[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.
____________________