proof of the pudding is that in 5 years the President, without 
the approval of the Congress, has deployed troops to the area near 
Iraq, to Bosnia, to Somalia, to Rwanda, to Haiti and to a number of 
other places, without having the money in advance, and then he sent us 
the bill.
  The problem is we did not appropriate any of this money up front, but 
we got the bill and we had to pay for it. And if we do not pay for 
those supplementals, and the biggest part of this defense supplemental, 
by the way, is not Bosnia, but for the deployment to the Southwest Asia 
area, but if we do not provide these funds that are already spent, we 
are going to have to stand down training.
  Tomorrow is the beginning of the third quarter of this fiscal year. 
The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps are all going to 
have to stand down training. They are not going to be able to get the 
spare parts that they need to keep the equipment working that is 
already being worn out. Our troops are being worn out because of these 
deployments.
  There is no question we have to pay the bill in order to support our 
own troops. But we would be better served if we were to get the message 
to the President that before you start these major deployments that you 
will send us the bill for later on, you had better come to Congress and 
get some kind of support here, or at least some indication of whether 
you have the support or not.
  Mr. Speaker, we will go into more of the details as we have more time 
as we debate the bill itself.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would urge a ``no'' vote 
on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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 220, 
nays 199, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     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
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     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)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     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 (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     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 (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     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
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Baesler
     Cannon
     Davis (IL)
     Gonzalez
     Jefferson
     Paxon
     Payne
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Royce
     Waters

                              {time}  1324

  Mr. BERRY and Mr. McHALE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

[[Page H1797]]

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina and Mr. HEFLEY changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________